|
Wiki Article
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals
Nguồn dữ liệu từ Wikipedia, hiển thị bởi DefZone.Net
 | WikiProject Mammals was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on February 2010. |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
New article assessment for Mexican long-nosed armadillo
[edit]A study in June 2024 [1] reclassified the Mexican long-nosed armadillo (Dasypus mexicanus) as a distinct species and not a subspecies of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). I created an article for the Mexican long-nosed armadillo by copying most of the information from the nine-banded armadillo article and changing the range of distribution and other geographic-centric entries in both articles. The two species are very close in everything except where they are found. If anyone would like to proofread and make improvements to the articles, it would be appreciated as I am no subject matter expert in this area. Thanks. Nv8200pa talk 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Another source: Widespread Armadillo Is Actually Four Different Species - Field Museum Nv8200pa talk 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)
Potential merge of Black jackrabbit
[edit]I'm not sure what to do with Black jackrabbit right now. Any input at Talk:Black jackrabbit is appreciated. -- Reconrabbit 18:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)
"Cloud jaguar"
[edit]The lay media has a story about the sighting of a "cloud jaguar", which the even more lay-ai media is calling "clouded jaguar", in the cloud forest of Honduras. Supposedly this is rare because most jaguars stay below 1000 m a.s.l. If Cloud jaguar needs to be more than a redirect could somebody take care of it? Abductive (reasoning) 14:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Not finding any hits outside of this story. Can anyone think of a Spanish term it may be a translation of? CMD (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it just refers to jaguars found in cloud forests, usually high for jaguars. There is some suggestion it is a new behaviour but I don't see anything to suggest a new article is needed. — Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is a signal that we could perhaps better nuance the Jaguar article, which states "avoids montane forests" in a sentence very similar to the one in the 1996 source. CMD (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- The article needs clarification as cloud forests are montane forests. Looking at the history, a sentence saying sometimes found at high altitudes but avoids montane forests was in the article at least ten years ago. The 1996 source and the IUCN assessment both say typically avoids montane forests and have no mention of cloud forests for the jaguar. The bit about habitat including cloud forests was added in 2019 with no source. We need a source for cloud forest sightings in Honduras or elsewhere. It also looks like the found in dry deciduous forests is taken out of context. The 1996 source emphasises requirment for water before listing habitats including dry deciduous forest (presumaly near water). — Jts1882 | talk 16:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- It is a signal that we could perhaps better nuance the Jaguar article, which states "avoids montane forests" in a sentence very similar to the one in the 1996 source. CMD (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- I think it just refers to jaguars found in cloud forests, usually high for jaguars. There is some suggestion it is a new behaviour but I don't see anything to suggest a new article is needed. — Jts1882 | talk 15:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
Which type of sea lion?
[edit]I'm hoping someone could look in on File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 01.jpg and File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 02.jpg and let me know whether they agree with the recent category changes there. If they are accurate, then the files need to be renamed, and the descriptions need to change. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, I now see this is an issue for everything in this sequence, up to and including File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 07.jpg. (Both species were definitely present in the aquarium. File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 03.jpg is clearly California and File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 08.jpg is clearly Steller.)- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)
- I just tried to learn how to tell the difference and based on the color I'd tend to agree. But I'm not an expert clearly. Naturedata (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)
Articles about recently described species
[edit]Hello everyone! I'm a developer of the List of living mammal species described in the 2020s. At the moment, a lot of species from this list don't have articles on English Wikipedia. I think it would be reasonable if enwiki became the most complete WMF's project on the popularization of newly described species, because English is the main working language of science today. Let's achieve this important goal together. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Elephant shrew#Requested move 30 May 2026
[edit]
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Elephant shrew#Requested move 30 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Dog § RfC on scientific name
[edit]
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dog § RfC on scientific name. Jako96 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Guideline update
[edit]I think it is long past due to update the Guideline section of the project. While MSW3 was the "official" taxonomy we aligned to, with the expectation that we would adjust when MSW4 came out, MSW4 never did and instead the ASM produced the MDD as a replacement. That has been the de facto guiding taxonomy for many years now. I suggest revising the section to read as follows:
The American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Diversity Database is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. This resource is the de facto successor to the Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) in both the real world and in this WikiProject. It is accepted practice to override any existing taxonomy to align with the Mammal Diversity Database. New species articles should wait until either they are listed in the MDD, or are listed by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Redlist (IUCN Redlist).
Specific cases of divergence should be handled via discussion on the relevant talk page, with a courtesy notification to this project made via a note on the project's talk page.
- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
- I oppose such a move, speaking from the outsider view of limited taxonomy involvement, to be made due. In general Wikipedia should not give such excessive primacy to any one source. While that is the current status quo, I do not see it as beneficial to further promote it by renewing it's mandate.
