Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

New citation template for ASM Mammalian Diversity Database

I've created a new template,{{cite mdd}}, for citing ASM Mammalian Diversity Database. It uses the same module as {{BioRef|asm}}, which will work identically, but I've updated the code to fix options that were broken when they changed the website. I thought thus was a good to to create a dedicated template with a documentation page.

For linking to species there are two approaches,:

1.) using {para|id}}, optionally with either |title= or both |genus= and |species=. This links to the explorer page and opens very slowly This links to a new fast taxon page.

• code 1a: {{cite mdd|id=1005993|title=''Leopardus colocola'' (G. I. Molina, 1782) |access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output 1a: "Leopardus colocola (G. I. Molina, 1782)". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.
• code 1b: {{cite mdd|id=1005993|genus=Leopardus |species=colocolo' |access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output 1b: "Leopardus colocolo' (id=1005993)". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.

2.) using the |genus= and |species= parameters, which links to the treeview page and opens the species infobox.

• code: *{{cite mdd|genus=Leopardus |species=colocola|access-date=8 December 2023}}
• output: *"Leopardus colocola". ASM Mammal Diversity Database. American Society of Mammalogists. Retrieved 8 December 2023.

There is a quirk in that their permalink has a url like https://www.mammaldiversity.org/explore.html#genus=Leopardus&species=garleppi&id=1005995 where the genus and species parts don't do anything and only the third id part is needed. {{Cite mdd}} links to this page if all three of the id, genus and species parameters are included as that should be a permalink. The genus+species variant without the id (option 2) is quicker with a better output, but would break if they changed the genus assignment. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

There are now links of the form https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/$1 (where $1=ID) which open the species info page rapidly. The template has been updated. —  Jts1882 | talk  15:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Grizzly bear subspecies

There's a conflict on Wikipedia regarding how many subspecies of grizzly bear there are. The intro text on the grizzly bear page (which mentions other North American brown bear subspecies besides U. a. horribilis) directly contradicts the page's taxobox (which treats all non-ABC Islands NA bears as being U. a. horribilis and lists the rest as "former subspecies now synonymized"). The pages for California grizzly bear, Mexican grizzly bear and Ungava brown bear treat them as extinct populations of U. a. horribilis, while the pages for other North American brown bears, as well as subspecies of brown bear, treat all these populations as distinct subspecies.

The approach should certainly be consistent across pages, but what approach should be taken? Miller et al. 2006 suggested that previous subspecies definitions of non-ABC Islands bears didn't line up with mtDNA, but made no specific synonymizations. I'm not aware of other recent works that explicitly support lumping of North American bear subspecies (but please link them if you know of any). Mychajliw et al. 2024 provisionally considered at least the California grizzly bear as a distinct subspecies, following ITIS and Wilson and Reeder 2005, but in the SOM acknowledged Miller et al. 2006 and highlighted that further work on grizzly bear taxonomy is needed. Personally, I think that the subspecies should be treated as separate here unless there's explicit support for lumping in the literature. What do you all think? Shuvuuia (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

The Handbook of Mammals of the World still recognized 14 extant subspecies, and the text seems to imply that two extinct subspecies (californicus and crowtheri) are also still valid. Ucucha (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I've went ahead and made edits. If no taxonomic authority supports NA grizzly bear synonymy, and since Miller et al. 2006 does not perform an explicit taxonomic revision, I would argue it is misleading to present the synonymy as a done deal. Better to explain that things are uncertain at the moment (e.g. de Jong et al. 2023 recovered Kodiak and Alaskan Peninsula bears as within a Eurasian clade and separate from other North American bears entirely) and further work is needed. Shuvuuia (talk) 20:23, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ape#Requested move 2 August 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

"Koala Bear" in Koala article

This post seeks consensus for the removal of the phrase ”sometimes called the koala bear” from the lead of the Koala article, or if not, it at least be qualified. My contention is that the phase is both erroneous and misleading.

I only registered as an editor on Wikipedia recently, joining on the 1st of August, although I have been editing informally for many years. One if the first things I noted was the use of “koala bear” in the Koala article. To somebody of my background as an Australian with an interest in wildlife, that is a complete nonsense.

Reading some of the history on the talk page it became obvious removing the term would be contentious, so I decided to try to introduce “erroneously” into the article as a compromise qualifier. I left a note outlining my proposal and reasons on the talk page, and five days later, there being no response, added the word. It was immediately reverted, and surprisingly I was accused of vandalism. It was suggested that I seek consensus on this page and thus here I am.

I only ask you take the time to properly consider my arguments. I would prefer that the phrase “sometimes called the koala bear” be removed from the lead, but if not, it be at least qualified.

