Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal species

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconMammals Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

How do you proceed ?[edit]

@UtherSRG, how does it work ? Is Number 1 (Crocidura balsamifera) the one you (or the wikiproject) want to do first ?

Also, would you like me to place them in alphabetical order and/or go through the MMD Version 1.10 Data set, and see which of the 225 are still species and which are not ?

Thanks ! Gimly24 (talk) 20:31, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Out of the 225 species, i listed the genus [Here] (and number of species represented in the article page):
Suncus (1) --- > Present in MDD V.1.10
Sylvisorex (5) -- > All the species are back to Suncus and Sylvisorex lixus --- > Suncus lixa
Blarina (1) --- > Present
Cryptotis (1) --- > Present
Episoriculus (4) --- > All Present
Equus (2) --- > Both lumped in E. hemionus, Groves and Grubbs (2011) is not retained
Sylvilagus (1) --- > Present
Arctonyx (1) --- > Present
Dactylopsila (1) --- > Present
Marmosa (3) -- > All Present
Monodelphis (4) --- > All Present
Marmosops (1) --- > Present
Thylamys (2) --- > Present, but both lumped in T. pusillus. Comment (T. pusillus) : "includes citellus and pulchellus, although some authors continue to recognize both species"
Cervus (9) --- >
Cervus calamianensis --- > Present but is in genus Axis (Calamian Deer)
Cervus davidianus ---- > Present but is in genus Elaphurus (Père David's Deer)
Cervus hortulorum --- > Present but in the species Cervus nippon (Sika Deer)
Cervus kuhlii ---- > Present but is in genus Axis (Bawean Deer)
Cervus macneilli --- > Present but in the species Cervus canadensis (Wapiti), which is a split of C. elaphus (Western Red Deer, because Eastern Red Deer is C. hanglu, which is a split of C. elaphus)
Cervus porcinus --- > Present but is in genus Axis (Hog Deer)
Cervus taiouanus --- > Present but in the species Cervus nippon (Sika Deer)
Cervus xanthopygus --- > Present but in the species Cervus canadensis, which is a split of C. elaphus
Cervus yesoensis --- > Not present, and not mentioned in the Taxonomy notes of C. nippon.
Muntiacus (1) -- > Present And the species has a page already Muntiacus vaginalis [Edit : the page is the indian muntjac, so might need modifications or a new page for the species]
Microtus (1) -- > Present
Eothenomys (2) --- > Both present but these two species were recently moved to genus Anteliomys and the species tarquinus had spelling change (tarquinius).
Neotoma (1) -- > Present
Peromyscus (1) -- > Present
Reithrodontomys (3) -- > All present
Oxymycterus (1) --- > Present
Holochilus (1) --- > Present
Oligoryzomys (1) --- > Present
Eligmodontia (2) --- > All present
Phyllotis (1) --- > Present
Tapecomys (1) --- > Present
Abrawayomys (1) --- > Included under A. ruschii since 2017 ?, but some authors still recognize it as distinct.
Rhipidomys (3) --- > All present
Thomasomys (2) --- > All present
Cratogeomys (1) -- > Present
Geomys (3) --- > All present
Miniopterus (1) --- > Present
Hylomyscus (2) --- > All present
Musseromys (3) --- > All present
Pseudohydromys (2) -- > All present
Niviventer (1) --- > Present
Acomys (3) -- > All present
Lophuromys (12) --- > The 12 species are in the data set !!!
Gerbilliscus (5) --- > All present
Grammomys (1) --- > Present
Archboldomys (1) --- > Present
Brassomys (1) --- > Present
Pogonomelomys (1) --- > Present
Pseudomys (1) --- > Present
Soricomys (2) --- > All present
Coryphomys (1) --- > Present
Otomys (8) --- > All 8 are in the dataset !
Dipodomys (1) --- > Present
Heteromys (2) -- > All Present
Chaetodipus (1) -- > Present
Galea (2) --- > All present
Ctenomys (2) --- > All present
Dendromus (1) --- > Present
Eospalax (3) --- > All present
Prosciurillus (2) --- > All present
Marmota (1) --- > Present
Funisciurus (1) -- > Present
Peropteryx (1) --- > Present
Micronycteris (1) --- > Present
Vampyrodes (1) --- > Present
Murina (5) --- > All present
Scotophilus (1) -- > Present
Crocidura (1) -- Not present. However, it's likely it just wasn't one of the 101 extinct species featured in the data set.
Ochotona (1) --- > Not Present ? Now considered (?) a synonym of O. mantchurica. Since the name Scorodumovi was younger than mantchurica (1909), i'm guessing that's why O. mantchurica didn't change name when it started including O. scorodumovi... In brief, it's a synonym of O. mantchurica.
Elephas (1) --- > Not one of the small sample (101 out of 6615) of extinct mammals in the data set. Elephas only contains the Asian Elephant in the data set and do not present the extinct species.
Phascolosorex (1) --- > Not Present. brevicaudata is a younger nominal name used for P. dorsalis. I'm guessing it's a junior synonym (of P. dorsalis) by the look of it
Murexia (1) --- > Not present, but Murexia melanurus (previously melanura) could represent a complex of species. Would be a junior synonym of M. melanura.
