128:, which has just become an FA. It has had a complex history and is interesting morphologically, but its natural history is very poorly known. It is a current GA; thanks go to Casliber for a GA review that markedly improved the article. Unfortunately, there seem to be no free images other than the old picture of the skull that is now in the article.
742:"Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D"), which contains tens of other species, including several that, like Pseudoryzomys and its relatives, display some adaptations to life in the water, being partially aquatic." This sentence has lots of parts connected by commas and doesn't seem to flow well.
820:
I added something about the foramen. I think the hemal arches are already adequately explained as small bones between the second and third vertebrae. The ones I see that may require some explanation are "centromere" and "cartilaginous", but these should be known to someone with at least a rudimentary
492:
in appearance. The owl and the chaco should ideally both go to the "Distribution..." section, but there is not enough space for them there, so I kept the chaco where it is, providing some visual relief in the long description. I moved the owl up a bit to prevent it from extending it to the footnotes
1386:
proponents have argued that a 2% cyt b difference may be enough to recognize different species). It's relevant as the only genetic evidence of geographic variation, though. The sentence previously stated that no genetic study of geographic variation had been carried out, before I found this paper,
1096:
of their time in the water (as opposed to "little"), then I would suggest something along the lines of "semiaquatic species which spend much of their time in the water". Without that it seems like the article is explaining what "semiaquatic" means, which seems out of place in the lead, given that
1044:
is a species of rodent, from South
America, in the Cricetidae. This amounts to the form "a species of A, in B, from C", which associates B (South America) with C (the Cricetidae). It should be in the form "a species of A, in B, from C" - for example, "a species of rodent in the family Cricetidae
816:
The last three subsections of the description section are a tough read. You've done a pretty good job of explaining unfamiliar terms, but there's a few missing (e.g., entepicondylar foramen, hernal arches). Ideally, all of those redlinks would have nice descriptions.... I'll come back for a reread
334:
In terms of the criteria, I'm mostly talking about 1a (especially whether the prose is engaging) and 1b (placing subject in context). We also need a few more images (criterion 3). If we can't find images of the animal, we should be able to find images of the habitat and predators, or images which
208:
Fixed the 2008/2009 thing. Percequillo et al., 2008, is an online source which doesn't have page numbers. I sometimes omit references to page numbers where the reference is to the whole paper; for example, Pardiñas et al., 2004, is all about the distribution in
Argentina. That said, there may be a
903:
I do think it's different, though. I give the ISBN for the books, but no other way to find it. For the journal articles, there either is an online version, in which case I link to it directly, or there is not, in which case there is no DOI either. So I don't see what the DOI really adds to that.
387:
Thanks for your comments. The "taxonomy" section places the subject in context by providing a historic overview of how our current understanding of the creature's taxonomy has developed. Two of the four paragraphs (the last two) are largely about the current classification, and I added a few
1288:
Para 2: The lengths are given to the nearest mm, but to the nearest hundredth of an inch, or about 0.25 mm. Unless there's some reason to assume that the measurements are taken to the nearest 0.25 mm, converting to the nearest 0.01 inch amounts to the introduction of spurious accuracy.
1492:, 99 characters for about 60 species. P. 20 has character 1-50 and p. 21 has characters 51-99. I think I've actually seen tables spanning more than two pages in other papers. Check the link if you don't believe me (and have fun: table 4 is also two pages). Thanks for checking!
1346:
I instead changed it to "Chaco", as in the distribution section. It seems like the only reason "Gran Chaco" is the title of our article is that "Chaco" is also the names of provinces in
Argentina and Paraguay. I deliberately did not link the countries as it could be considered
418:
clade versus clade D), and (b) I was unsatisfied with the amount of repetition between the lead of the article and the text I was putting at the start of the
Taxonomy section. Perhaps some of what I wrote is worth bringing back, or gets the creative juices flowing for someone.
433:
I don't quite like that, because the information you provided largely duplicates the lead (and a little more so now, since I expanded the lead by mentioning
Sigmodontinae and Cricetidae). I now introduced subsections per Sasata's suggestions below; what do you think of that?