My arguments are as follows:

1. The lead is not consistent with other articles in Wikipedia where similar issues arise.

An example is the article on the pronghorn, where former common names such as pronghorn antelope are dealt with further down the lead and are qualified. Ironically, there is a far greater difference, both in appearance and in terms of taxonomy, between a koala and a bear, than there is between a pronghorn and an antelope.

2. Given the other problems of the name, “koala bear” is not an important enough name to include in the first line of the article, nor is it necessary.

Wikipedia commonly offers alternative common names in the introduction to articles on animal species. This is useful in assisting the casual reader who may know the animal under another name to the accepted one. This is often done in guidebooks, for example “A Field Guide to the Mammals of Australia” (Menkhorst & Knight, 3d edition) where dama wallaby is offered as an alternative common name for tammar wallaby (page 116) however koala bear is not offered as an alternative common name for koala (page 86). It seems very unlikely that a reader coming to the article looking for “koala bear” would be confused by the lead sentence only offering “koala” as a common name.

3. The syntax of “koala bear” has the potential to mislead the casual reader as to the taxonomic status of the species.

In English language grammar, we place adjectives before a noun. Thus, we talk of a “big house” or a “blue dress”. This is reflected in binomial English common names for members of the Animal Kingdom. “Sloth bear” refers to a bear that resembles a sloth, while “bear cuscus” refers to a cuscus that resembles a bear. This form of nomenclature is very well understood by the general public. “Koala bear” is unique (happy to be corrected) in that the adjective is placed after the noun, which at the least is confusing. That is, of course, unless you believe the koala to be a bear.

This leaves the potential for an uninformed reader to believe that koalas are a type of bear. Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) appears to believe this to be a real issue as they bluntly start their article with "Koalas are not bears—they’re marsupials".

It has been argued that this problem with the name is discussed in the article. This is true; however, it is buried in the middle of a long and technically dense article. Many readers will only skim the introduction, an issue that is recognised in WP:LEAD. The problem is not helped by “koala bear” being highlighted in bold.

It has also been argued that the next sentence describes the koala as a marsupial. Again, it needs a certain level of education about animals to know that a bear cannot be a marsupial.

4. “sometimes” in this context is a weasel word.

The word “sometimes” in this context invites questions: who? where? when? The statement “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears” is correct. But without qualification it is potentially misleading, because the species has never been called grizzly bears across most of its historical range. Better to qualify the statement, eg: “brown bears are sometimes called grizzly bears in America”.

5. Where is the reference?

After having some of my other edits deleted because of a lack of references, and learning how contentious this name is I was surprised that nobody had referenced “koala bear”, so I decided to give it a go.

Firstly, a reference for “koala” as a name: AMTC Species List | The Australian Mammal Society Inc.

I did a search for “koala bear” on Bing (don’t ask). The first link was to Wikipedia, the next four were as follows:

Koala | Appearance, Diet, Habitat, & Facts | Britannica (in lead) “Due to the animal’s superficial resemblance to a small bear, the koala is sometimes referred to, albeit erroneously, as the koala bear.”

Koala, facts and photos (nationalgeographic.com) (first line) “Koalas are not bears – they’re marsupials.”

Koala - WWF-Australia | Koala | WWF Australia (about halfway down the page) “You may have heard this iconic animal is also called the ‘koala bear’. Despite its endearing charm, this nickname can be very misleading. Koalas are marsupials and thus have no relation to bears.”

Koala - The Australian Museum No mention of “bear”.

It seems to me none of these sites could be used to reference the current lead sentence to the article. Yes, there were travel sites and personal sites further down that did use “koala bear” but nothing that could be described as “reliable” when talking about koalas.

The above references also support my original contention, that is using the term “koala bear” is both erroneous and misleading. --Corythaeola (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

This again...? Well, admittedly the last merry-go-round was 4 years back. Please see Talk:Koala/Archive_1#Koala_bear_"inaccurate". Setting aside the occasional incivility in that discussion (cough), the takeaway was something like a) the "bear" part is absolutely in use, if not frequently, and should thus be mentioned prominently; and b) whether to call this out as "erroneous" or "inaccurate" in the lede is open to discussion - which at this point seems to have come down to not doing so (the right choice, IMO). I suggest reading that section to find out what we have already been over. Given current coverage, I doubt the angle of claiming that the poor reader has to be protected from false bear-ness will carry much weight. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:23, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for giving me that link. The discussion certainly went places I would not want this to go.

As far as I could see, discussion came down largely to an argument between mostly Americans and mostly Australians. I'm not surprised, at my work the only people who call it a koala bear are American tourists. The most frequent question from them after "what is its name?" is "are they really bears?".