- The information Wikipedia gives front row presence should be representative of scientific consensus. That is something one single source may not determine. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written with neutrality, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Allowing a single or few source to determine the taxbox, the section which people quick reference, to me reaks of an WP:NPOV violation through giving undue weight. Official Wikipedia policy further guides no wikiproject or other community guideline may overwrite a core policy such as NPOV.
- So because the guideline, which you propose to update, is already in some degree of conflict with principles of Wikipedia it should not receive further recognition by being changed. In fact discussion should take as to whether it is even permissible for taxonomy to deviate from the infobox norms aplying to every other field on Wikipedia. So I respectfully strongly oppose Finfixer (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- For comparison, here's the current guideline:
The Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (2005) is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. The MSW3 classification may be overridden by the conclusions of more recent studies which are widely accepted in secondary sources. MSW3 listings can be found online at the Bucknell University here. (Note: there are some differences between the print edition and the online database. For instance, the online database shows three subspecies of dhole[1] whereas the print edition lists seven.[2])
- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)The Mammal Diversity Database is a new resource that reflects taxonomic changes since the publication of MSW3. It is accepted practice to override the MSW3 taxonomy if both the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN agree on the change.[2]
- Support. There needs to be a primary guideline source used for determining appropriate article titles and the taxonomy in the taxobox for consistency across articles. Alternative opinions should be discussed in the articles. MSW3 is terribly out of date, almost a quarter century for its literature cut-off date, and many of the people involved in MSW3 and the planning of MSW4 were involved in developing the MDD. The ASM committee that was behind the MSW series is behind the MDD under a new name. In many cases the MDD follows the IUCN specialist groups. Where the Red List diverges from the MDD it is usually because the IUCN changes are more involved, requiring a new conservation assessment rather than just changing the name in a database. — Jts1882 | talk 17:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I do understand the need for this consistency, but I do believe it can be achieved through concensus of multiple reputable sources instead of forcing consistency by contravening NPOV. Sources will mostly differ on what a species should be called. Genus placements etc seems to be far less disputed. It is convenient for there to be a primary guideline source, but convenience in creating consistency should not be a standart on Wikipedia. It is much more reasonable for there to be a lists of recommended, reputable, and unreputable sources instead of one source that is presumed to be correct. As I already stated NPOV is not something a community consensus may override. I do admit it is true that taxoboxes may include synonyms. Even then the given primary species name retains the ability to in some cases cause undue weight if not supported by a sufficiently broad scientific consensus.
- As such this aproach is not spinnable as being in line with NPOV in cases where reputable primary and secondary sources do not agree. In taxonomy articles, I think, NPOV should mean taking the broadest consensus and not altering it unless a new even broader scientific consensus arises. That is vastly different from what this guideline proposes to editors. Finfixer (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Differences from the de facto standard can be addressed in the article itself, which is where all discrepancies and disagreements should be dealt with, eh? This guideline is for what the default baseline should be, so that (for instance) one article doesn't call the dingo a species, while another calls it a synonym of the domesticated dog. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Default should be the most consensual thing in the recent scientific works, not anything else. I don't want we saying our readers "Ah, hello, this is the scientific consensus here, but we only followin' that sometimes quite unconsensual taxonomic database for default for no reason." Jako96 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think what UtherSRG is trying to say is that MDD (in contrast to the outdated MSW3) can generally be assumed to represent the most recent consensus in mammology, as a database compiled by a peak national mammological body, and editors can consider it to at least represent the predominant view of that influential body if not the wider mammological community. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Indeed. It's the highest regarded, it's updated frequently, it is produced by the same body that produced MSW3, and it is not a primary source. It should be our first piece for mammal taxonomy alignment, and any deviation should need a very strong argument with multiple secondary sources supporting the change. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- I think what UtherSRG is trying to say is that MDD (in contrast to the outdated MSW3) can generally be assumed to represent the most recent consensus in mammology, as a database compiled by a peak national mammological body, and editors can consider it to at least represent the predominant view of that influential body if not the wider mammological community. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Default should be the most consensual thing in the recent scientific works, not anything else. I don't want we saying our readers "Ah, hello, this is the scientific consensus here, but we only followin' that sometimes quite unconsensual taxonomic database for default for no reason." Jako96 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Differences from the de facto standard can be addressed in the article itself, which is where all discrepancies and disagreements should be dealt with, eh? This guideline is for what the default baseline should be, so that (for instance) one article doesn't call the dingo a species, while another calls it a synonym of the domesticated dog. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose - I recognize that MSW3 is getting very out of date, and I'm willing to buy the MDD being the de facto successor to it, but I disagree that the only reason for the IUCN to not match the MDD is because they lag behind due to needing to put on red list ratings. There's a ton of DD species out there, and there's a ton of species that MDD recognizes that the IUCN has not picked up for years and years of updates. There's even a handful of complicated cases where the IUCN recognizes a species that the MDD doesn't. I would prefer a standard of dropping MSW3 and relying on the combination of MDD/IUCN, though I admit that is not as clean as using a single database. --PresN 18:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree to a degree. If this guideline is to continue in any form, that is a good aproach. However, I would make it a three way test instead where the majority wins. That would already demonstrate some resemblance of scientific consensus of such nature that would not result in undue weight and NPOV issues. It is more radical than what you propose and a degree more complicated, but a three pronged majority test is far superior to giving one source supremacy. Finfixer (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- I correct;
- Giving one or even two sources supremacy Finfixer (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
Specific cases of divergence should be handled via discussion on the relevant talk page, with a courtesy notification to this project made via a note on the project's talk page.