1277:
Sentence 8: This needs to be split into two sentences. You can't talk about webbing, compare it to other genera, and then come back to the tufts of hair. Anything after the "but" has to be part of the comparison. If it's not, then it needs to be a separate sentence.
565:
50 g needs a conversion to imperial. There should also be a non-breaking space between the number and the unit (which will be placed automatically if you use a convert template). Also, shorthand g in used in the lead, but spelled out in full in the description section.
1312:
Technically, yes. As you can see in the article, keeping the two separate makes the article more balanced, though. Weksler (2006) also keeps the two separate (substituting "dentition" for "molars", but we don't have anything interesting to say about the incisors
1397:
Both are commonly capitalized in the specialized literature. Cerrado and
Caatinga are understood as both a habitat and a region, I think, which confuses the spelling. They are similar to "Chaco", which you didn't note as being miscapitalized (or was that not
1055:
Sentence 2: Is it redundant to say that it is found in "palm savanna and thorn scrub habitats characterized by seasonal rainfall"? Aren't all palm savannas and thorn scrubs in South
America characterised by seasonal rainfall? (Minor, but kinda bothers me.)
1186:
Sentence 2: This sentence is far too long and convoluted. It has too much detail (the independent loss of the mesoloph(id)s would be better as a footnote) and too vague ("other characteristics" which unite the oryzomyines are mentioned, but not named).
320:
Taxonomy section is too detailed and too much focused on past classifications rather than current ones. Probably not so long that it should be a separate article, but suggest reorganizing to more clearly highlight what is currently believed/known about
1100:
It is repetitive, but because "semiaquatic" is a term many readers are unlikely to know, I am explaining it here. It is blue-linked, true, but I think the article should (as much as possible) be understandable without forcing people to look at another
888:
I think they're added for the same reason ISBNs are added to books, to make it easier for interested readers to find the source. I've usually been asked to supply them when possible at GAN and FAC. Maybe someone who's more sure than me could comment?
594:"It is the only species in the genus Pseudoryzomys, which among living species is most closely related to the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys, which are semiaquatic, spending much of their time in the water." Reword to remove repetitive "which"
1221:
Sentence 4: "clade D"? What is the significance of this name? What's the context for its inclusion? It isn't used elsewhere in the article, and it appears to be just an arbitrary term for the clade. If so, then is shouldn't be in the article.
1080:
Para 2, sentence 1: "it is most closely related among living species to the large rats
Holochilus and Lundomys" - wordy; it would be better phrased as something like "its closest living relatives are the large rats Holochilus and Lundomys..."
1165:
Sentence 2: "Since this study,..." - in this context, "since this study" is more likely to be read to mean "given that this study..." rather than the intended "since the time of this study". "Since then" is simpler and far more clear.
1091:
Sentence 1: "which are semiaquatic, spending much of their time in the water" - it seems a bit repetitive to say that a semiaquatic species spends much of its time in the water. If it's important to point out that these species spend
473:
Nice photos and captions. I would alternate left and right (with the taxobox counting as a "right") and move them all down the page a bit (to put them closer to the text they go with, and avoid a big dead space with no images).
363:
I'd agree, even if there are plenty of images available, as with some of the bird FAs I've done, adding habitat, predators, image of original description etc adds variety and interest to the page, and is relatively effortless
943:
Okay you've convinced me on 1b and 1c. I'm leaning towards support, but still think the description section needs some tweaking to make it more reader-friendly. I'll come back later after others have had a chance to comment.
790:
suggest abbreviating convert template output to mm, then you don't have to also specify Brit/Am spelling; also, should adjust the output so that there's an equal number of sig figs in the numbers before and after conversion
1266:
Para 1, Sentence 5: it needs to be made clear that you're talking about the tail here. While it's obvious to anyone who knows anything about rats that the scales are on the tail, not everyone knows much about rats.
657:"Like most other species Winge proposed, H. simplex was mostly ignored in the systematic literature for a long time," sounds like there's an interesting story behind this... is it relevant enough to elaborate here?
