Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

Nomination of Portal:Skunks for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Skunks is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Skunks until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page.

Anyone have "Philippine Birds & Mammals" (1977)?

I already put a post at resource request, but thought I might try my luck here as well due to subject matter. Anyone have access to this text?

• Rabor, D. S. (1977). Philippine Birds & Mammals. UP Science Education Center. pp. 217–218. ISBN 9780824805357. OCLC 644262229.

I'm looking for the pages on Acerodon jubatus starting at page 217, so probably just 217 and 218. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 02:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

are you near any of these libraries? Or can do an interlibrary loan to any? I could request it lent to my local library, but it would take a week or so. --Nessie (talk) 03:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I'd actually never thought of interlibrary loan! One is headed my way now, thanks! Enwebb (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hth. If that didn't work, sometimes you can call one of the libraries and they'll scan the pages for you too. Cheers. --Nessie (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:Mammals invitation template

Hi all, I looked around for an invitation template specific to WP:MAMMALS but couldn't find one. Therefore, I made one. If you see new/newish editors making good faith mammal edits, you could invite them to the project with Template:Mammals invite ( paste{{subst:Mammals invite|~~~~}} ). Enwebb (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

List of cetacean species

See Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of cetacean species/archive1 about the possible removal of List of cetacean species from Featured List status. --Nessie (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy templates: updating order Cetartiodactyla?

Hello everyone! I am new to Wikipedia and still learning the ropes, so I hope this is okay to post here. I'm working as part of a larger group updating marine mammal species pages on behalf of the Society for Marine Mammalogy. I have just completed the first page (Dall's porpoise), where I noticed that the order was incorrect- listing Artiodactyla instead of Cetartiodactyla. Since I've learned a bit more about the templates, I now know that the edit would need to be made as far back as Artiodactyla. I tried to circumnavigate the template issue by creating a new box, but I have been informed by a more experienced editor that this is not ideal. I would like to know what the Mammal group thinks is the best way forward? Ideally, the taxonomy boxes for cetacean species should reflect the most up-to-date information included in IUCN species assessments and current literature. Is a manual box okay, or should the templates be adjusted? Thank you so much for your advice. KimNiels (talk) 17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The phylogenetic position of cetaceans is pretty clear, but the nomenclature is less clear. Google Scholar shows recent papers using Cetartiodactyla as the order for traditional Artiodactyla, as well as papers using Artiodactyla as the order for cetaceans (e.g. [1]). Artiodactyla is still used in more papers than Cetartiodactyla, although use of Cetartiodactyla is climbing (in papers written from 2010-2014 the ration of Artiodactyla:Cetartiodactyla is 10.7, for 2019, the ratio is 3.5). It's hard to tell whether authors who write papers about traditional artiodactylans and use Artiodactyla as the order instead of Cetartiodactyla: a) support an expanded definition of Artiodactyla, b) don't particularly care about how whales are classified, or c) reject findings that place Cetacea within Artiodactyla. I suspect there are very few people in group c), a large number in group b), with group a) being in between b) and c). If continued use of Artiodactyla in the literature is mostly due to people who work with land animals not caring about whale classification, Wikipedia should use Cetartiodactyla. If continued use of Artiodactyla is due to workers adopting an expanded definition of Artiodactyla that includes whales, Wikipedia should use Artiodactyla. Plantdrew (talk) 20:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's interesting that there are papers, such as doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9376-3, that explicitly use Artiodactyla to include cetaceans (in this case dolphins). It's not clear to me why it's felt necessary to change the name of the order when it's found to include a previously excluded group. However, there is a problem with the article at Even-toed ungulate since both Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla redirect to it, but it seems to me that the English name only applies to Artiodactyla s.s., i.e. not the monophyletic taxon. (Another illustration of the problems caused by not using scientific names.) Peter coxhead (talk) 02:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the nomenclature. I'm not a taxonomist, so personally, using one over the other doesn't bother me as long as the definition is clear. These pages (that we're updating) are however, being reviewed by experts, and they have pointed out the "mistake" of listing Artiodactyla instead of Cetartiodactyla. Also, all IUCN assessments and species pages have switched to Cetartiodactyla. If the consensus here is to stick with Artiodactyla, perhaps the marine mammal editors should just include something about Cetartiodactyla in the taxonomy section of the article. Thank you all for the input. KimNiels (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

To answer about the taxobox, you should use the Automated taxobox. Otherwise, you would have to change the boxes on the page of every species, genus, etc. in the order. --Nessie (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cetaceans adopted automatic taxoboxes circa September 2016, right at the beginning of major efforts to use automatic taxoboxes (I started switching plants to automatic taxoboxes in February 2017). While the editor who switched cetaceans/ungulates (and many reptiles) to automatic taxoboxes is now blocked, I think they chose to switch cetaceans and reptiles due then existing inconsistencies in manual taxoboxes; order Cetartiodactyla/Artiodactyla in cetaceans, class Reptilia/Sauropsida for reptiles. With automatic taxoboxes in place, it only takes a single edit to change the orders for cetaceans to Cetartiodactyla if it is decided to do so. Plantdrew (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Aside from whether this should be adopted in the autotaxobox, which is conservative by necessity, there is some opportunity for improvement to article content. The taxobox reflects some of the content in the taxonomy section of articles, the current situation might be linked (and briefly noted where relevant) from that section to illuminate the arrangement in the taxobox. ~ cygnis insignis 01:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I thought this issue had been resolved. Cetartiodactyla seemed to gather wide acceptance when the relationship was established, but then it seem that the trend was the accept the broader definition of Artiodactyla (both in the literature and on Wikipedia). I remember making a number of edits towards Cetartiodactyla and was persuaded otherwise. So a few questions and issues.