This was my attempt at being more generic that the original's wording in regards to "both MDD/IUCN" and also the fact that the redlist is updated at a much slower cadence. Would some amendment to that statement help in pulling you in? - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)- So, for context, I spend my time on the the lists of species per family/subfamily/order, so I'm not generally looking at a single species (except for making range maps) but trying to sort out the taxonomy of an entire family+. So, I'd prefer, where possible, solid rules that don't need per-species interpretation where amateur editors (me) have to evaluate if new species are legit or just DNA-test star-hunting slop, because I don't have a PhD and really shouldn't be deciding if a 1-month-old paper overrides a decade of taxonomy. The current rules are clear- if I look at MSW3 for Ochotonidae, and it has 30 species, and I see that in the 25 years since IUCN has combined 2 species, and MDD has agreed but also added 8 more from various mountain peaks in China, that's straightforward. It's 29 species. But if we move to a model of "IUCN + MDD and we decide ad-hoc where they disagree but there's no guidance as to what that means", then suddenly which of those 8 questionable species "count" depends on my own opinion (which isn't worth much) of if the papers that MDD was cool with are just whatever grad-student work someone got published, or if the IUCN was right to ignore them for 5+ years. Your proposal is to say that the MDD is right to accept them and the IUCN wrong to reject them, but I don't know that either of us can make that call. And we're both implicitly saying that ITIS (which contradicts lots of stuff) doesn't matter, but why so? Because it's not as convenient to source?
- I do think I see this pretty plainly now that I've finished all of the mammal lists- for most families, MDD and IUCN are pretty close. The dog/wolf argument that sparked this is fairly rare (though they ironically agree in that case). It's really the small mammals - the pikas, the shrews, and stars help me the million rat species - where MDD just has a bunch of species that the IUCN rejects, and I can't really say that it's because the IUCN is slow but moreso because they're purposely conservative on adding new species based on limited evidence. So we need a guideline that works for more than just the (relatively) static megafauna families, e.g. "what should you do if there's a species in MDD that's not in IUCN". --PresN 02:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- How do you do a species list when two sources disagree? A species list should mostly follow a single source, else it is tempting original research. Your example of Ochotonidae may not be as simple as one lump by the IUCN compare to MSW3. My quick comparison has five MSW3 species not being recognised by the IUCN and four new ones (although one might be a change of species epithet).
I don't know that either of us can make that call
If we can't make that call, who should? If we can't make the call, how can we determine the consensus? This seems a good reason to chose a guideline source to make the choice for us. — Jts1882 | talk 10:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)- The whole driving principle of Wikipedia is editors together determining consensus. There is nothing absolute that prevents taxonomy editors coming together to decide things when disagreements arise.That is much more in line with the nature of Wikipedia than a single de facto rule. Most editors, unless new, will be aware of the general sourcing and consensus conventions of Wikipedia. They will rightly presume those conventions or related conventions aply all across Wikipedia. The idea of one source, and to lesser degree few sources, dominating is not in line with those conventions nor adaptations of them to fit narrowly defined encyclopedic needs. This all means that avoidance of source disputes instead of resolving them through consensus and inclusion in accordance with NPOV is not, in my mind, the purpose of Wikipedia.
- I of course agree that in taxonomy there is obviously a need for a high degree of standartisation. However, this should be achieved through classifying sources and providing guidelines for resolving disputes between them on a case by case basis. That can be done and there is room for tighter rules for levels above species. Something being difficult or unpleasant due to how Wikipedia works is not a valid reason for a single WikiProject to override conventions and certainly not to override official policy. In fact no valid reasons exist for overriding official policy. Decisions must be made for each dispute individually in the article where not resolved in other articles or issue specific discussions here. Finfixer (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
"How do you do a species list when two sources disagree?"