Thylogale (1) ---> Not part of the small sample size (n = 101) of extinct mammal species featured in the MDD Version 1.10.
Petauroides (1) --- > Not part of the small sample size (n = 101) of extinct mammal species featured in the MDD Version 1.10.
Acratocnus (4) --- > this is not a genus present in the data set
Paramiocnus (1) --- > this is not a genus present in the data set
Neocnus (5) --- > this is not a genus present in the data set
Megalocnus (1) --- > this is not a genus present in the data set
Parocnus (2) --- > this is not a genus present in the data set
Cricetulus (2) --- > Not present. Cricetulus kamensis moved to the genus Urocricetus and both tibetana and lama are lumped back in it. They are both synonyms of the species since kamensis (1903) is the earliest name (from what i understand)
Mesocricetus (2) --- > Not present. I can't seem to find anything about M. rathgeberi in the data set. For M. nigriculus, it is a junior synonym of Mesocricetus raddei.
Akodon (3) --- > A. polopi is present, the other 2 are not. Akodon glaucinus and Akodon tartareus are synonyms of Akodon simulator. They are junior synonyms.
Zygodontomys (1) --- > Not present. Junior synonym of Zygodontomys brevicauda. Authority year of this name is 1897 (J. A. Allen) in the data set and not 1895 as given in the Wikiproject Page.
Andinomys (1) --- > Not present. Junior Synonym of Andinomys edax (1902, O. Thomas).
Thomomys (5) --- > T. atrovarius is present, the other 4 are not. Anitae, fulvus and laticeps are junior synonyms of Thomomys bottae. T. chihuahuae is a junior synonym of Thomomys sheldoni (a split of Thomomys umbrinus).
Hipposideros (5) --- > H. nicobarulae is present aswell as H. cryptovalorona (this one under the genus Macronycteris), the other 3 are not. Celebensis is a junior synonym of Hipposideros cervinus. Fasensis and parnabyi are junior synonym of Doryhina wollastoni.
Spilogale (1) --- > Not present. Didn't find anything in the file.
Dasymys (5) --- > All present except D. shortridgei (which is a junior synonym of D. cabrali)
Mallomys (2) --- > I don't see Mallomys species with their names in the data set (either in the Common Name or Other Names section). In the dataset, there are four species in the Genus Mallomys : M. aroaensis (De Vis's Woolly Rat), M. gunung (Alpine Woolly Rat), M. istapantap (Subalpine Woolly Rat) and M. rothschildi (Rothschild's Woolly Rat). Remark there is the Arfak Water Rat (Leptomys arfakensis) but i don't know if that's the same species the Wikiproject page is talking about. There is also the Vogelkop Mountain Rat (Rattus arfakiensis) which another name for this species is the Arfak Rat... Didn't find anything regarding a mammal with a name called Foja.
Uromys (2) --- > Not present. Both are junior synonyms of U. caudimaculatus.
Praomys (2) --- > Not present. Both are junior synonyms of Montemys delectorum.
Leopoldamys (4) --- > L. diwangkarai and L. herberti are present. Revertens is a juinor synonym of L. herbeti while vociferans is a junior synonym of L. sabanus.
Rattus (1) --- > Not present. Unicolor is a junior synonym of R. verecundus.
Perognathus (1) --- > Not present. Junior synonym of P. longimembris.
Cryptomys (3) --- > C. natalensis is present, the other 2 are not. Holosericeus is a junior synonym of C. hottentotus while anomalus is a junior synonym of C. natalensis.
Capromys (1) --- > Not present. However, it's likely it just wasn't one of the 101 extinct species featured in the data set.
Geocapromys (1) --- > Not present. However, it's likely it just wasn't one of the 101 extinct species featured in the data set.
Mesocapromys (5) --- > None of them are present.However, it's likely they just weren't one of the 101 extinct species featured in the data set.
Makalata (1) --- > Not present. Junior synonym of Makalata didelphoides.
Dicolpomys (1) --- > Not present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.
Proechimys (1) --- > Not present ? Hoplomys gymnurus is the Armored Rat and authority is O. Thomas, 1897. I think it simply moved genus !
Clyomys (1) --- > Not present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.
Euryzygomatomys (1) --- > Not present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.
Tainotherium (1) --- > Not Present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.
Allactaga (1) --- > Here it is particular. Allactaga toussi moved to genus Scarturus. Then, Scarturus elater splitted in 3 : S. elater, S. heptneri and S. indicus. Scarturus toussi (Previously Allactaga toussi) was lumped inside S. indicus. (I will recheck later again all the species, i'm only quickly looking and taking a few notes right now)
Jaculus (1) --- > Not present. Thaleri is a junior synonym of J. blanfordi.
Spalax (2) --- > Not present. I didn't find anything on S. munzuri anywhere in the file. However, Spalax tuncelicus is a junior synonym of Nannospalax ehrenbergi.
Eliomys (1) --- > Not present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.

