Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Wow! I am amazed at the depth of coverage of the mammals! I strongly hope no-one is offended by the use of the term "mixed quality" whilst constructing this list - I meant that in a very positive sense - many areas the coverage is excellent, in the other areas it is still rather good! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:31, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Rhinograde (extinct) on the French wiki. Marc Venot 23:14, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My main criticism with the main page is to be sure to list groups that are monophyletic. Artiodactyla is not monophyletic and has been combined with Cetacea in Cetartiodactyla. Also what about including supra"ordinal" groupings such as Theria or Euarchontoglires. Simpson is about a half a century old. MikeMcG

The categorisation system is all very well, but surely more priority should be given to useabilty. Is the set of subcategories on the mammals page more likely to excite or suppress a child's interest in the subject? Surely the latter. And it will be the same for most adults. I think it would be much better to promote the more familiar second tier categories to make it easier for people to use the menu to learn more about mammals. A disclaimer and link to an article about classification systems could be included at the top of the page. Philip 09:03, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hystricognathi was created by the account of a known vandal/hoaxster. Verification by experts is necessary. mikka (t)

Well, the format does not conform, but the data appears reasonably correct. I'll take a look at massaging it into better shape. - UtherSRG 22:43, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

It is a legitimate entry as far as the subject is concerned. TeamZissou 09:41, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so it's only a few short months until this is published. I'd like to get a bunch of folks who are willing to update the mammal articles here on (en) Wikipedia and on Wikispecies to conform with MSW3. We should probably do this in some orderly fashion such as, well... I can't resist... by the various mammalian orders. Of course, the articles between Class Mammalia and the various orders will also need to be addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:32, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

We must get User:Ucucha involved in this. He is well up to speed on where MSW3 is already out-of-date and has proved a great source of information for me re Mammmalia. Pcb21| Pete 08:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:55, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Stanskis here - trying to be really, really constructive and helpful, especially for the long term. Please consider:

1) should we keep MSW information/data in the current Wikipages, ie from the 'old' edition of MSW. [Good idea, if practicable], AND

2) in addition to 1), should we create a new set of 'new' pages based on the new edition of MSW (and the Wikipages from 1)), as a complete and final package. ([Good idea.] OR:

3) are we planning to do both 1) and 2). [Good idea, if this our role] OR:

4) as for 2), but then keep updating from other sources so as to have pages that are fully up to date. [This may seem easiest and the most obvious for Wikipedians, but, selection of references for updating would need policy agreements (Having Wikipedians assimilate all possible new info would not end up being worthwhile Taxonomy (Wheeler, 2004).). It would beg the such questions as, 'What is our function, our aim, our purpose, who are our clients, ...?'] [So, not easy):

So, Big difference! Big decisions! This is a very Big Issue, and not just for us, but for Science!

See the revolutionary paper (online): Wheeler, Q.D. 2004 "Taxonomic triage and the poverty of phylogeny": 'Phil.Trans. Roy. Soc. London', in the Series "Taxonomy for the Twenty-first Century".

The choice should hinge on the Wikipedian and scientific requirement for quality referencing. Taxonomy has been badly let down in recent decades in this area, especially by molecular taxonomists (Wheeler, 2004). DNA results, Cladistics, etc, and Web-site publishing, tend to increase the number of Classifications together with the number of unresolved problems; they are a moving target - ephemeral. They weaken Taxonomy. In general, much (perhaps most) really up-to-date information is not likely to last. Use it, quote the reference, and in short time, users may be unable to trace the source. Even the best, frequently-updated websites create similar problems - untraceable accountability.

Ideal reference sources are hard-copy, published documents available from libraries (and online), etc. Web sites need to find ways to deliver good Taxonomy. A set of pages that faithfully follows the Taxonomy in one edition of MSW will be a top-class resource, even as it becomes 'out of date'. (In Taxonomy, 'old' frequently means extra valuable, often irreplaceable. Ten years from now, true/pure information from MSW3 will remain valid, dependable and useful.] [Think of "Editions" as steps of a ladder - get on to one step, and advancing is easy; getting on the right step can be critical.] Can Wikimedia provide the Ladder? Can we find a formula to create a series of traces on Wikimedia that links MSW editons? This could be a valuable innovation.

Wheeler has alerted all of Science to the urgent need for a renaissance in Taxonomy, he asks, "Or will we sell out centuries of scholarship for short-term technical self-aggrandizement?" (p. 581). [I think he is referring to quick-and-easy scientific papers.] 203.167.171.130 06:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)= Stanskis 08:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think, in any case, that Wikipedia should be up-to-date. Always. But you're right - partly. We don't need to incorporate all molecular phylogenies immediately; there are too many of them. Having separate sets of pages would only be confusing.

But the number of needed updates for MSW 3 would not be so large as some people apparently think. Remember that it's only a compilation which should reflect the consensus of mammalogists, a consensus that has been developed since 1993. We don't need to update anything at all for the Notoryctemorphia. The list for the monotremate genus

Zaglossus

will probably be very different from the 1993 version - but it won't be very difficult to take it from Flannery & Groves's revision of the genus. I heard some rumours that the shrew chapter will be very different from the 1993 one. But, on the other hand, the chapters on bats and rodents won't change much except for compilation of recent works. Groves' primate chapter will be very similar to Primate Taxonomy, I think.

I understood that MSW 3 should have been published in 2003, and it was only due to publication delays that it is published now (November, probably), so it's already out-of-date. Ucucha|... 08:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Groves' work in MSW3 follows his work in PT, although he does redact a bit as appropriate to follow papers he and others published after PT. But yes, MSW will of course be a bit out of date, as even last month there were two new species of lemurs described. I think Wikipedia should be as up to date as reasonably possible, using reliable resources (such as MSW3) as a basis, and getting updates from solid publications (such as the one decribing the new lemurs). But even as some of MSW3 will have no changes from MSW2, we should go through the entirety of Mammalia to verify what we do have and what we don't have, creating appropriate links to encourage the creation of new articles (or writing them ourselves), updating the information in existing and correct articles, etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

On new species, see nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw/2005. It's in Dutch, but the list will be clear. New mammal species aren't rare. Ucucha|... 12:26, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I think Stanskis is making a good point here. One of the roles of an encyclopedia is to document the history of a subject. Old ideas are valuable, interesting, and encyclopedic. If we are really writing "for the ages" then we ought to be able to describe multiple taxonomies. Just as MSW2 was succeeded by MSW3, so there will at some point be MSW4 and many other classifications. Stanskis is arguing that we ought to think about how to preserve the older information, not just deleting it in the never-ending race to be "up to date".

Some particular things that we ought to do:

• Give print references for classifications.
• Give the history of classification. (See for example the section in Ape that gives classification at various points in time. This is important to understand older publications.)
• When a taxon is no longer used in the "official" Wikipedia taxonomy — or is too new or uncertain to be included — make an article, or at least a section in an article. For example Simia for an old, unused taxon; Myliobatiformes for a taxon not (yet) used in Wikipedia.