794:
Did the first part, except for the first occurrence, and tweaked one output. The one for head-body length now technically has one significant figure too much for the minimum figure, but I think that is preferable
922:
1229:
article, and I think it's helpful to have them mentioned in the genus articles." I will try to move "someday" up to "in a few days" and link this to the appropriate section in the
Oryzomyini article.
406:
an attempt to tweak the taxonomy section a bit. I reverted myself because (a) without reading the source, and/or spending more time, I wasn't sure I had preserved accuracy (particularly about the
1125:
I don't see much of a difference. Two people described it, independently from each other. "Independently" refers to both 1887 and 1921. It might be better to move "independently" to 1921, though.
86:
730:"Together, the three genera form part of a large group of oryzomyines ("clade D")..." I can't see how mentioning the arbitrary clade name will help the reader's understanding here...
391:
The description is comprehensive, and I attempted to lighten it up by interspersing notes about the significance of particular characters. Note that criterion 1a says that the
1137:
Para 1, sentence 4: "H. simplex was mostly ignored in the systematic literature for a long time, but from 1952 it was used" - no need to say "it was ignored for a long time"
488:
They are alternating now. The rice rat is next to the paragraph about external morphology, which is where it should be, because it is supposed to be similar to
610:"...and by a reduction in the complexity of the dentition..." Since it's the lead, I'd suggest rephrasing to use the more common "teeth" in there somewhere
1141:"it was ignored until 1952". Either statement conveys the information - the latter one conveys more information, since it avoids the nebulous "long time".
40:
327:
Ideally, there would be much more on ecology. The paragraphs we have are good, and if this is all that is known, perhaps that is all that can be done.
1028:
I went over the article to look for both points, and made some changes. Please let me know what specific sentences remain that you think problematic.
1194:
and its friends were previously regarded as relatives of those species because of similarities in molar structure. I split and rewrote the sentence.
1251:
Figure: Figure captions should be interpretable without reference to the text. IRBP needs either to be explained in the caption, or wikilinked.
1524:
30:
17:
449:
There is really surprisingly little known about ecology. I don't think there are any more relevant things to say than what is already there.
1299:
Para 3: It seems odd to lumps anatomy (teats, gall bladder, penile bones) with chromosome counts. I think these should be separate paras.
750:
In general, this section is long and tough reading, I suggest splitting into a subsection or two to help give the reader a mental break.
1225:
To the other reviewer who noted this, I said: "I see your point, but I intend to someday introduce discussions of these clades into the
1343:
Figure: Only mention of Gran Chaco; should be wikilinked. In addition, Paraguay, Argentina and Brazil do not appear to be wikilinked.
1332:
It has small mesoloph(id)s, which don't extend to the edge of the molar as they do in other oryzos. I was careful to say that it lacks
753:
Done. I also added cladograms to clarify the relationships found by
Weksler (and had to tweak the template to make the layout work).
1302:
It's intended as a bit of a miscellaneous paragraph, but you are right that the karyo is out of place there. I split the paragraph.
1201:
Para 5, sentence 1: The sentence should be split at the semi-colon. It doesn't even kinda do the job of uniting the two segments.
672:
for some other parts of the story. I think it's not relevant to this article to elaborate on that, but I introduced a red link to
552:
Thanks for your comments. You caught a lot of things I should have found myself, producing some real improvement in readability.
1554:
1510:
1496:
1483:
1469:
1460:
1441:
1422:
1412:
1240:
992:
974:
953:
937:
908:
898:
863:
757:
617:
556:
547:
526:
517:
497:
483:
468:
438:
428:
378:
358:
344:
303:
284:
275:
253:
222:
213:
203:
179:
159:
150:
132:
77:
1118:
Sentence 5: "Pseudoryzomys simplex was independently described in 1887...and in 1921". Wasn't it described in 1887 and then
1108:
Sentence 2: I would recommend splitting this into two sentences. In addition, there appears to be a stray "]" after "molar"
649:"It was first described in 1887 by Danish zoologist Herluf Winge," how about adding a citation to the original publication?
155:
That really doesn't say much about photo availability, I believe. Besides, it's apparently rare, or at least hard to find.