• Is there movement in the scientific literature and by organisations towards one or the other? The IUCN is using Cetartiodactyla. The ASM's Mammal Diversity Database uses Artiodactyla. MSW3 uses Artiodactyla and Cetacea.
• Should the project choose a new taxonomic authority for use in all articles? MSW3 is hopeless here. De facto, I'd say mammal articles are leaning towards the IUCN.
• Is there a difference of opinion between those studying terrestrial and marine animals, favouring Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla, respectively?
• If so, should we use different taxonomy templates to reflect the difference? Extant reptiles that fly get special treatment.
• Are cetaceans even-toed ungulates who have lost hooves or is hoofiness an essential part of being an ungulate. The title of that page is extremely irritating and needs addressing.

Whatever the answers, we need a consistent approach. Using manual taxoboxes to get around the current preference for Artiodactyla is not a good solution.   Jts1882 | talk  07:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Below is a table for listing who uses what. This is preliminary and incomplete so please feel free to add. @KimNiels:, can you suggest any recent taxonomic source where the relative merits of the two names are discussed?   Jts1882 | talk  12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Artiodactyla sensu lato	Cetartiodactyla	Artiodactyla + Cetacea
American Society of Mammalogists (Mammal Diversity Database) Grubb & Groves (2011) Ungulate Taxonomy	IUCN WoRMS Society for Marine Mammalogy Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (Third Edition), 2018 doi:10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00090-X	MSW3 ITIS (following MSW3) Int. Whaling Commission UC Museum of Paleontology (Artiodactyla/Cetaceans

@Jts1882: I don't have any recommendations at the moment, but this has started a very interesting discussion! I would love to pass this on to some of the relevant experts in the Society for Marine Mammalogy and can share a good source when I find out.KimNiels (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

This quote from the Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals (3rd edition) seems to summarize the current position: "The discovery of a whale + hippo relationship has cast doubt on a much older taxonomic name, Artiodactyla. First coined by Owen in 1848, this name was used up to the mid-1990s to include all terrestrial cetartiodactyls, but not cetaceans. Some authors have now redefined Artiodactyla to include Cetacea, making it equivalent to Cetartiodactyla (e.g., Spaulding et al., 2009), whereas others view Artiodactyla as being an outdated name that should be abandoned. It is suggested that readers who encounter the term Artiodactyla pay careful attention to the context where it is used to determine if the author includes Cetacea within this group." This latter is the problem. There are about 5,000 articles found by Google Scholar from 2018 onwards that use "Artiodactyla" (far more than use "Cetartiodactyla"), but most do so as a higher taxon for groups that would be placed in the s.s. circumscription, so it's not possible to tell what they really mean. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The Grubb & Groves (2011) book on Ungulate Taxonomy uses Order Artiodactyla and Infraorder Cetacea, although the latter are not covered in the book because they are not ungulates (an argument for a page move?). They mention an argument by Helgen (2003) for retaining Artiodactyla:

In this, we follow Helgen (2003; see also Asher & Helgen, 2010), who argued that if the Cetacea were the sister group to the Artiodactyla as such, the name Cetartiodactyla would be appropriate; yet, as they are deeply nested within the Artiodactyla, there should be no change of ordinal name (on the precedent of, for example, the Carnivora, which retained that name even with the inclusion of Pinnipedia).

Unfortunately the Helgen (2003) reference they give doesn't seem to have this discussion. But the argument that Cetartiodactyla was proposed in addition to Artiodactyla, a taxon containing Artiodactyla and Cetacea as sisters, rather than as a replacement for a Artiodactyla containing deeply embedded cetaceans, makes some sense. I've being trying to find a taxonomic discussion of the issue with no success. It's surprising how many books and databases still follow MSW3 and use the two traditional orders.   Jts1882 | talk  15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

There are some comparable cases with other taxa. For example, it's clear that Hexapoda is embedded within traditional Crustacea, rendering the latter paraphyletic, but I guess because "Crustacea" and "crustacean" are so well established, a different name, "Pancrustacea", is used for the monophyletic clade (the article at Crustacean is way out of date). So maybe the logic here is the same: "Artiodactyla" and "even-toed ungulate" will still be used for the paraphyletic group, and "Cetartiodactyla" for the monophyletic taxon. It remains unclear what we should do, though, given that reliable sources differ in usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)