Gdr 12:54:04, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

While I like what was done at ape, and I encourage it to be done elsewhere as well, it's not what I will be focussing my efforts on. The "old information" can be found in the history of the articles. Bringing it forward to show the change in time is good. I, however, will be updating articles to be current. I will attempt to keep some of the historical changes as I can, but I'm more interested in being up-to-date than in showing changes over time. Both are valuable, but it doens't mean we all have to make both our focus. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:10, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Can I encourage you to at least leave a note in articles saying something like: "In MSW2 Foo was placed in the family Fooidae but in MSW3 Fooidae was combined with Baridae." I'm sure you've often seen queries from readers along the lines of "isn't X in Y" where it turns out that Y was a taxon in an older taxonomy. Even a brief note will help un-confuse those readers. Gdr 13:53:56, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

When it's simple, yes. Often that confusion comes from several years out-of-date although recently printed textbooks. I'm in a discussion with two editors who just moved about the various

Hominoidea articles because their 2003 textbook had 15-20 year-old information. - UtherSRG (talk)

14:01, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons why the historical information is so important! If a brief note doesn't suffice to explain the issue, then we really need an article, or a longer section, on the subject. Gdr 14:07:29, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Great team effort! Taxonomists, in Review articles and Monographs, have a shorthand way of summarising taxonomic histories: they list Synonyms in time sequence, each use of a formal name along with its reference (Author, date). This is effective, but too intense for us. What is proposed above is ideal.

One point: What does "up-to-date" mean? What level is appropriate? Choose from:

a) 0-1 years (approx.): Cutting edge results in publications &/or online. Eg, "I've checked a collection and found this new taxon - A-us"

b) 1-5 yrs: First review article. Eg, "I've checked out several collections and literature and accept A-us as valid."

c) 2-10+ yrs: Revisions & Monographs of a superior Taxon. Eg, "A re-classification of the Family B-ae, including A-us, ..."

We are in home territory as long as we don't make research-level decisions, eg to accept a), thus becoming a "first reviewer", b). Molecular phylogenies are a special case of a), but Wheeler (2004)(Refn. above) gives abundant reasoning for dealing with these as Ucucla suggests. (Thanks all for distilling my ramblings.) Stanskis 23:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Rodents

I finally got my copy of MSW3. I've tried to start a discussion to coordinate rodent edits at Talk:Rodent. Was there any sort of consensus here about an overall strategy? I suspect group specific approaches are best below the order level. --Aranae 07:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Marsupials

I recently got mine, too. I'm now going through it from start to finish to update our articles. In discussion with User:Ucucha on his talk page, I found that the Ameridelphia/Australidelphia super- (or magn-)orders may be broken, with one of the ameridelph orders (Paucituberculata) may be more closely related to the australimorphs. What should be done? - UtherSRG (talk) 02:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a member of the

I propose we focus on Placental mammels and leave Marsupials and Monotremes to a sister project: Wikipedia:WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials. What does everyone think? Enlil Ninlil 01:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I originally sent this to User:Jpbrenna, but thought maybe I oughtta post it here too...

Would you mind looking at this edit and salvaging anything worthwhile from it? I'm tempted to just remove it to TALK until (a) someone who -> (b) knows something about the subject matter can make heads or tails of it. If your knowledge of camelids is insufficient, I'm hoping you'll know someone who knows more about them to whom you can forward this information. Thanks, Tomer^talk 23:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My beautiful copy of MSW3 has arrived. So I am on-hand to look things up if needed. I wonder (this is probably a ToL thing) if we should add what resources we have access to next to our names on the contributor list. Might be useful for others. Pcb21 Pete 10:02, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Right whale is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Platypus is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 13:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone check for the existence of Vandeleuria elliotti (not sure of spelling). Shyamal 12:52, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You can check here. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

At the time of it's publication, MSW 3 only lists three species of Vandeleuria:

• Vandeleuria nilagirica
• Vandeleuria nolthenii
• Vandeleuria oleracea

However, that doesn't mean a new species hasn't been discovered since 2003, or the species name you are asking about may be a junior synonym for one of the others. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Shyamal 04:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hello. The

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Beginning cross-post.

See

ROCKER★

03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

What is the rule for capitalizing the common names of mammals in article text? Since the MOS eventually leads you here, it would be helpful to make a note of that somewhere on the project page. Nareek 05:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Policy has been the same as Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds - MPF 11:52, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't. Although many bird societies have made a formal adoption of capitalization for common names, mammal societies have not and mammal journals vary among and within journals. The formal rule for capitalization of mammal common names is that there isn't a formal rule (same goes for TOL in general). Use either capital of lowercase, but make sure appropriate redirects exist. --Aranae 18:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look right to me. We don't capitalize human or rainbow trout or dog, so why others? Tyrannosaurus uses it, but that's a scientific name, rather than a common one. It seems like some editors enforce it because they like it, hence all the wolf articles, but it's very inconsistent and looks weird for common words. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

You eyes will adjust. The rationale at

WP:BIRD is sound and clarifies what is being discussed in some cases. "Common Ravens" and "common ravens" talk about two different kinds of groups, and that is distinguished via the capitalization. One is talking about a group of animals all belonging to the same species, the other is talking about somewhat related birds that are common. Likewise, the word "dire" has meaning all on its own, and so "dire wolf" means something other than just the species, while "Dire Wolf" refers specifically to the species. - UtherSRG (talk)

12:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bird journals can capitalize bird names because birds are what they're interested in. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia and has to have a rule that works generally.

Do we really want a rule that makes us capitalize Indian Elephant (which is a species) and not African elephant (which is not)? Blue Whale but not killer whale? Black Bear but not grizzly bear? I'm doing these from memory, which may be faulty--if we were had this rule, I would have to look up each of these animals to make sure I'm not mixing up the name of a species with the name of a group of species with the name of a subspecies. And editors would have to do this all the time. This does not seem worth it. Nareek 13:10, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

As a sometime birder with much broader interest in natural history (and, incidentally, an editor to boot!), I have no problem with capitalizing species names in English. But it would help to have a WP ruling and strict guidelines to follow. For example, I'd say we capitalize species and lower taxa (e.g. subspecies), but try to avoid it for "above-species" taxa (though not capitalizing African Elephant would seem pedantic!).

Similar issue with italics, which should be restricted to genera and species names, but how many use them for above-species taxa?--GRM 16:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought there was ample consensus about italics for genera and species, though.--GRM 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue with italics tends to be more of a problem in botany, but I am not talking from a WP perspective -- I haven't looked at many plant-type entries in WP :-) --GRM 19:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a specialized reference work focusing on mammals or on natural history, but a general work relating to all fields of knowledge. Names of animals are not confined to articles about animals, but can occur in many different contexts throughout wikipedia. There's no reason, over the course of the entire encyclopedia, to call particular attention to the common names of animals than to the common names of rocks, parts of the body, literary forms, musical instruments, kinds of tools--you name it. We need a rule that can be applied by all editors of all articles to every type of object--and the good old rule that you capitalize proper nouns and lower-case common nouns would seem to fit the ticket.

I gotta say, avoiding confusing phrases like "there are several common starlings" and "that sure is a dire wolf" does not seem too tough. More difficult is asking every Wikipedia article to check whether the common name of an animal refers to a species, a subspecies or a group of species before they know how to capitalize. And any rule that results in "African elephant" but "Indian Elephant" is fatally flawed, in my opinion. Nareek 21:04, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Surely there can be simple differentiation between natural history pages and general pages...? I would see no problem in the "zoologists" and others among us who work on the mammal pages using the "birders' rules" of capitalization on the mammal-specific pages, while pages on, say, travels in India refer to "Asiatic elephants", "tigers" and "black kites"--GRM 22:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that differentiation would be that simple, actually. If you go to a popular mammal species--I used

Gray wolf

as a test--you'll find that the page links to articles on a wide variety of topics, relating to biology, geography, history, popular culture and on and on--animals are part of our world and they get talked about a lot in many different ways. I would be hard pressed to define which of these articles are "natural history" and which are not--and I doubt that my definition would be the same as every other Wikipedia editor.