961:
I read the article again and feel it has improved considerably since the first version I read. One last suggestion, wlink
1325:
Para 1, sentence 4: Mesolophs? After an extensive discussion of the systematic significance of the lack of mesolophs in
982:
Thanks for taking the time to read it. I added the link you suggested. I certainly have plans for some more rodent FAs;
1418:
Thanks for a thorough review. It's clear that you read the article closely, and it's produced quite some improvements.
102:
107:
1111:
I rephrased it, but kept it in one sentence. What do you think of the sentence as it is now? I don't see the stray ].
673:
782:
lots of talk about toes, but no mention of how many toes there are (do rat feet have 5 toes? I really don't know)
280:
Thanks for your checks! The link (Hershkovitz 1960) is working for me now; perhaps the site was down for a while?
1155:
Para 3, sentence 1: Is "restudy" a word? "Re-study", perhaps, but I think "reexamination" would be more normal.
574:
Similarly, there should be a non-breaking space between all occurrences of the shorthand genus and species name (
1383:
1387:
and I added something similar to the current sentence, which serves to place it in a little bit of context.
1063:
does say this. I took the "seasonal rainfall" part out of the lead, though, as it's really too much detail.
933:
841:"A fragmentary subfossil lower jaw" what is a subfossil? (i.e., how does it differ from regular fossil?)
1309:
Skull, Molars and Post-Cranial Skeleton are all level-3 headers. Aren't the molars part of the skull?
1176:
Para 4, sentence 1: The parenthetical portion is a separate sentence, and needs to be written as such.
720:
637:
doing nasty things. I fixed it to US spelling and abbreviated "mm" and "g" on subsequent occurrences.
1437:
1408:
373:
298:
270:
248:
1550:
1456:
662:
514:
199:
175:
1169:
I'm not sure I agree on your first point, but it's true that "since then" is better. Changed it.
141:
Is it hard to get a (decent) photo of the rodent given that its status is of 'least concern'? -
1362:
Kept it in one sentence, but rephrased it. What do you think of it? Or did you mean sentence 1?
1394:
Para 3, sentence 2: cerrado and caatinga are not proper nouns, and should not be capitalised.
962:
926:
479:
424:
354:
340:
146:
1479:. All look OK, although I'm curious as to how "table 5" (noted twice) can span four pages. •
800:"The female has four pairs of teats, including one on the chest," where are the other pairs?
1528:
1493:
1466:
1419:
1336:
mesoloph(id)s previously, but I did lose that care in some passages of the taxonomy section.
1237:
989:
970:
949:
905:
894:
859:
754:
631:
614:
553:
543:
523:
494:
465:
435:
281:
219:
210:
156:
129:
74:
194:
Citations style is consistent (I think ugly, but some fields don't like quotes or italics)
1144:
That is not completely accurate, as it was ignored again after Hershkovitz noted that the
1060:
733:
I see your point, but I intend to someday introduce discussions of these clades into the
1527:
has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see
388:
sentences explaining its placement in the subfamily Sigmodontinae and family Cricetidae.
1433:
1404:
453:
399:; I don't believe that there is a problem with the prose of the "description" section.
366:
291:
263:
241:
965:
on its first occurrence. Looking forward to seeing more rodent taxon articles at FAC.
1546:
1542:
1507:
1480:
1452:
690:
510:
195:
171:
64:
53:
1007:
Very interesting article, but I have reservations about the quality of the writing.
1535:
772:
597:
I had noticed that too, but couldn't think of a better wording. I rephrased it now.
475:
420:
350:
336:
142:
1211:
Sentence 2, and many places in the article: "oryzomyines" or "the oryzomyines"?
988:
is next in line (though it'll get some improvement before I'll put it up here).
966:
945:
890:
855:
539:
737:
article, and I think it's helpful to have them mentioned in the genus articles.
464:). I believe all are adequately sourced, but could someone do a check on that?
1489:
1432:. Thanks. Really a nice job, on all of these small mammal-related articles.