- by following the (current) WP:MAMMAL guidelines - start with the MSW3 list, and if there's a change that both the IUCN and MDD agree on, do that. Just using MDD would also be straightforward (though annoying for me to go back and verify), but I disagree on ditching IUCN as "slow". But if we don't ditch IUCN, then we need a stated rule for how to decide what to do if there's a species in MDD and not in IUCN (or vice-versa). --PresN 12:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree to a degree. If this guideline is to continue in any form, that is a good aproach. However, I would make it a three way test instead where the majority wins. That would already demonstrate some resemblance of scientific consensus of such nature that would not result in undue weight and NPOV issues. It is more radical than what you propose and a degree more complicated, but a three pronged majority test is far superior to giving one source supremacy. Finfixer (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)
- Oppose. Wikipedia should be based on recent consensus of different sources, not a single source, especially, definitely not a taxonomic database down to the species level. Also, new species articles should never wait until they are listed in the MDD, a taxonomic database, which is a secondary and when compared to scientific works, a much less important source; shouldn't restrict us from talking about a PHYSICALLY existing new mammal species. Jako96 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- I am aware of very few cases where a mammal is described (in a manner that is convincing enough to establish a new species) and the MDD does not update to include it. Being hasty and relying on primary sources can lead to doing a lot of work that ends up not being worthwhile (northern green anaconda, for example, was made a good article but eventually got merged). Secondary sources are better than primary sources. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support in general. MSW3 is 21 years old (more like 22 or 23 if you look at its oldest references). Many important molecular studies were published right after MSW3 and just barely failed to influence MSW3 (or were new enough that a few authors chose to wait and see before making big changes such as bat suborders or Cetacea + Artodactyla. It was a fantastic reference when it was published, but it has long been superseded by more up to date sources. The industry standard for the 2010s was the Handbook of Mammals series. Wikipedia should have switched from using MSW3 as standard to Handbook at that time. Regardless, MDD is the current standard. Journals such as Journal of Mammalogy (also published by ASM) require authors to adopt MDD taxonomy or provide an explanation as to why they deviate ( https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/pages/author-guidelines see Style section, para 2). As has been noted, IUCN is slow to update, does not focus on taxonomy as its primary goal, and has limited information on nomenclature or taxonomy above the species level. I would certainly support a well-sourced deviation from MDD on a case by case basis and controversy should definitely be discussed in the text. Choosing a standard to be used across taxoboxes is not a violation of NPOV so long as the alternatives are also discussed. --Aranae (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support in principle as an improvement on the frankly untenable current guideline, though I think the text of the proposed guideline should be slightly altered to better reflect the fact that this (as with all WikiProject guidelines) is a recommendation for best practice based on a local consensus, not a strict policy that editors must always follow. While I think relying on the MDD instead of MSW3 is a massive improvement, it should not be taken as the gospel truth, and editors should always be encouraged to look at all available sources and use their best judgement when evaluating the current taxonomic consensus (especially considering MDD is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, rather than an international body). The second to last sentence somewhat conveys this, but applies only to new species, which I do not think is appropriate - I would recommend removing the new species stipulation and replacing the
It is accepted practice to override any existing taxonomy to align with the Mammal Diversity Database. New species articles should wait until either they are listed in the MDD, or are listed by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Redlist (IUCN Redlist).
section with something along the lines ofIt is accepted practice to align Wikipedia's taxonomy with the Mammal Diversity Database or, when there is disagreement, with the predominant consensus of mammalogists as evidenced by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List). Significant alternative or historical taxonomic placements should be noted in the body of the article per relevant reliable sources.
This leaves breathing room for cases where the MDD holds an "unpopular opinion" not accepted by the international mammalogical community or the mammalogical community of a relevant region: not a common issue, as I understand it, but worth a carve-out for in my opinion.
Continued primary reliance on MSW3 is not acceptable. While an excellent source, it is now over two decades old - probably older than some of the regular editors in this space! - and cannot be updated to reflect the evolving research and changing taxonomic consensus among mammologists. The MDD, while not perfect, is a competently run database that receives frequent updates from the American Society of Mammalogists, and it can reasonably be assumed to generally reflect the taxonomic consensus among American mammalogists, if not the wider mammalogical community. The current guideline has been used as a bludgeon to force a sorely outdated taxonomic status quo on the topic area and from discussing this with other editors I know that this has driven several people away from working on mammal articles, so I welcome any effort to change this. It's 2026, this project needs to move on from clinging to MSW3. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)- The American Society of Mammalogists commissioned MSW. The American Society of Mammalogists commissioned MDD. If latter had been presented as an online MSW4, would we even be having this debate? The transition form MSW3 to MSW4 would have been uncontroverisal. In fact an early argument not to accept MDD was because we were waiting for MSW4. A number of the other online databases have emerged from earlier published works (IOC, HMW/Birdlife, ASW, ECoF). For some reason published books are considered authoritative even though not peer reviewed, and databases treated with suspicion even when more open about their processes. — Jts1882 | talk 09:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- My continued objection to this reform is vested in a much more severe reading of the issue even you note. You noted that;
- "it should not be taken as the gospel truth, and editors should always be encouraged to look at all available sources and use their best judgement when evaluating the current taxonomic consensus (especially considering MDD is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, rather than an international body)"
- 1)I obviously agree with this, but consider the issue much more severe. I believe that even if editors are encouraged to be critical the rule will inevitably produce unnecessary bias against arguably more consensus representing international readings. It is human nature to be biased where it allows not facing complex questions from multiple angles. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must accept we can't delegate the consensus determining task of this international community to a local one. That reduces the quality of the consensus. Simply inviting critisism does not work because it still places a local determination in a presumed position of correctness above an international position. A local view can not be given such prevalance in an international article. I once again refer to a quite literal reading of NPOV.