More generally, the point of having a style is to maintain consistency over an entire work. If we italicize the names of novels in Wikipedia articles in general, we shouldn't have them in all caps in articles specifically about literature--assuming we could define what those were. This is for the convenience of Wikipedia editors and users alike. Nareek 23:03, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

I've come here because of a revert war with the Florida panther. Every scholarly or management source out there says Florida panther, not Florida Panther. It's annoying to have people revert without engaging in discussion. I can understand some reasoning for changing to a capitalization rule, but it's also weird to go against convention. I find it a little annoying that the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) says that "In general, Wikipedia follows academic practice in each group of organisms," and then says that Mammals are generally capitalized. There isn't general consensus for mammals, but to the extent that there is, it leans towards lower-case. Pigkeeper 09:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hello at Wikiversity there is a disipline in development on palaeontology that needs help. The courses could help with te development of articles on wikipedia so it is a long term program. Interested people can go to this URL: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Topic:Paleontology#Content_summary Thanks for reading Enlil Ninlil 03:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a question. Can someone please help me to make the article Red Panda better? I am struggleing with FAs. Daniel10 14:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

After reading the talk page, I'm not quite sure what the arguments were to reject it but it needs to be expanded quite a bit. Compare it to the content list in the

Giant Panda article. I can help get the taxonomy classification straight. It needs a good conservation status section since its an endangered species. We have to look into the history, geographic distribution, behavior, diet, human interaction and reproduction, for starters. Valich

08:40, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:32, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Most of the families and orders of mammals do not currently have any sort of supervising project. Would the members of this project be interested in having it actively involved in those articles relating to mammals which are not currently covered by other projects? Badbilltucker 18:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I have been slowly updating all of the mammal taxa articles in accordance with MSW3.I'm currently working on Carnivora/Feliformia. Perhaps I should list what I've done, but that would be for a later time when I'm at home. For now, you can see my most recent request for input at talk:Carnivora. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I just created a list (I hope pretty comprehensive) of

Similarly, input from those interested in the mammals of the Palearctic is most welcome on this new article. Ben MacDui (Talk) 08:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_3#Category:Species_of_Wolf - UtherSRG (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've just had a debate about this, and notice our pages are very inconsistent regarding upper and lower case for mammals.

For

• A species name is a proper noun and should be capitalized.
• Upper case has been decided on for birds and other TOL subjects.
• There is a comprehension issue: if I write "spotted deer" I could be talking about the species or a deer which happens to have spots. Better to capitalize with the species.

Against

• Academic sources do not capitalize with mammals. This varies between taxa, I'm sure, but that's what I've seen.
• General usage does not employ upper case either, and the more familiar the species the less upper case is likely to be used (you'll rarely see lion capitalized and you'll never see it with dog and cat).
• The terms are not always going to be proper nouns, which will create confusion. In "the mother tiger groomed her cub", tiger is actually a common noun and should not be capitalized.

Thoughts? Marskell 10:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Species names should be capitalized. The rationale I use to support this can be found at

WP:BIRD. Further more, *some* academic sources use capitalization to denote a species common name; Others use All caps and others use a different font to denote species. There is no One True Path in this regard. We should not follow common usage, for common usage will have us jump off the cliff, to paraphrase the old adage. As an encyclopedia, it is our responsibility to note what is common, but do what is right. - UtherSRG (talk)

11:50, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Which *some*? The IUCN doesn't capitalize [1][2] and it's one of our core sources. Marskell 12:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, which is the primary source for mammal taxonomy and common names. And the IUCN redlist uses ALL CAPS in its upper portion and sentence case in text, another instance of mixed usage. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Note that

Common Seals), I'm not sure that is ever really a problem (rewording to make it clear is normally an easy task) and it can equally be confusing where the common family and species names are the same: platypuses exist in the fossil record so we refer to "platypuses" there, but "Platypuses" when we talk about the extant species, which means we can end up with people helpfully "correcting" the capitalisation. Yomangani^talk

12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And how are those issue you raise any different for mammals than they are for birds? And in the Fish discussion, it was brought up that experts in the field are considering moving to capitalization instead of sentence case.

WP:FISH is waiting for that to happen. - UtherSRG (talk)

15:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

They aren't any different (except perhaps that birds have more of the descriptive type common names to distinguish between all the little brown jobs), but claiming that mammals should be capitalised because birds are presupposes that the decision

WP:FISH. Yomangani^talk

16:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but the difference here is that ichthyologists are actively interested and currently insist on sentence case, while mammalian zoologists don't care one bit. There's nothing for us to wait on, so we can go ahead and use what makes sense to us. And there are plenty of descriptive names amongst the mammals where there is plenty of speciation within families and genera; large animals tend to have only small degrees of speciation, while smaller ones speciate to fill each nuance of a niche. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

True, but the assumption that capitalisation is "what makes sense to us" is a leap. I'm not decided one way or the other, I'd just like to see some agreement on the matter before we start changing all the articles. I know this has come to dead-end several times already, but making unilateral changes to a personal preference doesn't seem to be a solution. Let's carve it in (somewhat crumbly) stone on the project page before any retroactive "fixing" takes place.

Capitalisation has a lot going for it, but I find the capitalisation/non-capitalisation idioms baffle most people who aren't actively editing zoology articles, which is perhaps something to be said for sentence case, since we should be writing for the general reader, not a zoologist. If the general reader expects to see it in sentence case that's what we should give them, but, to be honest, I expect the vast majority probably don't notice or care. Once reading the article the capitalisation tends to be neither here nor there on the subject species, and any other species should be wikilinked rendering the need to disambiguate with capitals a moot point (off-line versions excluded) except in the case when you are talking about a general group which can be made clear in context. The 12 to 4 lowercase to uppercase in the source list at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna) still bothers me too. (By the way, I wasn't saying there aren't a lot of descriptive common names among the mammals, just that they are probably more common among birds). Yomangani^talk 18:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am by no means a zoologist, but I recently had a bash at the aforementioned

As someone who started writing bird species names in sentence case and quickly reverted to initial capitals, and carried that preference over to all other animal species, I add my vote to the for side. Thanks—GRM 20:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm not essentially for or against. I thought we might have a wiki-type compromise, such as capitals for compounds. But this seemed silly ("Clouded leopard" and "leopard"?). No, it really should be all of one or all of the other.

I still lean, at this point, to no caps because, as I've just mentioned to Uther, there is no compromise over information involved. It makes no difference if we say "dolphin" or "Dolphin", and if there is no difference we should describe things as our sources describe them and as native speakers describe them. Wiki isn't in the business of making fundamental decisions on nomenclature. A minor bit of syntax work can take care of any potential ambiguity. Marskell 20:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I think every TOL page is on a slow cycle of being reverted back and forth between capital and lowercase. Any article will last about 8 months in its current state before someone switches it to the other case based solely on personal opinion. I personally don't care which case it is at and philosophically agree with our current policy of letting individual editors decide as there is no right answer. The thing that irritates me most is that about 3/4 of the editors that move a page on the basis of personal opinion don't bother to clean up the double redirects. The simplest solution is to move it back, but that can only be done by an admin because a redirect is sitting on the original site. I think this problem tends to be most common among non-zoology admins (since there's usually a redirect at the new location) who happened to randomly come upon a TOL page and see species names as not being proper names. As far as I'm concerned, move things back and forth as you will, but only if you clean up after yourself (Note: not directed at UtherSRG who does clean up). I'd love to know a way to fix this simply and quickly. --Aranae 02:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

One band-aid for the moment would be "respect the initial or primary author" as the rule and then broadcast this widely. Marskell 09:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I've come into the capitalization topic by way of the

WP:BIRD

is draft anyhow. Capitalization of mammals like cheetahs isn't supported by any style guides, dictionaries, or searches of papers written by professional biologists. But the fallback response has been that MSW3 is the rationale. I looked that up, and I'm sorry, but I found that didn't pan out either. A cross-post from the cheetah discussion page:

I've returned the article to have the lowercase form of "cheetah" for the following reasons:

• The consensus guideline on style, Wikipedia:Manual of Style, refers wikipedia editors to authoritative sources such as Chicago Manual of Style to resolve questions like this. CMoS does address this topic in section 8.136: "For the correct capitalization and spelling of common names of plants and animals, consult a dictionary or the authoritative guides to nomenclature, the ICBN and the ICZN, mentioned in 8.127... "In general, Chicago recommends capitalizing only proper nouns and adjectives" (eg "Rocky Mountain sheep"). There isn't a wikipedia guideline to supplant it on this topic.
• Webster's dictionary - lowercase
• Oxford dictionary - lowercase
• Encyclopedia Britannica - lowercase
• Associated Press Stylebook - lowercase
• Walker's Mammals of the World 6th edition -- "the most comprehensive -- the pre-eminent -- reference work on mammals" doesn't capitalize cheetah or other fauna. MSW3 recognizes and cites WMotW in its introduction.