1233:
1226:
984:
734:
457:
845:
704:
349:
Heck, I'd even go for a photo of one of the scientists who worked on it...
188:
Citations lack page / paragraph references. (Percequillo, Pardiñas, others)
1379:
Sentence 4: what's the significance of a 1.4% difference in cytochrome b?
209:
few where specific page number can be inserted; I'll have a look at that.
885:
and in my view add superfluous text; we'll be able to deal with linkrot.
881:
700:
668:
461:
124:
1148:
ID was incorrect in 1960. I moved a few words around in these sentences.
602:
suggest wlinking genus in the lead (since the article is about a genus)
39:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
1451:; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox.
613:
Done. I used "molars", as the incisors don't have much to with it.
509:- sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool.
808:"Pseudoryzomys has 19 or 20 thoraic (chest)" should be thoracic?
869:
Thanks for making the above fixes so quickly, consider them all
848:. I just deleted the word as it didn't add much to the sentence.
879:
Should they? They are not in the similar, recently promoted FA
289:
Confirm mammals of Northern Columbia link live for me too now
261:
Images OK, sources fully described and appropriately licensed
335:
illustrate some of the anatomical points in related species.
452:
I added photographs of a superficially similar species (the
1214:
Changed it to "Oryzomyini" here and at a few other places.
876:
Several of the journal article sources should have DOI's
238:, but can't get mammals of Northern Columbia link to work
112:
1040:
Paragraph 1, sentence 1: The opening sentence says that
1025:
too long. Shorter sentences would improve readability.
324:
Likewise, the morphology material is kind of monotonous.
218:
I inserted specific page numbers for all but a few now.
403:
57:
578:); this prevents unsightly line wraps in the middle.
1329:, we now have mesolophs, but no anterolophs. Huh?
122:This is another South American rodent, related to
87:Featured article candidates/Pseudoryzomys/archive1
1562:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
1190:The independent loss is relevant because some of
1073:In zoology, yes. In other contexts, I don't know.
676:, where I'll write an article on the lot someday.
586:"...with a gray–brown fur, ..." remove the "a"?
185:Works are misdated. (Percequillo etal 2008/2009)
681:phyllotine is linked in consecutive paragraphs
43:. No further edits should be made to this page.
821:background in biology and are also bluelinked.
1568:No further edits should be made to this page.
1541:template in place on the talk page until the
1465:Thanks for noting. I fixed the one dab link.
29:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
624:millimetres in British English vs. "color"
522:Thanks for taking the time to check that.
91:
41:Knowledge talk:Featured article candidates
1070:Sentence 3: is "hindfeet" a single word?
703:leads to a redlink... is it the same as
1369:Sentence 3: Full colon, not semi-colon
1359:Para 1, sentence 2: needs to be split.
1084:That quite improves the sentence. Done.
94:
84:
191:Dates within citations are consistent.
18:Knowledge:Featured article candidates
7:
1354:Distribution, ecology, and variation
1021:Overly lengthy sentences. Many are
714:Created a redirect, and bypassed it.
1045:from south-central South America".
493:section, which doesn't look good.
24:
1281:What about the current phrasing?
785:They do. I added it to the page.
719:wlink molecular phylogenetic,
236:No dabs, images have alt text
1:
1555:20:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
1511:12:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
1497:03:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1484:03:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
1442:16:27, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
993:04:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
975:04:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
954:17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
938:19:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
909:19:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
899:17:45, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
864:05:28, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
817:later when I'm more awake :)
758:19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
674:Lund's mammals of Lagoa Santa
618:19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
557:19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
548:17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
538:, questions and suggestions:
527:20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
518:16:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
498:19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
484:01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
469:20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
460:habitat, and a predator (the
439:19:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
429:01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
379:07:20, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
359:20:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
345:20:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
304:07:17, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
285:12:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
276:07:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
254:07:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
223:20:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
214:22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
204:21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
180:21:54, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
160:22:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
151:21:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
133:21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
78:21:42, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
1470:23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1461:22:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
1423:19:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
1413:04:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
1241:23:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
925:since Sasata is satisfied.
395:should be engaging, not the
1372:I believe I addressed this.