:Mormopterus (1) --- > Present but under the genus Ozimops and the name cobourgianus (instead of cobourgiana) !

Rhinolophus (2) --- > R. chiewkweeae is present, not R. robertsi. Robertsi is a junior synonym of R. philippinensis.
Anoura (1) --- > Not present. Junior synonym of A. latidens and under the name carishina (instead of canishina)
Lonchophylla (2) --- > Not present. L. cadenai likely is Anoura cadenai (why has the same authority but described in 2006, not 2010). L. pattoni is present under the genus Hsunycteris (Hsunycteris pattoni).
Cubanycteris (1) --- > Not present. Likely not one of the 101 extinct mammals species featured in the data set.
Platyrrhinus (5) --- > Except P. nigellus, all of them are present. nigellus is a junior synonym of P. umbratus.
Scotophilis (1) --- > there is no genus Scotophilis and no species Scotophilis mhlanganii... in the dataset.
Plecotus (1) --- > Not present. begognae is a junior synonym of P. auritus.
Lasiurus (1) --- > Not present. Junior synonym of L. blossevillii (previously spelled blossevilli)

I'le continue later (Edit : Done a first real quick look, now i'm gonna another look with those are not present in the data set)Gimly24 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC) Gimly24 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply] 

Gimly24 (talk) 21:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've been going through this list when I have time, looking for ones that have a reference and that also have an IUCN entry. If they are "split from X" I've been skipping them, since that would also mean updating that species article. Check the history and you can see I've mostly been moving down the list. No order intended, just going top down from convenience. So yes, if you want to provide the appropriate reference to the MMD on each, and mark non-species as such (whether they are subspecies, or have a different generic placement, or what not) that'd be great. Also, note the contents of the destination of Muntiacus vaginalis. It's another species, and M. vaginalis is listed there as a subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ! I'm on it. And gotcha for the Muntjac ! Gimly24 (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bawean deer - Axis kuhlii (#51)
Père David's deer - Elaphurus davidianus (#49)
Calamian deer - Axis calamianensis (#48)
Indian hog deer - Axis porcinus (#53) Gimly24 (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@UtherSRG YOWIE WOWIE ! I think i'm done lol ! A good number of them are synonyms of species. I made in bold those that are not species in the MDD V.1.10 or that are species but that changed genus and/or names ! Let me know what you think. Gimly24 (talk) 20:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, it would be really helpful if you put the actual reference to the species that should be used in the article, in instead of "present in MDD". Then, folks can just grab the ref right from the listing to paste into the new article. It'd be relatively easy to do if we have a MDD citation template. So maybe work that up first? We might already have one listed on the Mammal's Project page. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know to make a citation template... When you mean reference to the species that should be used in the article, not all of them have taxonomy notes linking to a publication... For example, Suncus niger have the same comments and citation that you already had (Meegaskymbura, S., Schneider, C.J. 2008. A taxonomic evaluation of the shew Suncus montanus (Soricidae: Crocidurinae) of Sri Lanka in India. Ceylon Journal of Science (Biological Sciences) 37(2): 129-136.). Sylvilagus gabbii as quoted : split from S. brasiliensis and previously included S. incitatus, and they cite :
Ruedas, L.A., Salazar-Bravo, J. 2007. Morphological and chromosomal taxonomic assessment of Sylvilagus brasiliensis gabbi (Leboridae). Mammalia: 63-69.
Ruedas, LA, Silva, SM, French, JH, Platt, RN, Salazar-Bravo, J., Mora, JM, & Thompson, CW (2019). Taxonomy of the Sylvilagus brasiliensis complex in Central and South America (Lagomorpha: Leporidae). Journal of Mammalogy , 100 (5), 1599-1630.
Is that what you want me to add as a reference for each species i said stuff on with the MDD ?
Aswell they use the common name Central American Tapeti and others common names Central American Forest Rabbit and Tropical Cottontail for this species.
Thanks. Gimly24 (talk) 13:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
{{cite MDD}} - Here's where you'd start with making a template. If we are going to say "yay or nay" on making an article based on its existence in the MDD, we should cite the MDD's entry for the species. Take a look at {{MSW3}} (I really should get that moved to {{cite MSW3}} some day...) to see how we fill in some specific items to make a new citation template. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, i can get behind that. I will study the link you provided in detail. One note tho, the entries are from a dataset and it's filled by orders and other taxonomical ranks and each of those species have an ID. For example, the platypus id is 1000001. Gimly24 (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, a better template to start from is {{cite iucn}}. I think we'd want it to look something like this in the end, with species-specific tailoring parameters:
  • "Dipodomys deserti (ASM Mammal Diversity Database #1001892)". Mammal Diversity Database 2022. Retrieved 23 January 2023.
The user would do something like this: {{cite MDD|genus=genus|species=species|id=id|access-date=todays date}} UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The MDD has a few sample citations on their About page. However, Wikipedia has its own MOS. I think this example suffices both their About and our MOS. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OH WOW ! That's much simpler. The information in the data set is resumed there and i can actually linked to the specific species status or the species that the <<species>> are now included to ! That's much more pratical then referring to the data set as a whole (the one that needs to be downloaded at that). WOW. Thanks a lot.
Gimly24 (talk) 13:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, uh... I tried to figure how that worked, and i can't progress. like how did {{cite IUCN}} instantly = IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Like i'm trying to code that {{cite MDD}} means : https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html (explore the database) or Mammal diversity database thingy. Personally, i'm completely lost in the process of making/creating a template, and it seems like a waste of my time, i tried reading the templates links and understand the coding... but it seems too complicated for me. I might not have describe accurately the problems I am facing right now. I'm not good at coding at all. Gimly24 (talk) 15:16, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well.... look at that... i'm dumb. Template:BioRef is exactly giving what we suggest doing i think. let's see : "Dipodomys deserti (ASM Mammal Diversity Database #1001892)". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 23 January 2023.Gimly24 (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
so {{BioRef|asm|genus=Dipodomys|species=deserti|id=1001892|access-date=23 January 2023|title= ''Dipodomys deserti (ASM Mammal Diversity Database #1001892)''|url=https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Dipodomys&species=deserti&id=1001892s}} - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gimly24 (talk • contribs)