And finally, and most surprisingly!, MSW3 itself doesn't actually support the uppercase style. It uses the lowercase form cheetah in its commentary. See pg 532, "Family Felidae" comments: "Most studies agree on the clear separation of the "big cats" (i.e., Panthera, Neofelis, Uncia) from the remainder. However, within the remaining group, there does not appear to be a clear consensus. Even the cheetah's (Acinonyx) traditional position has been called into question (Bininda-Emonds et al., 1999; Mattern and McLennan, 2000)."

For those who haven't seen MSW3 before, it's an academic compendium of taxonomic information and uses a highly hierarchal and formalized structure for presenting its information. It doesn't discuss its topics or write about them in the way an article or book would. For each species, there are standard sections including "type species", "synonyms", "common name". The "common name" is presented on a single line for each species in the format: "COMMON NAME: Cheetah." I think it's a misunderstanding of the book to take that style adopted to present its voluminous information as for some reason a style standard for written materials like articles. It's clearly not. MSW3 itself doesn't use the uppercase style when it is discussing topics with regular writing outside of its formalized structure. For another example see the "Wildcat" entry comment on pg 537, where again, like with cheetah, it follows a style consistent with how CMoS would have it, and refers to "European wild cat".

As MSW3 introduction says, "this work is primarily a checklist at the species level". It is most certainly authoritative on names and taxonomy but it's not a style guide. There should be a differentiation between the purpose of MSW3 and its intended, specialized audience and the purpose of this and other mammal articles for general readership! Thanks. Beyazid 21:53, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm dealing with similar frustration after UtherSRG has changed the Florida panther without any conversation on the discussion page or even justification in the edit summary. Pigkeeper 10:13, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

UtherSRG responded to me at Talk:Florida panther and she graciously let things stand for now. I responded with the following, which I think are also relevant here:

while I prefer to follow the usage of scholarly and management sources, I accept that there is a case to be made for capitalization. However, if this decision is made, the naming conventions page should explain that wikipedia is going against the grain in some cases (or is a part of the vanguard, as you might put it). Right now it says academic practice is generally followed, but that wouldn't be the case with cats like the Florida panther, and mammals generally (going by the 12:5 survey of sources). Pigkeeper 22:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"He". I'm a "he". - UtherSRG (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

An afterthought. One of the issues is that in the European context at least is that numerous species names include proper nouns and that 'common names' are no longer species names, even although many readers might imagine that a 'rabbit' was a perfectly good one. Compare these lists:

European wild cat, Red squirrel, St Kilda mouse, Northern gannet, Chinese muntjac, Eurasian badger, Atlantic halibut.

wild cat, red squirrel, St Kilda mouse, gannet, Chinese muntjac, badger, halibut.

European Wild Cat, Red Squirrel, St Kilda Mouse, Northern Gannet, Chinese Muntjac, Eurasian Badger, Atlantic Halibut.

The first is sentence case. The second is a list of species as understood by a non-zoologist in Britain. The third you know. The problem is that the first list is confusing to a non-specialist. There are examples above of this elsewhere, so I will list only one. 'European wild cat' could mean different things that the context may or may not clarify, but the capitalised version is obviously a species. My conclusion: why confuse people when you can avoid doing so? Ben MacDui (Talk) 10:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I know there are limited occasions where using uppercase has the benefit of immediately clarifying that a specific species is being discussed but this isn't as problematic as people make it out to be. In those cases, changes to the wording, or an extra sentence or two, clear the matter up. It is actually not a problem but an advantage because it gives an opportunity to educate the reader, these points of "confusion" would by no means be unique to wikipedia.

The wildcat example is a good one. The article is titled "wildcat", as your average person would expect, and in the first paragraph the context is set perfectly well, informing them that wildcat can mean several subspecies. The design of the article has separate subsections that go on to cover "European wild cat", "African wild cat", and "Asiatic wild cat". There's no confusion. The badger article is another example. Most people from America probably would go to it not realizing about the Eurasian badgers and maybe vice versa with people from Britain not realizing about American badgers. The article educates the reader about these other species.

Style shouldn't draw attention to itself, style should be out of a reader's consciousness. Using uppercase is an oddity that calls attention to itself, it isn't followed by professional writers or biologists, isn't supported by reference authorities on style issues, isn't even used by MSW3 in its commentary. I didn't cherrypick when I was looking into this topic, everything I looked at -- including a whole shelf of books on big cats in the case of cheetah -- confirmed that sentence case and CMoS are appropriate. Marskell had a similar experience with the

WP:STYLE and CMoS are consensus guidance for wikipedia articles and CMoS points out that some specialities follow their own conventions (eg, virology, birds) but except for those limited areas sentence case is the norm. Beyazid

17:29, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The examples you provide are from species pages where there is perhaps space for 'an extra sentence or two'. My experience is of a general fuana article where there is not. No doubt you are right and sentence case is the norm (for mammals). In which case, I am saying the norm is not especially helpful. Either way, consistency within and across classes would be. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

We don't need an extra "sentence or two." You can literally employ one word: "the species European wild cat loves mice." Just as acceptable as "the movie Top Gun is excellent." If "species" is placed before the name it won't be interpreted as plural. Marskell 19:05, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, that may get a little clunky in a list: "the species European wild cat, the species Eurasian badger, the species jaguar, the species African forest elephant, etc." Of course, in a list like that, it is likely that you'd wikilink them anyway: "

Eurasian badger, jaguar, African forest elephant" which solves the problem anyway, as the links colour code the species and a whole article lies behind each link to explain it (or would do if European wild cat hadn't been deleted as a copyvio, but you get the idea). Yomangani^talk

19:21, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

"During the

grice lasted until 1930 in Shetland. Various other schemes have been considered. For example, the owner of the Alladale estate north of Inverness has expressed a desire to re-introduce wolves

as part of a safari park." Evidently this should read:

During the

grice (which isn't a species) lasted until 1930 in Shetland. Various other schemes have been considered. For example, the owner of the Alladale estate north of Inverness has expressed a desire to re-introduce wolves

(probably Eurasian wolves, although this is unknown) as part of a safari park."