- One thing to also be noted is that, as I have understood it, the quality of Wikipedia takes precedence over the speed at which information enters. So if using an international source means articles will remain claiming a dispute for longer, so be it. It is better to be safe than sorry. Very little harm will be done if the status quo stands here untill clearly broken. In a way Wikipedia should be the last place to shift. Other sources must do so first.
- 2)What is in the taxobox should, in the absence of consensus, represent the most significant view in the scientific community first and foremost. In this MDD also fails because American scientists alone can't provide the most significant view. They still need some scientists from other areas to join them.
- In conclusion we should either scrap the guideline or adopt a global source. The question of whether such a guideline should even exist should have been considered before starting a discussion about what it should be. Finfixer (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- The ASM is American in name, but they write their accounts and update the Mammal Diversity Database using sources from countries across the globe. Their list of mammal societies is inclusive of dozens of publications. If there is a problem with this source, it is not that it is from an American perspective. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 01:43, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- So I would encourage you to reconsider your stance in the light of the considerations which I presented Finfixer (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
- Finfixer, is there any single international source for mammal classification that you would recommend?
- Taxonomic WikiProjects usually have guidelines recommending a single taxonomic source at least as a start pointing for the classification given on Wikipedia, with a caveat that other sources can be considered if the main source is controversial.
- For mammals, Catalogue of Life could be considered an international source. COL mammal classification is based on ITIS, which is a product of the US government, and ITIS mammals are based on MSW with some updates from IUCN specialist groups (there may be good reason to be suspicious of US government sources in general these days, but most relevant criticism of ITIS should be that is outdated in many areas, and has been outdated in many areas prior to January 19, 2016 (i.e., before a lot of suspicion about US government sources was warranted)). GBIF was a possibly independent international source of mammal taxonomy until a couple weeks ago, but is now sourcing classification from COL. Does any international alternative for mammal classification exist? Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 6 July 2026 (UTC)
- Support Per the UtherSRG and JTS1882, this is long past due and wikipedia policy is to pick one position for taxoboxes and discuss all positions within the article body.--Kevmin § 15:29, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- @UtherSRG Generally support. I’ll leave a few comments here.
- The IUCN's primary objective is conservation assessment, not taxonomy itself. It is therefore only natural for the IUCN to be cautious about taxonomic changes, since such changes alter the units used for conservation assessment. Furthermore, as assessments are time-consuming, it seems somewhat unrealistic to expect the IUCN to keep pace with every development in modern systematics.
- Of course, I do not believe that there is any obligation to follow the Mammal Diversity Database (MDD) in every instance. For example, while the MDD groups tamarins into a single genus, I personally believe—partly on the grounds of temporal consistency with marmosets—that they are better classified into four genera, as the IUCN does. I see no reason why a different classification should not be adopted, provided that it is supported by appropriate sources.
- The Small Mammal Specialist Group—which is responsible for rodents, treeshrews, and members of the order Eulipotyphla—uses the MDD as its taxonomic standard. Consequently, there are particularly strong grounds for relying on the MDD for these groups. There may well be other Specialist Groups that take a similar approach.
- BatNames is a taxonomic list for bats maintained by the Bat Specialist Group. Since it is also coordinated with the Mammal Diversity Database, using the two resources in tandem provides an especially useful basis for cross-checking bat taxonomy.
- Finally, it should be noted that, for marine mammals, the Society for Marine Mammalogy—an international authority in the field—maintains its own taxonomic list, which differs from the Mammal Diversity Database in several respects. コロネン (talk) 02:37, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input! If this proposal is adopted, I think it would be prudent for the updated guideline to note these areas of (in/)congruence and link to these other specialist groups to allow editors to easily compare them with MDD when needed. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- I think this is a good idea. The different specialist groups have different public facing activity. Some just have a link from the IUCN pages, some have their own websites. The Cat SG has its own publication (Cat News) and had a special issue on a revised taxonomy back in 2017, which I think the IUCN red list still follows. The MDD adopted this taxonomy in early editions but has since gone very splitty in South America. The canid SG set up a working group on the taxonomy and had a report on a conference with discussion and recommendations, which were largely followed by IUCN red list and MDD.
