Talk:American shrew mole

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: British Columbia Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject British Columbia.

Changing the Title

May we PLEASE change the title to American Shrew Mole? Several reasons: 1. It conflicts with their being an article on Shrew-Moles in general. 2. Just because we never call it that here doesn't mean that's not what the rest of the world calls it. 3. The reason given in the article, "but it is only distantly related to other Shrew-Moles", is all the more reason to be specific when naming the animal. Chrisrus (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. We follow MSW3 for taxonomy and common names. MSW3 is the closest thing there is for an official listing of mammal common names. We've already had this kind of discussion on other species (yes, there have been other species with the same name as a group of species). You need to stop editing before you discuss. You need to start asking questions before you edit as to why things are the way they are. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrew-mole_(Disambiguation)? Do you see the problem? Do you see why this needs to be done? I've checked all over the net, it's called that all over. I was very careful that it was true and can cite more. You claim to have a citation which trumps anything I could possibly give you. Cite it please, go check your source again, you must be wrong. How could that be the official name, when there are so many unrelated Talpids called Shrew-moles? With all wildly unrelated talpids called shrew-moles, one is just called "Shrew mole" by MSW3 makes no sense, so I can't believe you that MSW3 says that. Prove it. Cite it. You must be wrong. Chrisrus (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Chrisrus. See this: dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enwiki/730454, which clearly shows that MSW3 name is simply shrew-mole. But there is no need to worry about any confusion. The disambiguation page at Shrew mole is perfectly clear, and I hope my recent addition of a hatnote at the head of Shrew-mole also helps. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 08:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You folks may not like me, but in the end, these articles and system have been and continue to be improved by my influence. About this, you will see why I did what I did and the problem that needs resolving. Then you can fix it yourself. Watch me. Chrisrus (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Yes, you have helped clarify a possible source of confusion, and have helped to push towards greater clarity and better disambiguation around this subject. But please refrain from the "don't like me" and "watch me" language! SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 09:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess it's not so much you, but what I meant was "watch what I am going to do, I want to demonstrate something".

As it stands, a person wanting to learn about shrew-moles, with a hyphen, gets directed to shrew-mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii). If they search for shrew mole, without a hyphen, they get the disambiguation page. Why should this be? Is there some important reason? Because it would really help if it both would send one to the disambiguation page.

Next, if shrew mole can't be re-titled American Shrew Mole, then could we not re-title it "Shrew Mole (American)" or "Shrew Mole" followed by the latin name in parentheses, on analogy with Mole (animal); for the purposes of disambiguation. Or something else of your own choosing. The term "shrew mole" is a very ambigous term by nature. There are seven animals animals that we know of that are referred to this way, some of which are quite the same and others quite different from each other. Chrisrus (talk) 01:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no way that I can figure out to re-direct both searches (with and without hyphan) to the disambituation page without changing the name of the article Shrew-mole to either Shrew mole (American) or something similar. As a result, I am going to wait a bit to see if you have a better idea, and then do that. Chrisrus (talk) 03:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The dab link at the top of Shrew-mole is adequate and sufficient. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to American shrew-mole. There is a consensus that the current title is less than ideal. The remaining question is where to move it. The option that has the most support and no explicit opposition is American shrew-mole. With evidence that this name is used widely in reliable sources, it is consistent with WP:Fauna name. Mkativerata (talk) 04:38, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus) → American shrew-mole—While "shrew-mole" is probably the most common name for this species, the term is also used for a variety of Asian species (see shrew mole) and therefore cannot be used as the article title for this species. The IUCN gives "American shrew-mole" as an alternative name, and I think it would be better to use that than the current awkward parenthetical form. I don't really care whether we use "shrew-mole" or "shrew mole": the form with the hyphen may be more common for this species, but the Asian species apparently usually don't get the hyphen. (If this move does not succeed, the article should at least be moved to Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus gibbsii), since there is more than one species in the genus Neurotrichus.) Ucucha 16:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SUPPORT (Reasoning given in section just above) Chrisrus (talk) 22:45, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that American shrew-mole is better than Shrew-mole (Neurotrichus), but I wonder if maybe Neurotrichus gibbsii would be best? Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Article_title sort of vaguely implies that you should only use common names when there is one that is both the most common and unambiguous. How common is American shrew-mole? I guess if it's pretty common then I support this move proposal. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 00:18, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not that common, I must admit. I would also be fine with using the scientific name. Ucucha 00:23, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If you search Google Scholar for "American Shrew Mole", you'll get 58 papers calling it that. Seems pretty common. Chrisrus (talk) 03:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support, seems uncontroversial, follows normal practice.--Kotniski (talk) 11:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Interesting citations

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1380433

Abstract Genetic variation within and among five genera and seven species of North American moles of the family Talpidae was examined using starch-gel electrophoresis. All loci examined, except LAP, were found to segregate for more than one allele among species, with a maximum of eight different alleles at any single locus. Average heterozygosity values (H̄) ranged from 0.00 to 0.015 in fossorial genera and up to 0.050 in the semifossorial Neurotrichus gibbsii. Allozymic data suggest that the Recent North American talpid fauna comprises two separate groups. These findings support the contention of Cabrera (1925) that the North American moles are most appropriately considered as two distinct subfamilies: the Condylurinae, including only the genus Condylura; and the Scalopinae, consisting of Scalopus, Neurotrichus, Parascalops, and Scapanus. Formal recognition of these subfamilies, however, must await Old World comparisons. Genetic similarity among genera excluding Condylura ranged from a low Roger's similarity value (S) of 0.28 between Scalopus and Parascalops to a high of 0.57 between Scapanus orarius and Neurotrichus, with the average S across genera being 0.46. These data suggest that Parascalops and Scapanus shared a common ancestor after the divergence of Scalopus. The allozymic data provided an estimated divergence time of from 25 to 38 million years BP for this dichotomy, and 49 million years for the divergence between Condylura and other North American genera.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2408071

Cant access any detail

http://books.google.com/books?id=T37sFCl43E8C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

http://www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.2108/zsj.21.1177