Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mammals (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Bat at GA[edit]

LittleJerry, Chiswick Chap, and I all got together to try and get Bat up to FA. We're at GA right now if you'd like to start the review. I'd also like to use this moment to shamelessly advertise Megalodon which is at FA and in no way related to this WikiProject   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:42, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy of Mammutidae[edit]

The taxonomic hierarchy for Mammutidae shown at Template:Taxonomy/Mammutidae can't be correct: the suborder Mammutida has the suborder Elephantiformes above it. I don't know enough about the taxonomy of this group to fix this – can someone do it? Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Well, it can be correct if we ignore arbitrary Linnean ranks, and it seems Mammutida is simply a redundant rank with the same content as Mammutidae anyway. Not that I know much about the actual higher level classification of Mammutidae. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
The suborder Elephantiformes is anomalous. It should be below Elephantimorpha. Either way it probably shouldn't be a suborder as the -morpha and -formes taxa are generally added to include extinct groups that the traditional taxons didn't cover. The article on Elephantiformes has Elephantimorpha as a subgroup, but this must be wrong. I'll have a look tomorrow if someone else doesn't fix it beforehand.   Jts1882 | talk  20:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Never make assumptions about taxonomic names. I thought it was a mammal convention that the -formes and -morpha taxan were successive outer taxa from the traditional orders. For instance, Carnivoramorpha includes Viverrivdae and Carnivoriformes, with the latter including miacides and crown Carnivora. The taxonomy of Proboscidea inverts the hierarchy with the order Proboscidea including stem groups and Elephantiformes, which in turn include Phiomiidae, Palaeomastodontidae, and Elephantimorpha, with Elephantimorpha including Mammutida (mastodons) and Elephantida (elephants, mammoths, etc).
The hierarchy in the taxonomy template is correct. I've change the rank of Mammutida to clade. It's above the superfamilies and below Elephantimorpha within suborder Elephantiformes.   Jts1882 | talk  09:20, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
@Jts1882: thanks for sorting this. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK and biological terms that are also common words[edit]

There's a dispute at at Cat about linking to fur in the lead of the article. There's long been a link there, on the basis that fur is a biological characteristic of the species, along with it being a carnivore, etc. This was removed recently on the basis that it's WP:OVERLINKing. I restored it with an edit summary of "Not overlinking in this context; we mean the biological topic fur; if this were an article about carpet, no link, because the fur article isn't about 'that which is fuzzy' in general" [1] (not the most serious thing to say, but what I think is a correct assessment). This was WP:IDONTLIKEIT-reverted again [2] ("not needed"), and I restored it again, but this is turning into a revert war. I'd rather have some general mammal editors' input on whether to preserve the link or not.  — SMcCandlish ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ʌ<  16:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

put simply, keep the link   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Could be either way: fur, like warm-bloodedness (homoiothermy) and having a 4-chambered heart and mammary glands, is a distinguishing characteristic of mammals - so yes, it is a technical aspect and worth linking, but since cat is just one of thousands of mammals, it would be right to link it in mammal and not mention it at all in any mammalian species article. If you're not linking homoiothermy then why link fur, might be the answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Do we want to make peramelian redirect to Peramelemorphia?[edit]

Do we want to make peramelian redirect to Peramelemorphia? -- 189.122.198.138 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

A redirect to Peramelidae would probably be more appropriate. I don't think bilbies (family Thylacomyidae) would be considered peramelians.   Jts1882 | talk  08:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

We should split the articles Manidae and Pholidota. (e.g. Pangolins)[edit]

We should split the articles Manidae and Pholidota.

Currently both Manidae and Pholidota redirect to Pangolin. Manidae is a family: "pangolins". (Per the article) Pholidota is an order: "ORDER PHOLIDOTA 'sensu lato' (Pholidotamorpha)" - with something like 50 non-pangolin clades listed in the article.

IMHO there's certainly enough difference between the terms Manidae and Pholidota to justify making them separate articles. (Presumably Manidae should redirect to Pangolin, as currently.)

Thoughts?

-- 189.122.198.138 (talk) 00:39, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. the list in the pangolin article includes many groups that are not pangolins and seems orphaned at the end of the article. The exact scope of Pholidota seems to be in flux. A lot of extinct groups can be included in Pholidota or put in Pholidotamorpha, which is an alternatve for a higher taxon article. There is even the possiblility that creodonts would be part of the broader group as a sistergroup to the Carnivoramorpha. However, there is not much apart from the list that would be the basis of a new article.   Jts1882 | talk  08:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

21st endemic mammal of Sri Lanka?[edit]

Folks, back in 2009 I wrote the article, List of endemic mammals of Sri Lanka. Back then we had 16 endemic mammals in the island.

  1. Red slender loris
  2. Toque macaque
  3. Purple-faced langur
  4. Layard's palm squirrel
  5. Mayor's mouse
  6. Ceylon spiny mouse
  7. Nillu rat
  8. Ohiya rat
  9. Nolthenius's long-tailed climbing mouse
  10. Sri Lankan long-tailed shrew
  11. Pearson's long-clawed shrew
  12. Jungle shrew
  13. Sri Lankan shrew
  14. Golden palm civet
  15. Sri Lankan spotted chevrotain
  16. Yellow-striped chevrotain

Citation: Weerakoon, D. K.; de A. Goonatilake, W. L. D. P. T. S. (2006). "Taxonomic Status of the Mammals of Sri Lanka". In Bambaradeniya, C.N.B. Fauna of Sri Lanka: Status of Taxonomy, Research and Conservation (PDF). The World Conservation Union, Colombo, Sri Lanka & Government of Sri Lanka. pp. 216–231. ISBN 955-8177-51-2. 

Taxonomic revisions since then;

How ever the same author say the number is 21 now in Weerakoon, Devaka K. (2012). "The Taxonomy and Conservation Status of Mammals in Sri Lanka". In Weerakoon, D.K.; S. Wijesundara. The National Red List 2012 of Sri Lanka; Conservation Status of the Fauna and Flora (PDF). Ministry of Environment, Colombo, Sri Lanka. pp. 134–144. ISBN 978-955-0033-55-3. 

I count only 20. What I am missing here? Any help to solve this puzzle is much appreciated. Cheers--Chanaka L (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

well since Funambulus sublineatus is species number 18, and then we have 3 more species to add (Paradoxurus aureus, Paradoxurus montanus, Paradoxurus stenocephalus), and 18+3=21, I’m gonna say we’re good here   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  14:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
@User:Dunkleosteus77 No, because splitting a species into three only adds two more species (not 3 more). 'Cheers, Loopy30 (talk) 14:42, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
What about the Sri Lankan Giant Squirrel (Ratufa macroura)? Edit: ignore that. It is found is southern India as the grizzled giant squirrel.  Jts1882 | talk  17:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)