- コロネンWhat are the differences between the MDD and the Society for Marine Mammalogy. Also do you know how or if the SMM coordinates with the IUCN specialist groups (cetacean, pinnipid, sirenia) and MDD? — Jts1882 | talk 07:56, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- @Jts1882 The Society for Marine Mammalogy does not recognize taxa such as Neophocaena sunameri and Delphinus bairdii as full species, treating them instead as subspecies. This is because a proposal to elevate a taxon to species status requires the approval of at least two-thirds of the committee members.
- Within the IUCN, the Cetacean Specialist Group, for instance, uses the SMM list as its taxonomic standard, as explained here. コロネン (talk) 08:09, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input! If this proposal is adopted, I think it would be prudent for the updated guideline to note these areas of (in/)congruence and link to these other specialist groups to allow editors to easily compare them with MDD when needed. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 03:53, 30 August 2026 (UTC)
@コロネン: Rather than have what amounts to the same discussion in multiple places, I think we should have it here. コロネン is discussing changes to mammal lists for both bats (rhinolophids) and rodents (capromyids), and in both places the argument is about the same: that the IUCN SSC Bat Specialist Group is not actually using the IUCN redlist taxonomy at batnames.org but the MDD taxonomy, and that the IUCN SSC Small Mammal Specialist Group is doing the same for rodents/scandentians/eulipotyphlans. My position remains above all else that we need to have clear guidance for what taxonomy system to follow rather than making amateur judgement calls in each subarea for which taxonomy system is more popular. I'd prefer if it wasn't just "whatever MDD says", but with 80 lists to maintain I most of all want something consistent to point at. I do agree that two IUCN specialist groups not using the IUCN taxonomy any more is a big point in favor of just using MDD. --PresN 20:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- I'm not proposing "whatever MDD says". I'm proposing updating our baseline to be MDD, and then we use more current literature to build on top of it. This is the same system we have in place, just updating what the baseline is. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:38, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- @PresN There seems to be a misunderstanding, so I would like to make a correction. BatNames is an independent taxonomic authority (unlike the Small Mammal Specialist Group). As such, coordination takes place between the two lists. コロネン (talk) 22:00, 22 August 2026 (UTC)
- My understanding is that the batnames database is maintained by the Global Bat Taxonomy Working Group (GBTWG), which is a working group of IUCN SSC Bat Specialist Group. So batnames is the IUCN taxonomy, although the redlist may lag behind as it needs to make assessments.
- My support for this new mammal guideline has the proviso that some mammal subgroups might be better serves by an alternative taxonomic source (e.g. IUCN specialist groups) if there was consensus. Batnames would be a candidate as the guideline source for bats. This is moot as the MDD and batnames are coordinated and recognise the same species. At least three of the GBTWG committee are on the MDD committee (Burgin,Upham, Zijlstra). — Jts1882 | talk 13:23, 23 August 2026 (UTC)
References
- ^ "Mammal Species of the World - Browse: alpinus". www.departments.bucknell.edu.
- ^ Wozencraft, C. W. (2005). "Order Carnivora". In Wilson, D. E.; Reader, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. Vol. 1 (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 578. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0.