31:featured article nomination
1585:
1488:It's the dataset for his
836:Changed to "fur" instead.
589:Yes, that's better. Done.
1565:Please do not modify it.
1097:the term is Wikilinked.
1016:Excessive use of commas.
56:20:14, 16 December 2009
36:Please do not modify it.
1158:Rephrased the sentence.
1120:independently described
854:Comments... continued:
1382:Not much (though some
1490:phylogenetic analysis
1292:Fair enough. Done.
1234:Oryzomyini#clade D
921:Literature search
663:Oryzomys anoblepas
963:process (anatomy)
120:
119:
81:
1576:
1567:
1540:
1534:
1531:, and leave the
930:
636:
630:
376:
369:
301:
294:
273:
266:
251:
244:
234:Technical checks
92:
71:
48:The article was
38:
1584:
1583:
1579:
1578:
1577:
1575:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1563:
1538:
1532:
1477:Comment on refs
928:
634:
628:
374:
367:
317:. Needs work:
299:
292:
271:
264:
249:
242:
68:
34:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1582:
1580:
1571:
1570:
1558:
1557:
1545:goes through.
1516:
1514:
1513:
1501:
1500:
1499:
1474:
1473:
1472:
1445:
1444:
1426:
1425:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1391:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1376:
1375:
1374:
1373:
1366:
1365:
1364:
1363:
1356:
1355:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1340:
1339:
1338:
1337:
1322:
1321:
1317:
1316:
1315:
1314:
1306:
1305:
1304:
1303:
1296:
1295:
1294:
1293:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1274:
1273:
1272:
1271:
1263:
1262:
1258:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1208:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1173:
1172:
1171:
1170:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1152:
1151:
1150:
1149:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1105:
1104:
1103:
1102:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1077:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1067:
1066:
1065:
1064:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1037:
1036:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1018:
1017:
1013:
1012:
1005:
1004:
998:
997:
996:
995:
941:
940:
918:
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
874:
852:
851:
850:
849:
839:
838:
837:
825:
824:
823:
822:
814:
813:
812:
806:
805:
804:
798:
797:
796:
788:
787:
786:
780:
779:
778:
763:
762:
761:
760:
748:
747:
746:
740:
739:
738:
728:
727:
726:
717:
716:
715:
698:
697:
696:
687:
686:
685:
679:
678:
677:
660:There is, see
655:
654:
653:
641:
640:
639:
638:
622:
621:
620:
608:
607:
606:
600:
599:
598:
592:
591:
590:
584:
583:
582:
572:
571:
570:
562:
561:
560:
559:
532:
531:
530:
529:
503:
502:
501:
500:
486:
454:Marsh Rice Rat
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
389:
385:
384:
383:
382:
381:
331:
330:
329:
328:
325:
322:
321:relationships.
311:
310:
309:
308:
307:
306:
256:
230:
229:
228:
227:
226:
225:
192:
189:
186:
165:
164:
163:
162:
118:
117:
116:
115:
113:External links
110:
105:
97:
96:
90:
89:
83:
82:
73:Nominator(s):
67:
62:
61:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1581:
1569:
1566:
1560:
1559:
1556:
1552:
1548:
1544:
1537:
1530:
1526:
1522:
1519:
1518:
1517:
1512:
1509:
1505:
1502:
1498:
1495:
1491:
1487:
1486:
1485:
1482:
1478:
1475:
1471:
1468:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1443:
1439:
1435:
1431:
1428:
1427:
1424:
1421:
1417:
1416:
1415:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1398:deliberate?).