Comments on said article are welcome. Mine on this topic are (you will be pleased to hear) at an end. If a wiki-wide standard is ever agreed, I'd appreciate hearing about it. We'll meet again..... Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Only "part 2"? ... someone was feeling optimistic when they wrote that (or not aware of the ToL archives ;))! Looking back now, I think it was a mistake to extrapolate at all from the birds project. On balance, the literature is not capitalized. Now personally I think capitalisation "works better" but personal opinions shouldn't come into it. What I really hate though is the inconsistency. One of the key problems that the cetaceans area has had since I stopped watching the articles like a hawk is the slow decay into a mixed bag of caps and not caps. Then that relatively new group on Wikipedia, the "reviewers" who just set up pages telling us how wrong the articles are (doesn't follow the latest and greatest pinickety referencing style, inline citation density not high enough, you know all the stuff except comments about content) BUT don't bother to do the obvious thing and fix it themselves, come along and splatter ugly templates on otherwise fine articles just to make themselves feel like they are doing something. After years of proof, it is clear that we can't keep caps and be consistent. Let's try NOT having caps and see if people stop picking at the festering wound. Pcb21 Pete 11:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear mammal project, I recently took this photo of a horse with a covered face. If I may guess it is because:

• the horse is (or is at risk to to becoming) snowblind
• have ear or eye problems
• have problems with some sort of sensory overflow.

I am not really good at horses so I am only guessing.

If someone knows where this image could belong in wikipedia, could you please put it somewhere. I scanned horse and Veterinary medicine but found no obvious place to put it. Also if you know what it is for please tell me - I am so curious. -- PER9000 16:45, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

This is a FLY MASK. I have no clue why they have it on in the winter when there aren't any flies, but that's what it is. Maybe it is there for some other purpose, but it's actually made of a see-through mesh -- the horse, as you can see from its forward-pricked ears, is obviously looking at something.

Here is an example from a catalogue: http://www.horse-tack-and-equestrian-clothing.com/fly-masks-fringes-masta-fly-mask-prod1688.html —The preceding

Here are some more examples: http://www.statelinetack.com/global/search/search_results.jsp?Ntt=fly+mask&In=Horse&previousText=fly+mask&N=2050678 Montanabw 19:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I changed the text in the commons page. -- PER9000 07:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Also I created a stub: Fly mask. -- PER9000 11:38, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

dog with bandaged foot

I also took a picture of a dog with a bandaged foot that should belong somewhere perhaps. The dog is my moms and he had an Abscess that ruptured in the paw. After horrible cleaning, antibiotoics and painkillers he is now himself again.

Does this image belong in Dog health? PER9000 17:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Could an expert expand or amend the information for

Vernacular names first, subsets.
Hare (Lepus)
Sorex

No one has really attempted to standardize common names for shrews, most rodents, and most bats until Wilson and Cole (2000; Common names of Mammal Species). This was followed by Duff and Lawson (2004; Checklist of Mammals) and Wilson and Reeder (2005; Mammal Species of the World). Each of these authors uses different names, each made up common names for about 1/3 of these problematic small mammals and each of these small mammal species is called something else in other texts (such as field guides and texts based on geography). I think it's bad idea to red link these species on the basis of common name since there is no telling which source will be used to create the article title and saying that Wilson and Reeder (2005) is the only valid reference for common names - sorry to those of you using other valid sources - is not reasonable. If the genus article links to one common name (or capitalization scheme) and the species article is eventually created using another (or the scientific name) that link will stay red indefinitely. If the taxobox contains a full list by scientific name then it's fine to only link to common name in the text. If the article already exists then by all means link the correct article title or use the appropriate piping to avoid the redirect. Otherwise, in my opinion, the scientific name (the only reliable name) should be linked. Linking both is a valid option as well. --Aranae 22:39, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Thanks for your input! TeamZissou 23:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.... list of placental mammals has both links, and I routinely check it to backlink. The typical way to list mammal species is by common name. Why have multple types of listings within Mammalia, when commonality works better for the reader, and the existing list works better for the editor? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because, there are differing common names for many animals. Though there have been recent efforts to standardize vernacular names, the scientific ones have lasted much longer and one name means one species. If a scientific name changes, it through a process of review and debate. There is a reason that a species has this-or-that scientific name--it denotes the species place in the phylogenic tree. Does "Eastern Hobnosed Water Monkey" do that? No. The reader can more easily connect the evolutionary dots and thus it improves the reader's experience. Besides, if a reader is delving deep into obscure mammals anyway (most are to the common user), there's a good chance that reader is or will be involved in the sciences. In the SCIENCES we use binomial nominclature for obvious reasons that include universal usage and the adherence to phylogenetic systematics. The only mammalogist I know of who prefers vernacular names is an unIntelligent Design advocate, and a poor naturalist. Wikipedians should be at least a notch above Bob Jones University in their efforts to make accurate knowledge available to the world.

Besides, the list of placental mammals is likely the way it is due to you doing more editing on it than all other users combined over the past year-and-a-half, and thus shouldn't be an example of what policies should be pursued. If lists of mammals are constructed in a way following the phylogenic placement of species, then let's use a naming system that's related to that, not a naming system based on what Joe-blow decided to name "this here critter" a hundred years ago. Example of how we could: [3]

TeamZissou 01:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to make a distinction between large, well known beasts such as primates and carnivores (the well known third) as opposed shrews, bats, and small rodents (the lesser known 2/3). The former elicit regular queries and discussions by the general populace and generally get lots of attention. Most notably, they actually had common names before Wilson and Cole (2000). The latter (particularly species found in non-English speaking countries) are rarely noticed by anyone other than experts and those experts know them by their scientific names. Right now the list of placental mammals does not go beyond genus for 17 rodent families and all bat families. That's not an accident. MacDonald's (1987) popular text: Encyclopedia of Mammals (I haven't seen the new version) doesn't address rodent, bat, and "insectivore" species except in the index. Desmond Morris's (1965) The Mammals didn't even manage an index for them and many geographic texts (e.g. Kingdon, 1997) take the same approach.

These are the taxa I tend to write about most (particularly rodents). I'm quite comfortable with a large chunk of these scientific names, but I'd have to look up almost every common name outside of a few North American species. For better or worse, I do take a different approach to tracking new articles, which is almost entirely based on the taxonomic hierarchy. Uther, you're probably the hardest working member of this wikiproject, but I really don't think you want to take on the other, 2/3 of mammal species from a strictly common name perspective. They're certain to involve lots of lesser known common names coming from obscure, but valid, sources like texts on the Mammals of Brazil, Indonesia, southern Africa. Those sources really do all use different common names but (basically) the same scientific names. Perhaps 5 years from now when every mammal species has an article we should convert everything to common names, but until then I think not linking the binomen will just makes headaches for editors. --Aranae 02:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: I visited the Smithsonian MSW page at this location and found that if one searches the root of the MSW tree, one finds that the species are listed at the end in phylogentic groups of scientific names. Also, the search option via scientific names comes before the option for common names, despite such an arrangement not following alphabetical order--both discoveries suggest that the MSW organizes by scientific name, not vernacular. Other than all the work User:UtherSRG has put in to organize it the opposite way, I see no reason not to follow the most practical and universally accepted means of building lists of mammals. 1.Phylogentically 2.Alphabetically with scientific name first and vernacular name attached. TeamZissou 02:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's an example I found on the

• • • Genus
      Sierra Nevada
      mountains.
      • Geomys arenarius
        ; two subspecies, the Desert and White Sands Pocket Gophers
      • Attwater's Pocket Gopher
        (G. attwateri)
      • Plains Pocket Gopher
        (G. bursarius); two subspecies
      • Jones' Pocket Gopher (G. knoxjonesi)
      • Geomys personatus
        ; 5 subspecies including the Texas, Davis, Maritime and Carrizo Springs Pocket Gophers
      • Geomys pinetis
        ; 4 subspecies, the Southeastern, Cumberland Island, Sherman's and Goff's Pocket Gophers
      • Geomys texensis
        ; 2 subspecies, including the LLano Pocket Gopher

...or how about this horrid example from the marmot page?