Bison→Bos (Bison)
[edit]The conclusion that Bison should be subsumed within Bos is already clear, and we should not maintain this unnatural classification any longer. At the very least, the classification of all extant species should be revised to Bos (Bison), based on the Mammal Diversity Database. It is not scientifically honest to persist in using a classification system indefinitely—solely out of habit—when it is already known to be unnatural. However, regarding fossil species, the genus Bison is still in use (despite the resulting phylogenetic inconsistency); furthermore, databases such as the Mammal Diversity Database focus primarily on extant and recently extinct species, making it difficult to find data that reflects a reclassification into the genus Bos.--コロネン (talk) 00:55, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- See the discussion above about potentially switching to use MDD for the basis of taxonomy, which could result in this change as well. --PresN 01:11, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I agree, コロネン. --Aranae (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- @コロネン: Yup, I'm good with this. Do you have a plan forward? - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 19:57, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
- I support this change as well. The correct taxonomy is already mentioned at the end of the lede, and the rest of the content should be updated to match. ChompyTheGogoat (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2026 (UTC)
- I also support. Jako96 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
- I was thinking about this change change recently, btw. Jako96 (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2026 (UTC)
Cats Vs Dogs
[edit]Is there a reason why the article for dogs is top importance but the article for cats is only high importance? It feels like they should both be top importance. Dragonhawk12 (talk) (Guestbook) (Wikicats) 10:03, 15 July 2026 (UTC)
- Not a good one, although possibly dogs are more needy and cats don't care. They should both be the same importance (high) in the mammal project. — Jts1882 | talk 12:22, 15 July 2026 (UTC)₹
- Easy to imagine a dog begging for the rating change and treating it as a reward. The cat probably just stared balefully. CMD (talk) 02:20, 16 July 2026 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Lutra#Requested move 1 July 2026
[edit]There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Lutra#Requested move 1 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. BilledMammal (talk) 03:12, 5 August 2026 (UTC)
Dasyuridae taxonomical tree
[edit]Hi! I've just been looking at the Dasyuridae page, and i have found what i believe is an issue that should be fixed. I've left it as a comment on the talk page there as well, but felt like i should bring it here too. In the taxonomical tree on the page, it has Dasyurus and Sarcophilus on the same branch, implying that they're the same genus just as synonyms for each other. However, this is not the case, as they are both distinct, but still closely related, genera, and i believe they should be placed on separate branches. I suck at source editing, so if anyone who is better than me at source editing could fix this, or if someone can explain to me why they're on the same branch with a good reason, that would be greatly appreciated :) Nyxosaurusrex (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- What does the source show? I can't currently access Alvarez-Carretero et al 2022. The tree is only showing genera, so it's possible that the Sarcophilus species is nested in the Dasyurus species. If not, they can be shown as separate terminals. I can make that change when I've seen the source. — Jts1882 | talk 09:22, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I must've missed that it was based on that paper, that's my bad! I also can't access it, but I feel like it could be misleading classifying Tasmanian devils and relatives with quolls in the same terminal on a taxonomical tree, although that would be a biased change. Hopefully, someone with access to that paper sees this and checks it out and gets back to me/us :) Nyxosaurusrex (talk) 09:48, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- I still can't access the paper, but I was able to get the tree from their data dump at figshare. The Dasyurus species are sister to a clade of Sarcophilus harrisii and some unidentified Dasyuridae specimen. — Jts1882 | talk 10:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Right okay, that's cool! That tree does seem to represent them as separate, although closely related, genera, so I still believe they should be separated on the tree in the Dasyuridae page. I can back off now that I've seen the tree from the source, though. Thanks! Nyxosaurusrex (talk) 10:15, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
- Change made with explanation added on article talk page (as this discussion will get archived). — Jts1882 | talk 13:25, 17 August 2026 (UTC)
Discussion potentially of interest to this project
[edit]Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Agriculture#Red links in breed navboxes?. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:07, 9 September 2026 (UTC)
The common name of the species, or of the genus/family?
[edit]Currently, Wikipedia uses the terms "hippopotamus" and "raccoon" as article titles for the single species Hippopotamus amphibius and Procyon lotor, respectively.
These names appear to be used ambiguously. According to these search results, "The raccoons include the North American raccoon (Procyon lotor), … (Procyon cancrivorus) and the Cozumel raccoon (Procyon pygmaeus) [4]". The Hippo Specialist Group's website lists both the "Common Hippopotamus" and the "Pygmy Hippopotamus" as types of "Hippos".
A: current Wikipedia
- hippopotamus = Hippopotamus amphibius
- raccoon = Procyon lotor
B: alternative
- hippopotamus = Hippopotamidae ("common hippopotamus" for Hippopotamus amphibius)
- raccoon = Procyon (genus) ("northern raccoon" or else for Procyon lotor)
Based on the descriptions in articles such as Hippopotamidae or Procyon (genus), usage A is clearly dominant; however, as someone who does not use English daily, I cannot judge whether these usages are so overwhelmingly dominant that they cause no ambiguity for the reader.
I would like to hear opinions on this matter. コロネン (talk) 04:26, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- There are four species of hippo if we include recently extinct species (both recognised by IUCN an MDD. However, I'm sure the majority of people using hippopotamus are thinking of the big mammal, so this is probably the most common name for the large species. However, deviations from WP:COMMONNAME can be made to avoid ambiguity, hippopotamus should redirect to the family article. A move to Common hippopotamus is reasonable. No one on the street calls it that, but that is a true of every species with common tacked onto the name.
- Similar arguments can apply to Raccoon, which should be covered by the genus article. A page move would get rid of the ambiguation in the title. North American racoon might be better than Common raccoon for the species. In both case people expecting the common species will be one prominent click away from their target and they might learn something in the process. — Jts1882 | talk 08:27, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
- I concur with Jts. For these two, we should rename the species articles and change the redirects to point to the genus/family as appropriate. I'm sure there are other instances of this, but we should review them individually. I know I'd made a similar proposal on a bird article and it was soundly rejected... - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 13:44, 12 September 2026 (UTC)
Agree. Common hippopotamus is a good option since the pygmy hippo is found in a very restricted range that is nearly a subset of H. amphibius. Northern raccoon or North American raccoon are better than common raccoon. The other species can be the locally common species in regions where P. lotor is not native. --Aranae (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2026 (UTC)- Plantdrew has made some excellent points. I'd like to withdraw my 'vote' and move toward a more neutral stance. --Aranae (talk) 17:20, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
- Procyon was moved from raccoon in 2007 (Talk:Procyon_(genus)/Archive_1#Requested_move). Incoming links to raccoon overwhelmingly intend P. lotor.