No. We don't want the user to have to enter the title/url manually. That can be formulated programmatically. Hence making a new template that does that for the user. If you want to code it off of {{BioRef}} instead of whatever {{MSW3}} or {{cite iucn}} use as the base is totally fine, as long as what the user just needs to do looks like this: {{cite MDD|genus=Dipodomys|species=deserti|id=1001892|access-date=23 January 2023}} - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Of course... yes, it would be easier for all of us. But like i said, i don't know how to create a template properly and correctly. I will take a try at it again. But no more than 30 minutes, because i tried for 2 hours to create the template suggested without anything coming out of it and it made me mad.Gimly24 (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. Don't drive angry, Phil. ;) Ok. If you can't get something, I'll work on it when I have a chance this evening. In the meantime, using BioRef is counterproductive. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Thanks. Gimly24 (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wait. I see why you want to use BioRef. Ok, I'll work on updating the BioRef code to produce better output. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ! I liked their coding. It's just that i needed to override their stuff (Title + Link) to be specific about which animal we are talking about. Gimly24 (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have two thoughts on this project to update missing mammals:
  • One, what is their stance on Leopardus colocola, the Pampas cat, which was proposed in 2021 to be split into five species (L. colocola, L. braccatus, L. garleppi, L. munoai and L. pajeros).
  • Two, you might want to reach out to User:PresN, who is slowly working on making featured lists of mammals, since you are changing things.
Good luck. SilverTiger12 (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Pampas cat species split is retained as of the latest revision and (earliers). Furthermore, in the last revision, L. munoai was renamed to L. fasciatus. This change is due to the fact that fasciatus (Larrañaga, 1923), is a older name available than munoai (Ximénez, 1961) for the species.
  • Yes, sure thing. I'le keep this user works in mind. Thanks !
Gimly24 (talk) 18:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, take a look at Draft:Template:Cite MDD for how to do what I was thinking. BioRef's asm url is broken. I've a note to the author to fix it.
There's your lesson for the day. ;) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome ! Thank you ! I will note this somewhere on my computer. Gimly24 (talk) 23:33, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I don't know that we need to do that, though. The BioRef template has been fixed, though we do need to use all 3 params (genus, species, id) because the website is broken... it should allow id alone, or just genus and species. Ah well. And I've been told we don't need the extra formating I put into the draft. I'll move it to my user space for the time being. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
<<Yeah, I don't know that we need to do that, though>>
Do what ? override manually for it to work like i did yesterday, say for Equus hemippus or the Sylvisorex species ?
<<And I've been told we don't need the extra formating I put into the draft. I'll move it to my user space for the time being>>
Ok, sounds good. Thanks for showing how you did the template yesterday. I was completely in the field as to what i was supposed to do. Gimly24 (talk) 13:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, hopefully none of these additions should have any impact on the lists that I've been making- they should all be following the Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals#Guidelines of "whatever's in MSW3, unless IUCN and ASM agree on a change", which means that these agreed-upon splits should have rows in the lists that have a redlink today. (Though, ironically, I haven't fixed the felid list yet, which means that for the Pampas cat it still has what the IUCN cat group says (1 species), even though the disagreement between the IUCN and ASM means that it should be at the "wrong" split of MSW3 with 3 species. I haven't gone back to fix that list yet.)
In any case, I did some work a while back on the cite iucn template, so let me know if you want another pair of eyes on the new cite MDD template you're making. --PresN 03:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi PresN, if you are referring to Wikipedia:WikiProject Mammals/Missing mammal genera, that is for now and probably a good amount of time, just something that I'm comparing genus pages of the wikipedia and the latest Revision of the MDD and making comments. It's at such an early stage and do not intend to change stuff inside wikipedia pages in the near future, but somewhat in the longer run. Briefly, it's for comments. Ex : Ailurus (Red Pandas), A. styani been recognized by some authors as a split of A. fulgens as soon as 2011 (Groves, C.) and more detailed study fortifying that separation from the original species (A. fulgens) were provided in Hu, Y. et al (2020 & 2022). I don't really understand what you mean by :
<<which means that these agreed-upon splits should have rows in the lists that have a redlink today>>
or by :
<<which means that for the Pampas cat it still has what the IUCN cat group says (1 species), even though the disagreement between the IUCN and ASM means that it should be at the "wrong" split of MSW3 with 3 species>>
There is also L. munoai (now fasciatus) and L. garleppi. But those are fairly new. Also the last assessment of the IUCN on the Pampas Cat dates from either 2016 or 2014 (6/7 - 8/9 years)... That's another good period of time... in my opinion.
I appreciate your offer for the help on the template fabrication. I looked at what UtherSRG built up and i think i can use that a lot. I don't know if it has to become a page instead of a draft or if it's already in function tho. Gimly24 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the split of the Pampas cat, we (and the IUCN) are also missing another tigrina split Leopardus emiliae, which seems reasonably accepted in the field. The IUCN Cat Specialist group did a massive review of felid taxonomy in 2017, which is what WikiProject Cats uses as our primary reference for (extant) felid taxonomy. Hopefully they will do an update of some sort soon to take the recent proposed splits into account. SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, indeed !!!
<<The IUCN Cat Specialist group [...], which is what WikiProject Cats uses as our primary reference for (extant) felid taxonomy.>>
Good to know ! Thanks ! Gimly24 (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks[edit]