• The following is a list of all Marmota species recognized by Wilson and Reeder, 1993 [4].

• • Gray Marmot or Altai Marmot Marmota baibacina Siberia
  • Bobak Marmot Marmota bobak Central Europe to Central Asia
  • Nearctic
  • Hoary Marmot Marmota caligata Northwestern North America
  • Black-Capped Marmot Marmota camtschatica Eastern Siberia
  • Red Marmot, Golden Marmot or Long-Tailed Marmot Marmota caudata Central Asia
  • Yellow-Bellied Marmot Marmota flaviventris South western Canada, Western United States
  • Himalaya
  • Alpine Marmot Marmota marmota Central and Western European Alps, Tatra, introduced into the Pyrenees
    .
  • Menzbier's Marmot
    Marmota menzbieri Central Asia
  • Woodchuck, Groundhog, or Whistlepig Marmota monax North America
  • USA
  • Tarvaga, Tarbagan or Mongolian Marmot Marmota sibirica, Siberia
  • Vancouver Island Marmot Marmota vancouverensis Vancouver Island, British Columbia, Canada

Notice how species with multiple common names don't fit? If this list were simply arranged scientific name first, then these wouldn't have discrepancies. TeamZissou 03:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tend to leave the multiple names for the article itself. The listing should be the most common or official name. Redirects and disambiguations should then be created as needed. Look at all the primate genus articles for an example. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Official name? You mean the scientific name?TeamZissou 06:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I? mean its official common name, or a reasonable facsimile thereof. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"or a reasonable facsimile thereof" --? I give up. Laity wins. All hail the new 'scientific' century.TeamZissou 20:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Guinea pig

I just wanted to make this wikiproject aware that I have requested a peer review for the

Chubbles

21:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: this article just passed GA status. If I wanted to have an importance rating appended to this article on the talk page, how would I go about doing so?

Chubbles

08:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Now at FAC.

Chubbles

20:49, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

New needed on article on evolution of mammals?

It has been suggested in Talk: Mammal that: Mammal's discussion of this is too long in a page which would be very long anyway; a new article on the evolution of mammals should be created; Mammal should contain a brief summary of this.

Topics for an the evolution of mammals would include:

• Paleontological definition of "mammal" (the jaw-ear criterion).
• Permian and early Triassic [[synapsid]s, from the point of view of "progress" (note quotes!) towards mammalian status.
• Mammals or
  mammaliformes
  ?
• Mammals / mammaliformes from mid-Triassic to late Jurassic.
• Appearance of
  placentals
  .
• Evidence and debate about when current orders (e.g. primates) first appeared.

Do you think such an article would be useful?

What should it be called? E.g. "mammalian evolution" or "evolution of mammals"?

Should it be part of Project Mammals? Philcha 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a great idea. I would vote for "evolution of mammals" as an article term. There should still be a great deal of information on the "mammal" page, with "evolution of mammals" offering a much deeper and informative look. As to whether or not this should be attached to the project, I feel I've not been with Project:Mammals long enough to opine--though I would support the decision to do so if others feel that it should. Thanks! TeamZissou 03:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Striped grass mouse - can somebody help, please?

I was recently in Frankfurt Zoo, and took a photo of a striped grass mouse — an animal I had never heard of before. There's no Wikipedia article about this rather attractive rodent, and at first I thought it was out of the question that I could start one. I don't know very much about rodents, and know nothing at all about sorting animals into classes and orders and families. However, I did a little research on the internet, and found enough to start a stub. I created the article at

User:ElinorD/Sandbox. The taxobox was tricky, but I looked at the source in the mouse article, and made whatever modifications I thought were appropriate. One of my sources

had

Order RODENTIA

Suborder MYOMORPHA

Family MURIDAE

The Wikipedia taxobox does not seem to allow for a "suborder"; it has "Order, Superfamily, and Family". So I just left out the suborder.

I'd like to remove the disclaimer at the top of

my sandbox article, and move the article to Striped grass mouse in mainspace, but I'd be much more comfortable if someone who knows about rodents could check it (in particular the taxobox) for accuracy first. Thanks. ElinorD (talk)

18:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

I finished off the taxobox in your sandbox. It is a picture of a Lemniscomys, I don't know which species, but L. barabarus is plausible. I'd actually suggest that you put the page at

Barbary Striped Grass Mouse as all members of the genus Lemniscomys are referred to with the common name of "striped grass mouse". Thanks for working on the rodent pages and feel free to make more. --Aranae

21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I haven't a clue what kind of mouse it is, but the sign at the zoo said "striped grass mouse", so when I uploaded it to Commons, I called it that. Someone came along shortly after, and added "(Lemniscomys barbarus)" to it,[5] and when I googled for that, I found pictures that looked fairly like mine. I can move it to

Barbary Striped Grass Mouse, as you suggest, but might wait another day to see if there's any more feedback. I doubt if I'll be making any more rodent articles. I'm not really competent in that area. It wouldn't have occurred to me to start this one if I hadn't taken the photo and then discovered that there was no article. The only other nice "rodent" I got, was this picture of an Elephant shrew, but when I read the article, I discovered he wasn't a rodent at all! (He sure looked like a mouse to me!) ElinorD (talk)

22:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

So it looks like the identification to species is based on the user Smat's identification. As I said, I can confirm that it is a Lemniscomys, but not the individual species. Perhaps Smat knows which Lemniscomys is housed at the Frankfurt Zoo? --Aranae 17:52, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your post gave me an idea. I emailed Frankfurt Zoo, and received a reply this morning from the Curator for Mammals, saying: "It is Lemniscomys barbarus!" I have added that to the info on the image page at Commons.[6]

The question now is whether the sandbox should be moved to Striped grass mouse or to Barbary striped grass mouse. I feel it should be the striped grass mouse. Even though the species is a barbary, it's still a striped grass mouse, and there is no article about that. There could, if necessary, be a Barbary striped grass mouse page redirecting to Striped grass mouse, until such time as someone comes along and writes a separate article for each of the species. However, I won't move it until I get a feeling for what others think. Thanks again for your help. ElinorD (talk) 10:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Barbary Striped Grass Mouse would be the correct placement. It's a species-level article, so it should go at the common species name. I have edited the article and moved it. - UtherSRG (talk)

10:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm wondering why it's "Barbary Striped Grass Mouse", instead of "Barbary striped grass mouse". I don't know the rules for animal names on Wikipedia, but I know that in general, capitals are only used for the first word, unless it's something like a first name and a surname. I notice, for example, that

Elephant Shrew redirects to Elephant shrew, not the other way round. Anyway, thank you. You've been very helpful. ElinorD (talk)

11:53, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The logic is at

WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG (talk)

13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And elephant shrew would be lowercase by any logic since it is the name of a collective group of species and not the [formal] common name of an individual species . When the page for genus Lemniscomys is made, "striped grass mouse" would be correct, not "Striped Grass Mouse". --Aranae 15:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

(Undoing indent) Perhaps the experts here could continue to keep an eye on

my sandbox, as I have now started something on the Lemniscomys striatus. I found a very nice image of the striatus, when I was adding the L. barbarus image to some foreign language Wikipedias. So far, I've just copied the taxobox from the L. barbarus article, as it was before subspecies were added, and have made the relevant modifications. I found the Linnaeus date of 1758 (different from the L. barbarus date) at the French language Lemniscomys article and at the Dutch language article on Lemniscomys striatus, so I assume it's correct. I'd particularly like advice regarding my "note to self" in the article. It's hard to know what the article should eventually be moved to, when I don't know what the creature is commonly called in English. We could get over that difficulty by simply calling the article "Lemniscomys striatus", but then, to be consistent, the other one should have been called "Lemniscomys barbarus", rather than "Barbary Striped Grass Mouse". But, although I found various names for the barbary one, including "zebra mouse", and "zebra rat", I did get the impression, when looking through sources, that "Barbary Striped Grass Mouse" is a common name for it, but I'm not getting any feeling for a common English name for the L. striatus, so feedback would be very helpful. Thanks. ElinorD (talk)

10:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that would be the Typical Striated Grass Mouse, if I recall correctly. ITIS is silent on the matter, but ADW, NCBI and MSW2 all agree. I doubt MSW3 has a different name for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

MSW3 uses "Typical Lemniscomys". I would very much vote for "Typical Striated Grass Mouse" as per ADW, NCBI, and MSW2 website (probably derived from Wilson and Cole since MSW2 volume didn't have common names) Duff and Lawson (2004) use "Typical Striated Grass Mouse" too. --Aranae 20:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but actually the sources you give all say "Typical STRIPED Grass Mouse" (not striated). Or that what you meant to write? ElinorD (talk) 21:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Heh. So they do. Duff and Lawson as well. Make that "Typical Striped Grass Mouse". Sorry. --Aranae 01:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. My typo. Sorry. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that

Typical Striped Grass Mouse, after the nowiki has been removed from the category, but I'd like someone here to check it for accuracy first. Thanks. ElinorD (talk)

23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I've moved it myself. I checked the accuracy against what I consider to be reliable sources. I'd still be happy for anyone to take a look. It's at

Typical Striped Grass Mouse. Incidentally, when I was looking for interwiki links, I noticed that the Dutch Wikipedia is much better at Grass Mice than we are. They have articles for all eleven, and even have a template at the bottom of each article, from where you can navigate to the articles about the other ten species. ElinorD (talk)

17:11, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

New Descendant Wikiproject proposal

I have proposed the creation of Wikiproject

VanTucky

21:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment - the proposed project above now has five listed members, enough to make it a functional task force. Would the members of this project be interested in setting it up as a task force or work group (different names, same thing) of the Mammals project? John Carter 21:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Participating

Should I register somewhere if I want to participate in this project? I've already been performing quite some work on extinct mammals. Examples are the Evolution section on the

Meridiungulata, Afroinsectiphilia, Protoceratidae, Palaeotheriidae, and many others). I'm also interested in mammal phylogeny, including the phylogeny of extinct orders (incorporating the recent views) but also that of extant orders (a major part of the article Carnivora has been written by me). So I think it's about time I coordinate my efforts with the participants of the WikiProject Mammals. DaMatriX

00:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Listing yourself here seems like the best approach.  :-) Cheers, Tomer^talk 02:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Elk

Is up for peer review if anyone would like to help myself and others get this article to featured level. See: Wikipedia:Peer review/Elk (Cervus canadensis).--MONGO 05:21, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Now at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Elk if anyone is interested in helping out.--MONGO 10:11, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible problem pages

I've found that the stubs submitted by Exlibris may contain factual errors--the article names may not even be correct for the species. Could someone look into this and fix the names and redirects? The stubs I've seen only concern mammals from Brazil. Thanks!TeamZissou 04:33, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Striped Grass Mice revisited

Hello again. I was here some weeks ago, asking for help with an article I was working on in my sandbox. After people checked for errors and made modifications, the article was moved to

Lemniscomys, but I'm not sure which, and don't want to do the wrong thing. Would someone mind taking a look, please. I'm fairly comfortable with the accuracy. Although I know almost nothing about rodents, I checked various sources. Interestingly, this source gives Linnaeus 1767 for Barbary Striped Grass Mouse, but every other source I've seen gives Linnaeus 1766, so I'm confident giving 1766 as the date. Thanks in advance. ElinorD (talk)

20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Updated and moved to

Lemniscomys. - UtherSRG (talk)

14:51, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. ElinorD (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Userbox Mammals and Category Creation

I've created a userbox for this group. It is only a start, feel free to change the image or colour etc. I felt that an Okapi was quite appropriate as there aren't that many left and it's identifiable when the image is small.

{{user WikiProject Mammals}} should produce:

This user is a participant in WikiProject Mammals.

I noticed that there is no category such as Category:WikiProject_Birds_members to keep track of membership. It shouldn't be hard to do. Do you think it's worth creating to automatically list users? A line commented out in Template:User_WikiProject_Mammals should be activated if this is the case.

I hope no one minds me making the box without asking first. If you want me to delete it please discuss. I won't add it to Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Animals until I hear it is okay.

Thanks Mehmet Karatay 14:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, and those feather-lovers have had a userbox for their project for some time. :) Anyone have any objections? If none are offered within three days time I suggest going ahead. Thanks, Mehmet/Gemma! TeamZissou 17:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As there were no objections I've added the userbox to Wikipedia:Userboxes/WikiProjects#Animals and created Category:Members_of_WikiProject_Mammals. The category page explains how to get onto that list. Mehmet Karatay 17:06, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

African bush elephant article showing wrong photo?

I believe that the African bush elephant article shows the photo of an Asian elephant. I've left a comment on the article's discussion page. Could I get a few more opinions please? Please post any comments to talk:African bush elephant. Thank you Mehmet Karatay 20:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Problem solved, I was wrong. Mehmet Karatay 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The picture referred to by the link is now an African--so it has been changed and the problem solved? TeamZissou 02:04, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's simpler than that. I got it wrong I'm afraid.... oops. There were a few reasons for this but they don't really matter do they? :-) Mehmet Karatay 07:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

List of mammals of Canada

I'm currently rewriting this list along the

Featued List status. See User:Circeus/Sandboxfor current progress. Circeus

19:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Chalicotherium

Just a heads up. Feel free to correct where needed. Dracontes 14:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I was going to start here but raised some stuff on the talk pagecheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 21:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Mammal Genera List(s)?

Following the example of the

List of dinosaurs I'd like to do either a genera list for all mammal genera or separate lists for a number of important mammal mono- or paraphyletic clades using Mikko's Phylogeny archive

to mine the data. It will include in any case both extant and extinct genera, the latter marked with a dagger ( † ) with comentaries on taxonomic history (and others where appropriate). While the extant tally of 1200 genera may not be so daunting I expect with the fossil genera and synonyms and nomina nuda for the final number of genera to be around 2500-3000. The problem of course is that there are already various parallel lists of mammal species or genera so while I'm aware that my "project" is a necessity I'm just giving a heads up so someone more level-headed can give their oppinion as I for one would simply subsume all lists into this projected one ;-) Dracontes 17:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:TOL template

I'm working on a proposal to subsume all the WP:TOL project banners into a single one. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life/Template union proposal and its talk page. Circeus 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cattle breed stubs

Hi everyone. I have been doing a lot of work on the

located here. Thanks very much, Abbott75

07:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC).

Gaza House Mouse

We just removed an article from the German-language Wikipedia which was obviously a fake. I just want to inform you that there is a copy of that article in en: Gaza House Mouse. This is just a partial albino house mouse, and not a newly discovered subspecies. The "source" (http://www.geocities.com/jaffacity/Gaza_House_Mouse.html) is far from a scientific publication, it is merely a hobby journal managed by one person only. We removed this Palestinian Bulletin from all articles, perhaps it would be a good decision to do the same here. Best, Baldhur 23:31, 12 June 2007

Thanks for the heads-up. It's bunk, and he's used his personal journal on several other pages... I left a message and link for him on his user page, but I don't think the use of his journal was a mistake made on accident. TeamZissou 06:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've gone and deleted the article and removed references to his "journal" from the other articles he added it to. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Uther! TeamZissou 20:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Article Review

I noticed that this project was recently added to the Llama talk page. What is the process to have it reviewed and graded? --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 13:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner. As far as I understand it there's no formal procedure and all you do is ask and then someone will look at it and grade it according to where they feel it fits in the

assessment table. It's subjective and any one is free to change the rating or to disagree. If you want a formal review than the place for it is at the general peer review. WikiProject Scotland/Assessment

explains everything well and most things on that page apply. We should really create the equivalent assessment page for WikiProjects Mammals.

