Talk:Chacoan pygmy opossum

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials 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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Merge into Agile Gracile Opossum[edit]

This article is about the animal know as Gracilinanus agilis, the Agile Gracile Opossum. WP should not have 2 articles on the same species that are only differentiated by a different taxonomic source. MSW3 (2005) does not recognize this taxonomy from 2004. There is no need to have a duplicate article. --Tombstone (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are decidedly distinct species (and genera). MSW 3 was out of date when it was published. I will revert your change. Ucucha 06:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that MSW 3 does recognise this as a species distinct from G. agilis (the "Pygmy Opossum", Gracilinanus formosus). The 2004 paper describing a new genus simply came too late to be included by Gardner. Ucucha 06:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the merge proposal before an actual discussion can occur; I re-added the template for the time being. Question: Is this the source you were using, it was the only hit Yahoo! returned. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I do not see why a discussion should occur when the proposal is clearly wrong, as in this case. Ucucha 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they only had one specimen to study and it was 83 years old. On page 7, under the heading "Phylogenetic Relationships", they admit "our very limited material is a significant problem". The proposal uses "application[s] of missing-entry replacement" that "can sometimes yield spurious results that are not supported by any observable data" [page 15]. As far as I can tell, there has been no additional studies done on this to corroborate the claim. That is why I am thinking WP should not call this a species as of yet. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2]. It is no longer known only from the holotype. Furthermore, MSW 3 already recognized it as a separate species, as I noted before, and we do not have to judge if a particular taxonomic change was correct: there are taxonomists who do that. Ucucha 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should be following MSW3, unless there is a preponderance of post-MSW3 evidence. The merge should be dropped. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Derby's Woolly Opossum which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]