These species already have pages, are recognized by both MDD and IUCN. I'm writing the differences and current numbers (in the WikiProject Page) below :

Search for "suncus" | Results (18)

Northern Hog Badger (Arctonyx albogularis)

Wolffsohn's Leaf-eared Mouse | Thomas, 1902 | Phyllotis wolffsohni


User:Rlendog redirected the Cervus species that were species to their genuses. Hence why they now show in blue (#48, #49, #51, #53).Gimly24 (talk) 18:08, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I redirected to their actual species pages. Cervus is not generally recognized as the valid genus for these species. Rlendog (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed ! I didn't understand who made these changes so I had to find out who did and note it here. Thanks for doing the redirects. Gimly24 (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting[edit]

Ok, now that Gimly24 has indicated which entries are listed in the MDD, and I've indicated which ones are listed in the IUCN redlist, I plan to sort the list into the following buckets:

  1. Listed in both MDD and IUCN
    1. Listed as is in both, new species listing. Can easily make a new stub article.
    2. Listed as is in both, split from another species. Can easily make a new stub article, but need to also review the species article it is split off from.
    3. Listed as another name in both MDD and IUCN. Can easily make a new stub article. Can use the original proposed name as a synonym.
    4. Listed as another name in either MDD or IUCN, but not both. Will need to assess as to which binomial is the right one to use for the article, and which to use as a synonym.
  2. Listed as valid in only one. Probably should not make a new article at this time. Could update the genus article (if this is a new species) or previous species article (if this is a split off of that species) or both with the discrepancy.
  3. Not listed as valid in either. Definitely should not make a new article at this time. Could update the genus article (if this is a new species) or previous species article (if this is a split off of that species) or both with the discrepancy.
  4. Extinct or fossil entry. These will need treatment differently than legitimate extant species.