Please help me out here, the box at the top is some sort of summary or ruling? It reads The normal editing cycle can refine such indication but in the meantime, WP:NOCONSENSUS applies: In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. As near as can be determined, the "proposal to modify material" stems from this edit removing "inaccurately". Based on this should not "inaccurately" still be in the lead? Or was consensus sort to change that in the meantime.

I wonder what the response would be if "Pronghorn" was edited to include "sometimes called pronghorn antelope" in the lead sentence? Actually, I think that article treats older, misleading names very well, and I would be more than happy if Koala was edited in a similar manner.  Corythaeola (talk) 08:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

The word appears to have been removed almost exactly a year ago [1], with - you are correct - none of the discussion that should have happened at that point. I would advise against simply changing it back now though, since a year of no objections for a heavily trafficked article does confer some weight of consensus (if a weak one). - WRT pronghorn, "koala bear" usage by the rough measure of Google hits is 10x more common in usage. At 4 million hits it is frankly at a level were it would be excessively prescriptive to omit it from the lede, I think. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

If you're looking for an adjective misleadingly is probably better than erroneously or inaccurately; vernacular names are not required to line up with formal taxons. To add to the examples already given the Barbary ape is a monkey, the ant-lion is an insect, she-oaks are not oaks, slippery elms are not elms, Russian thistles are not thistles, and Guinea chestnuts are not chestnuts. Koala bear may be on the way out (I used it 50 years ago; I don't use it now), but until it becomes an archaism it's worthy of inclusion. I suspect that koala bear persists more strongly with regards to plushes (from the influence of teddy bear); the bear morpheme also carries over to drop bear. Closer examples include marsupial lion, marsupial mole, marsupial mouse and marsupial shrew. Thylacine gives Tasmanian tiger and Tasmanian wolf as vernacular names. I think that article is fine without an adjective. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Misleadingly is fine by me. Happy to accept that.

Regarding other cases, happy to accept there are many inconsistencies, however we are talking about the Koala article here not them. By the way, marsupial mouse in never used now, I have never heard of a marsupial shrew, and marsupial moles are never seen by anybody. The other examples are all extinct. Corythaeola (talk) 12:47, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to describe things reflecting the real world, not the world one wishes it to be. The koala is often called the koala bear and this is an easily established fact. No one argues it is a true bear, it is just a vernacular name that is widely used in the English language. There are many other cases, such as golden moles, which are not true moles, and South American foxes, e.g. Darwin's fox and Andean fox, which are not true foxes. With birds there are more examples, e.g. the European blackbird is a thrush rather than a blackbird and let's not touch warblers, babblers and finches.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:58, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You could have used American robin vs European robin vs Australian robins. Again, we are talking about the Koala page, so these are irrelevant. But most of your examples are maybe species in different genre, or at the most different Families. Koalas and bears are in different Infraclasses.

Through my work we see any number of American tourists who call them "koala bears" (and are the only people who do). I don't know if anyone agues it, but a good proportion of them believe that koalas are bears. Australia is an expensive destination for Americans and most who visit are well-off and I would have thought well-educated. It leaves me wondering what people in less educated sectors of the community think. Your statement "No one argues it is a true bear" is just a guess. Corythaeola (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Maybe we could add "sometimes called the koala bear for its resemblance to a bear" to give a hint, using the phrase that is used later in the article. But that would make the first sentence longer and more difficult to read (and we already say it's a marsupial anyways), so I'm not totally sure I really like that option. However, this phrase would be more cautious than simply saying "erroneous" or "misleading"; whether or not it is misleading really depends on how one interprets that name, and we should not give the impression that the name "koala bear" should not be used anymore by indifferently labelling it as "misleading" or similar. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Merge Chestnut-striped opossum into Northern three-striped opossum?

I don't know much about mammals so apologies if I'm off the mark here. The IUCN[2] and MDD[3] both seem to regard the chestnut-striped opossum (Monodelphis rubida) as a synonym of the northern three-striped opossum (Monodelphis americana) - should the former be merged into the latter? Cheers, Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

It was recognised by the IUCN and MSW3, and subsequently by aggregator sites (e.g. ITIS, GBIF, COL), which is why it has a page. The archive of the [2008 IUCN assessment] shows how little was known about this animal. The IUCN cites the phylogenetic study of Pavan et al (2014) for its inclusion in Monodelphis americana and the MDD cites their follow-up classification (Pavan & Voss, 2016). As the IUCN and MDD both support the synonymy I'd support the merge in principle. We have the odd situation where the target article is more of a stub than the one being merged, so perhaps the merge should also involve expanding the target article to at least the same level.  —  Jts1882 | talk  07:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

We do not need to support articles for no longer valid species. I just redirected 3-4 opossum articles to the species they are now considered to be a part of. (See the history of Monodelphis for the redirected articles.) I support merging any relevant data. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Moggy#Requested move 4 September 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Moggy#Requested move 4 September 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)