As you've asked I take it you want llama to be assessed. I'll try to do that if I have any spare time, I'm a bit busy at the moment. Hopefully someone else will get there first.

I hope this helps. Mehmet Karatay 18:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Added the peer review template to the top of the talk page and the appropriate entires. We'll see how it goes. I'm expecting a bunch of edits forthcoming and am looking forward to getting the article in a lot better shape. Thank you for your guidance. It is much appreciated. --BlindEagle^{talk~contribs} 12:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Puma

I invite participation on the discussion page at Cougar. I have suggested a move to Puma as it is the more generally accepted common name internationally (see links there on the talk page). If one visits scientific journals and searches the two names, puma is used many times more often. On the Journal of Zoology for instance, Puma produces 259 hits while Cougar produces only 42, many of which use the common name Puma in the title. An administrator will be needed to make the move as Puma already redirects to Cougar.--Counsel 00:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Maelestes gobiensis

Not sure if it's a dinosaur or a mammal, I've posted this in WP Project Dinosaurs as well, just fyi guys it's quite new and if anybody wants to improve the page, you're very welcome. Berserkerz Crit 15:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a mammal. It's in the subclass Eutheria and is related to Cimolestes, but Wible et al. (2007) argue it is not a crown placental and their tree suggests that no crown placentals were present in the Cretaceous (in contrast to prior interpretations of taxa such as Cimolestes and Zalambdalestes. --Aranae 16:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Hope someone can add the appropriate infobox and taxonomy classes. Berserkerz Crit 17:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Range maps

Is there some kind of standard colors for maps of the range of animals? I've noticed there is some consistency with the shark range maps, as all of them are blue (

Eurasian Lynx

). If a standard color scheme doesn't exist already, there probably should be one if it is possible.

If this has already been discussed somewhere please point me in the right direction and disregard this post. Thanks. --Mad Max 00:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I like the idea of having a standard. There would have to be some exceptions though such as in

WikiProject Tree of life or just Mammals. I personally feel if we are going to do something like this, then it should apply to all areas. Maybe give each class a colour? It might involve a lot of work converting all the existing images though... could this energy be better used to create articles? Mehmet Karatay

11:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I also think this should apply to all areas. I was going to ask about the map colors on Tree of Life but somehow ended up asking here in Mammals instead. I don't know why. Anyway, making each class have its own color makes sense to me. As far as editing all the current maps, it would definitely take a lot of time to do them all. Fortunately editing maps which are based on a single color shouldn't take more than a minute or two per map; just open up Photoshop or similar editing program and change the color's hue, and nothing needs to be redrawn. As for editing articles, you're right, that probably would be a better way to waste our time though there are people like me who would rather play around with graphics than have to touch any articles and text. =/ Mad Max 22:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of mammals

I've added an article Evolution of mammals, because there's too much content to squeeze into the Mammal article. Please review and comment.

Once there's a reasonable degree of agreement about Evolution of mammals, I propose to reduce the "Evolution" section of Mammal to a link to and brief summary of Evolution of mammals.Philcha 23:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Sorry I'm busy with other stuff cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Gunning for FAC....Lion and Leopard

Hey all, I've reorganized both these WRT headings etc. for an eventual tilt at FAC. Anyone up for a bit of collaboration? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:01, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Rats and the Food Supply

On the

Rats

article, it claims:

Rats have a significant impact on food production. Estimates vary, but it is likely that about one-fifth of the world's total food output is eaten, spoiled or destroyed by rats.[7]

This sounds pretty unlike to me and the link is to an uncited newspaper article. Can someone verify this or remove it. Please follow up on Talk:Rat#Rats and the Food Supply. Thanks. —mako๛ 03:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That does sound wrong. Here is the abstract of an article concerning depredation by rodents, including rats:

"Mice, rats, and other rodents threaten food production and act as reservoirs for disease throughout the world. In Asia alone, the rice loss every year caused by rodents could feed about 200 million people. Damage to crops in Africa and South America is equally dramatic. Rodent control often comes too late, is inefficient, or is considered too expensive. Using the multimammate mouse (Mastomys natalensis) in Tanzania and the house mouse (Mus domesticus) in southeastern Australia as primary case studies, we demonstrate how ecology and economics can be combined to identify management strategies to make rodent control work more efficiently than it does today. Three more rodent–pest systems – including two from Asia, the rice-field rat (Rattus argentiventer) and Brandt’s vole (Microtus brandti), and one from South America, the leaf-eared mouse (Phyllotis darwini) – are presented within the same bio-economic perspective. For all these species, the ability to relate outbreaks to interannual climatic variability creates the potential to assess the economic benefits of forecasting rodent outbreaks."

Stenseth1, Nils C. et al. (September 2003) Mice, rats, and people: the bio-economics of agricultural rodent pests. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, Vol. 1, No. 7, pp. 367–375.

One fifth of the world's food production? I think we can safely assume that rodent control methods in most of agrarian Asia are less-effective than those used by Western farmers and merchants. By this, I mean the use of a variety of easily purchased traps, poisons, etc. is far more common in the United States, Canada, most of Europe, and so forth, than it is in, say, Cambodia or rural China. Considering that Asia has almost 4 billion people and the estimated impact of rodents in general would feed 200 million, the statement regarding a loss of 1/5 the world's food supply to just "rats", or to just brown rats is very likely incorrect.

Here is a selection from: Crop Protection to Increase Food Supplies. (W. B. Ennis, Jr.; W. M. Dowler; W. Klassen. Science, New Series, Vol. 188, No. 4188, Food Issue. (May 9, 1975), pp. 593-598.)

Pest insects, birds and rodents devour growing crops and lower their yield; they also cause deterioration in product quality. Insects and rodents attack grains and other food products in storage and during transport. Disease organisms kill plants, cause rotting and blemishing of food products, and reduce crop yields and quality. Weeds reduce yield and quality by competing with crops for water, nutrients, light, and space, and also reduce the productivity and efficiency of land use. They poison livestock, interfere with harvesting, and prevent the flow of water for irrigation and drainage. Insects harbor and transmit diseases to plants, animals, and man. Nematodes transmit pathogenic viruses and intensify fungal diseases. The worldwide annual loss of 30 percent of potential productivity occurs despite the use of advanced farming technology and mechanized agriculture (2, 4). In many of the developing countries, losses greatly exceed this figure.

Provided that this is an estimate from 1975, and concerns the total impact of all pests, plant, animal, fungus, microbial, it is obvious to me that the estimate in the article is wrong. I could not find an estimate concerning depredation of the brown rat alone, so if someone knows of one they should include it in the article. I will remove the erroneous text. TeamZissou 07:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Very "Bat" Article

The article

Gould's Wattled Bat is a sad, sorry piece of junk. Could someone please help it out? Once done, there is an image of the species available on Wikicommons. Thanks! TeamZissou

06:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given it a tidy but it could use a bat expert. Sabine's Sunbird talk 07:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. Between you and Enok Walker, that article has come around 180 degrees! Good job, mammal team.TeamZissou 08:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think Enok deserves the credit really. Sabine's Sunbird talk 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)