UtherSRG (talk) 14:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment 1 : Sounds good. Structuring is helpful and I appreciate your will to do that. I seem to understand every bucket except 1.1 ? When you mean "new species", are you referring from MSW3 only (per say, new as of 2005) ?
  • Comment 2 : I done [[Monodelphis peruviana]] and did the modifications to [[Monodelphis adusta]] maybe a week and a half ago with the help of User:PresN. We fixed the problem with this species that was occurring in List of didelphimorphs and that incorrectly linked to [[Monodelphis ronaldi]]. We also redirected Pine's Opossum to Ronald's Opossum. Maybe check this up and remove this one from the wikiproject when you reviewed the changes. Let me know on this...
  • Comment 3 : Ochotona scorodumovi is not listed in both MDD and IUCN. I precised in the notes i made from the MDD dataset (V.1.10) that this name is a junior synonym of Ochotona mantchurica, which also do not have a page on wikipedia but is listed in Ochotona (O. mantchurica that is)
  • Comment 4 : Arctonyx AlbOgularis is present in both MDD and IUCN. See section "Remarks" of this talk page. The species name in this wikiproject page is simply mispelled. Also see Arctonyx albogularis (Northern Hog Badger). This species is already done. You can remove it. I forgot to mention it in my comments.
  • Comment 5 : Peromyscus latirostris is Present in the MDD only. In the wikiproject page, it is presented as not-listed in both.
  • Comment 6 : Reithrodontomys cherrii is Present in the MDD only. In the wikiproject page, it is presented as not-listed in both.
  • Comment 7 : Reithrodontomys garichensis is Present in the MDD only. In the wikiproject page, it is presented as not-listed in both.
  • Comment 8 : Dactylopsila kambuayai is a fossil/extinct species that is present in the MDD. I do not know if this change something to the buckets...
  • Comment 9 : Scotophilus mhlanganii was mispelled in the wikiproject page.Furthermore, it redirect to the wrong species (S. viridis; Eastern greenish yellow bat). In fact, it's a nomen nudum of S. dinganii (African yellow bat).[1]Also see Jacobs et al. (2006, 2007 & 2009)[2][3][4]
  • Comment 10 : I'm going to be more busy with University in the next weeks.
Gimly24 (talk) 00:45, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I've updated the page per comments 2-8. "New species" means just that, it's new. New (initial) description. Wasn't a valid taxon previously. These are easier to create articles for as there are no concerns about having to edit another species' article to remove outdated information. Cf. "split from" where the species was a valid taxon at one point (perhaps as a subspecies or as a synonym) but is now elevated to a full species status. While the article itself may be easy to create, updates to the taxon it is split from need to be handled. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much ! I added two new sub-sub sections (1.2.1 and 1.2.2).
  • 1.2 Listed in one but not the other
  • 1.2.1 Listed in IUCN only (NEW ADDITION) from the format presented above by UtherSRG.
  • 1.2.2 Listed in MDD only (NEW ADDITION) from the format presented above by UtherSRG.
On another note, I wouldn't mind removing the comments and references to MDD and IUCN for those species already categorized
  • Reason : It's much more clean and easier to assess now with the buckets you established and them being well defined, we could just refer the references to a 1-line sentence below each section.
I don't know if it make sense ? But it would clear up a bit and highlight the other comments made for the species already categorized. I would keep some that have comments of the MDD that isn't exactly as Comments : Species present in the MDD Version 1.10.<ref name="Mammal Diversity Database (V.1.10)"/> Just wanted to throw this idea up as a food for thoughts :)Gimly24 (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with that, with the caveat that leaving them in initially helped you see where I'd made some mistakes. So I'll continue to throw the uncategorized ones into the right bucket, then at some point we can strip away the fluff. Oh, and some of the MDD comments provide additional information (such as jr synonym) so that information could be added to the existing article... so maybe not strip away those comments all at once but assess based on the other articles? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid !
<< Oh, and some of the MDD comments provide additional information (such as jr synonym) so that information could be added to the existing article... so maybe not strip away those comments all at once but assess based on the other articles? >>
Yeah, like i said, i would simply (when the time is right) strip the comments that are "the default type" (the type comment one i posted is in nowiki. And yes, sure thing for the junior synonyms. Although they do not mention (most of the time) that they are junior synonyms, the columns in the MDD Dataset "nominalNames" gives a lot of them with Authority and Year. When i was going through the ITIS Website, i learned about the Junior Synonyms concept and some others stuff (but I mostly retained junior synonyms) and based on that and the information given for each nominal name given in the MDD dataset (Authority, Year), I added the term junior synonym because the name was given later than the one for the species that now included this name. For example, Leopardus colocola munoai was a name available when it was a subspecies of the Pampas cat. However, after the being separated and elevated to species status, the name "munoai" (Ximenez 1961) was younger than "fasciatus" (Larrañaga, 1923) (so the species name changed to the older/oldest available name). In this case, the change is recent (being Leopardus munoai in MDD V.1.9). The given information in the column Taxonomy notes of MDD V.1.10 is as quoted :
''Split from L. braccatus (and from L. colocola after being lumped); previously known under the name munoai, but the name fasciatus (previously a synonym of L. pajeros) appears to represent the oldest name for this species''
Also, some of them like mountain lion or brown bear have like 40+ binomial names, so junior synonyms and other stuff shouldn't be necessarily added ? But yes, of course I would keep these comments. Gimly24 (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]