- The genus article is in very poor shape. There is a list of species (standard in even the stubbiest Wikipedia articles on genera), a section about names (covering scientific and vernacular names in various languages), and a general information section (mostly unsourced, and what sources it has are about P. lotor). The vernacular names in European languages are probably specific to P. lotor (as it is introduced there), and they etymology of the English word "raccoon" really belongs in whatever article has that title. I don't think readers searching for raccoon would be well served arriving at the Procyon article in its present state.
- I don't think "common foo" for any species of organism is ever really the WP:COMMONNAME; people actually just call whatever it is "foo". Whether "common foo" is a useful title for disambiguation purposes is a different questions, but I generally believe it isn't very helpful; links are rarely going to be made to the "common foo" title, even when the species is intended. There are a number of articles on genera (or broader groups) using vernacular name titles which really could benefit from somebody going through incoming links and retargetting them to species based on geographical context. Beaver, badger, porcupine and opossum refer to a single species in North American contexts (and North American beaver is the least common vernacular name, chosen by Wikipedians fighting over whether to call it "Canadian" or "American", while the common opossum isn't common in any English speaking country aside from Guyana and Trinidad, where it is called "manicou"). The only armadillo present in the United States was recently raised from a subspecies to a species.
- Turkey (bird) is pretty similar to the state of Procyon; a section on the name, a list of species, and general information that comes from sources only considering one species. I've long regarded that article as a situation where we are using a vernacular name title to trick readers into going to the wrong article; the title should be Meleagris, and all incoming links to "turkey (bird)" should be disambiguated (it should be pretty clear by context whether the intended article is wild turkey (wildlife contexts), domestic turkey (economic, agricultural and veterinary) or turkey meat (culinary)).
- I do not support moving raccoon. Plantdrew (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2026 (UTC)
- I think Common wombat may be close to a genuine common name, although that would be hard to fully untangle. Prompted by thoughts of Australian animals, an example to consider for genus/species ambiguity is Bilby. Even more clearcut than the hippo, there is only one living species, the greater bilby. The lesser bilby likely became extinct in the early/mid 20th century and was barely known even before that. The name Bilby itself comes from the still-living species. Almost everyone who uses "Bilby", likely throughout almost all of history and definitely today, use it to refer to the living species, yet anyone who searches it here goes to a page they don't want. CMD (talk) 01:11, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- It seems the discussion has expanded to include more species than I initially mentioned.
- There are words used for both the collective name of a higher-level taxon and the species contained within it. Which meaning Wikipedia uses depends on the situation. "Representative species" are likely to be determined based on reasons such as the following.
- Livestock species familiar to humans
- Cats, guinea pigs, pigs, …
- Geographical factors (North America, etc.)
- Raccoons are probably here.
- Extinction of other species
- Bilbys, takahēs (they are birds, though)
- Others
- Pygmy hippopotamuses were recognized relatively recently.
- Furthermore, among the cases mentioned above, there will be quite a few instances where a word originally referring to a specific species was subsequently extended to denote a similar group.
- Setting aside the analysis of causes and background of these, the real issue for Wikipedia is, of course, what to do about the article title. Is there anything that might aid the thought process? コロネン (talk) 08:24, 15 September 2026 (UTC)
- It's really going to be a case-by-case thing. Looking at incoming links and determining whether they intend the species or a higher taxon can be informative (that is exactly the "what editors link to" part of the WP:NATURALNESS article title criterion). Page views could be informative (that's the "what readers look for" part of NATURALNESS), although page views will be impacted to by Wikipedia's current choice of article title (when I say we are tricking readers into going to turkey (bird), that is because it does get more page views than the articles for wild and domestic M. gallopavo). The article title criteria of Precision and Concision are pretty much a wash when it commons to "common foo" titles (precision favors including "common", concision favors excluding). Plantdrew (talk) 03:02, 16 September 2026 (UTC)
Discussion regarding Leopardus
[edit]There are several discussions at Talk:Pampas cat#Requested move 11 September 2026 and Talk:Oncilla#Requested move 18 September 2026. Please participate in the discussion regarding the comprehensive review of the classification of the genus Leopardus (particularly, the "Pampas cat complex" and the "Tiger cat complex"). コロネン/Coronene (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2026 (UTC)