Comment #9 important citation (Vallo and van Cakenberghe, 2017): 

At about the same time, Jacobs et al. (2006) published the existence of a cryptic species within the Southern African S. dinganii, clearly distinct in morphology, echolocation and genetics from the latter species. It was provisionally named S. mhlanganii, but it was never formally described. Although it has been mentioned in two ecological studies (Jacobs et al., 2007; Jacobs and Barclay 2009), it is currently a nomen nudum (see Monadjem et al., 2010; van Cakenberghe and Happold 2013).

Gimly24 (talk) 15:41, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@UtherSRG : I just wanted to let you know that I added the IUCN assessment, IUCN common name (when given) and the citations for 19 of the 20 species in the section "Split from existing". Leopoldamys herberti isn't recognized by the IUCN ? Maybe a mistake was made while sorting the species ?
Link : (Genus) : 7 species : ciliatus, diwangkarai, edwardsi, milleti, neilli, sabanus and siporanus (https://www.iucnredlist.org/search?taxonomies=102711&searchType=species) Gimly24 (talk) 02:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Yup... we're only human... :) - UtherSRG (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Others (After MSW3)[edit]

@User:SilverTiger12, we will start by the MSW3 species to not derail the wikiproject progress bar and objectives. I'm placing your edit below. The bucket of MDD Species only are the missing species from MSW3 that are recognized by the MDD but not IUCN. Gimly24 (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Leopardus emiliae (wd | gwp gwe g | in it p powo) Leopardus (O. Thomas 1914) Split from Leopardus tigrinus by Nascimento, F. O., & Feijó, A. (2017).[5] Currently a redirect to Oncilla.Not IUCN valid
  2. Leopardus braccatus (wd | gwp gwe g | in it p powo) (Cope, 1889) Split from Leopardus colocolo, currently listed as a subspecies.[6]
  3. Leopardus garleppi (wd | gwp gwe g | in it p powo) (Matschie, 1912) Split from L. colocolo, currently a redirect to that article.[7]
  4. Leopardus fasciatus (wd | gwp gwe g | in it p powo) (Larrañaga, 1923) Split from L. colocolo, currently a redirect to that article.[7][8]
  5. Leopardus pajeros (wd | gwp gwe g | in it p powo) (Desmarest, 1816) Split from L. colocolo, currently a redirect to that article.[7]

Edit : Nevermind, i see they are present on Ucucha list. Gimly24 (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Vallo, P., & Van Cakenberghe, V. (2017). Advances in taxonomy of African house bats (Scotophilus, Vespertilionidae). African Bat Conservation News, 46, 1-6.https://www.africanbats.org/Documents/Papers/Vallo_and_Van_Cakenberghe_2017.pdf
  2. ^ Jacobs, D. S., Eick G. N., Schoeman M. C. and Mathee C. A. 2006. Cryptic species in an insectivorous bat, Scotophilus dinganii. Journal of Mammalogy 87 (1): 161—170. doi: 10.1644/04-MAMM-A-132R2.1.
  3. ^ Jacobs, D. S., Kelly, E. J., Mason, M. and Stoffberg, S. 2007. Thermoregulation in two free-ranging subtropical insectivorous bat species: Scotophilus species (Vespertilionidae). Canadian Journal of Zoology 85: 883—890. doi: 10.1139/Z07-067.
  4. ^ Jacobs, D. S. and Barclay, R. M. R. 2009. Niche differentiation in two sympatric sibling bat species, Scotophilus dinganii and Scotophilus mhlanganii. Journal of Mammalogy 90 (4): 879—887. doi:10.1644/08-MAMM-A-235.1.
  5. ^ Nascimento, F.O.; Anderson Feijo. "Taxonomic revision of the oncillas Leopardus tigrinus (Schreber, 1775)(Carnivora, Felidae)". Papéis Avulsos de Zoologia (Sú Paulo). 57 (19). doi:10.11606/0031-1049.2017.57.19.
  6. ^ Nascimento, F. O. D., Cheng, J., & Feijó, A. (2020). Taxonomic revision of the pampas cat Leopardus colocola complex (Carnivora: Felidae): an integrative approach. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society.
  7. ^ a b c Cite error: The named reference colocolo was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  8. ^ Martínez-Lanfranco, J. A., & González, E. M. (2022). The oldest available name for the pampas cat of the Uruguayan Savannah ecoregion is Leopardus fasciatus (Larrañaga 1923). Therya, 13(3), 259-264.

Recent Otomys adds[edit]

@Gimly24: I updated the genus page for the 3 added articles. Always a good idea to have an eye on the genus article when adding a species. I've found more than a few species articles were already created under a different name that way. Otherwise, your new articles are good. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome ! I will look at that next time when doing others. Thanks a lot :) Gimly24 (talk) 13:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Missing Lonchophylla species[edit]

I've opened a discussion at the bat task force about the two Lonchophylla species we have listed. MDD lists them at a new genus. We'd need to erect the genus, make the new species articles (there are actually 3 new species, 1 was described in 2017 when the genus was erected) and update a 4th species. (See ITIS for list and refs.) I just want to get the bat people's buy in before I move forward. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, sound goods. I got no problems with that. Gimly24 (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And done. :) Erected the new genus Hsunycteris and new tribe Hsunycterini, updated the leaf-nosed bat family page, created the three new species articles (only 2 of which we had listed here), and updated one additional species article. I should probably create the Lonchophyllinae subfamily page as well, but I'll put that on the back burner for now. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
....and done. XD - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splendid ! Awesome work ! Gimly24 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodents[edit]

On another note, Rodents are a mess. espescially Myodes aka Clethrionomys... and Peromyscus... and Microtus. And almost every time i look the genus pages, there's almost always more species there ! It's an infestation. Also, while doing this, i see a lot of red links popping *sob sob sob*. At least, I can say that up to a bit above genus Abrothrix in the List of rodents page, it's now updated with the navs and species list from the navs and genus pages. Way before i started that, i had to revamp the structure of the thing because it was not funny to look at. I added common names to some and kept the structure :

<code>''Sci-name'' - Common name</code>

Gimly24 (talk) 21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please begin new sections for new topics.
Anyway, yes. Rodents are a mess. There are too many of them. They breed like rabbits! They will never be perfect. I mostly ignore them. By the time we get a few sections of them fixed up enough, then there are enough publications that mess up other sections. It's a perennial problem. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Got it for the sections. And indeed, rodents and bats are the most numerous order of mammals by far (rodents are about 1/3 of all mammals and bats 1/5). If we look at the project we are doing right now, we mostly create rodents articles. Might be because not much people care, and i don't blame them either (for me, it's meh). Gimly24 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

MDD Version 1.11 (15 April 2023) is out ![edit]

@UtherSRG, the new version of the MDD Database came out today !

[1]

References

  1. ^ Mammal Diversity Database. (2023). Mammal Diversity Database (1.11) [Data set]. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7830771

I checked to see if there were changes with the list we have on the page and it doesn't seems like there is.

There are 16 newly describes species tho :

  • Podogymnura intermedia - Eastern Mindanao gymnure
  • Pseudoromicia mbamminkom -
  • Cryptotis woodmani -
  • Pseudoromicia principis
  • Neodon namchabarwaensis
  • Neodon shergylaensis
  • Neodon liaoruii
  • Neodon bershulaensis
  • Neodon bomiensis
  • Neodon chayuensis
  • Saguinus kulina
  • Metachirus aritanai
  • Megalomys camerhogne
  • Myotis barquezi
  • Ctenomys pulcer

(I know @Ucucha did at least one of these already (Podogymnura intermedia).

Just wanted to let you know about the new version :). Very busy with university right now. So i can't do much but soon i will be able too.

Tagging @SilverTiger12 too. Gimly24 (talk) 00:12, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I might add a few more over time. Ucucha (talk) 00:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Nariño cat (Leopardus narinensis) : a new extant species of cat ? (2023)[edit]

From the skin of a 1989 female Nariño Department of Colombia. More details in the open-access publication below.

Citation :

- Ruiz-García, M.; Pinedo-Castro, M.; Shostell, J.M. Morphological and Genetics Support for a Hitherto Undescribed Spotted Cat Species (Genus Leopardus; Felidae, Carnivora) from the Southern Colombian Andes. Genes 2023,14,1266. https://doi.org/10.3390/genes14061266 Gimly24 (talk) 09:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neat, but we should wait until it is in the secondary literature (generally IUCN and/or ASM/MDD) before adding it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:23, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It has an article now at Leopardus narinensis, with a secondary source, and with IMO much more information already than the other mammals-described-in-2023 articles (they're all stubs). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 03:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Missing_mammal_species&oldid=1164787730"