1396:
1395:
1393:
1392:
1385:
1381:
1380:
1378:
1377:
1371:
1370:
1368:
1367:
1361:
1360:
1358:
1357:
1353:
1352:
1345:
1344:
1342:
1341:
1335:
1331:
1330:
1328:
1327:Pseudoryzomys
1324:
1323:
1319:
1318:
1311:
1310:
1308:
1307:
1301:
1300:
1298:
1297:
1291:
1290:
1287:
1286:
1280:
1279:
1276:
1275:
1269:
1268:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1259:
1253:
1252:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1230:
1228:
1224:
1223:
1220:
1219:
1213:
1212:
1210:
1209:
1203:
1202:
1200:
1199:
1193:
1192:Pseudoryzomys
1189:
1188:
1185:
1184:
1178:
1177:
1175:
1174:
1168:
1167:
1164:
1163:
1157:
1156:
1154:
1153:
1147:
1143:
1142:
1140:
1136:
1135:
1131:
1130:
1124:
1123:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1110:
1109:
1107:
1106:
1099:
1098:
1095:
1090:
1089:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1078:
1072:
1071:
1069:
1068:
1062:
1058:
1057:
1054:
1053:
1047:
1046:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1034:
1033:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1020:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1003:
1000:
999:
994:
991:
987:
986:
981:
980:
979:
978:
977:
976:
972:
968:
964:
960:
956:
955:
951:
947:
939:
935:
931:
924:
923:moved to talk
920:
919:
910:
907:
902:
901:
900:
896:
892:
887:
886:
884:
883:
878:
877:
875:
872:
868:
867:
866:
865:
861:
857:
847:
843:
842:
840:
835:
834:
833:wlink pelage
832:
831:
830:
829:
819:
818:
815:
810:
809:
807:
802:
801:
799:
793:
792:
789:
784:
783:
781:
776:
775:
774:
770:
769:
768:
767:
759:
756:
752:
751:
749:
744:
743:
741:
736:
732:
731:
729:
724:
723:
722:
718:
713:
712:
710:
706:
702:
699:
694:
693:
692:
691:specific name
688:
683:
682:
680:
675:
671:
670:
665:
664:
659:
658:
656:
651:
650:
648:
647:
646:
645:
633:
626:
625:
623:
619:
616:
612:
611:
609:
604:
603:
601:
596:
595:
593:
588:
587:
585:
580:
579:
577:
573:
568:
567:
564:
563:
558:
555:
551:
550:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
533:
528:
525:
521:
520:
519:
516:
512:
508:
505:
504:
499:
496:
491:
490:Pseudoryzomys
487:
485:
481:
477:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
440:
437:
432:
431:
430:
426:
422:
417:
416:Pseudoryzomys
413:
409:
405:
401:
400:
398:
394:
390:
386:
380:
377:
372:
370:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
348:
347:
346:
342:
338:
333:
332:
326:
323:
319:
318:
316:
313:
312:
305:
302:
297:
295:
288:
287:
286:
283:
279:
278:
277:
274:
269:
267:
260:
257:
255:
252:
247:
245:
239:
235:
232:
231:
224:
221:
217:
216:
215:
212:
207:
206:
205:
201:
197:
193:
190:
187:
184:
183:
182:
181:
177:
173:
169:
161:
158:
154:
153:
152:
148:
144:
140:
137:
136:
135:
134:
131:
127:
126:
114:
111:
109:
106:
104:
101:
100:
99:
98:
93:
88:
85:
80:
79:
76:
70:
69:
66:
65:Pseudoryzomys
63:
60:
58:
55:
51:
44:
42:
37:
32:
27:
26:
19:
1564:
1561:
1521:Closing note
1520:
1515:
1503:
1476:
1448:
1429:
1403:
1347:overlinking.
1333:
1326:
1254:I linked it.
1191:
1145:
1138:
1119:
1093:
1041:
1022:
1006:
1001:
983:
958:
957:
942:
880:
870:
853:
828:Distribution
827:
826:
765:
764:
708:
667:
661:
643:
642:
575:
535:
506:
489:
415:
411:
407:
396:
392:
365:
314:
290:
262:
258:
240:
237:
233:
167:
166:
138:
123:
121:
108:Citation bot
72:
49:
47:
35:
28:
1261:Description
1204:Rewrote it.
766:Description
375:talk to me?
300:talk to me?
272:talk to me?
259:Image check
250:talk to me?
1232:Done now (
1227:Oryzomyini
1042:P. simplex
985:Noronhomys
745:Rephrased.
735:Oryzomyini
721:morphology
709:Peromyscus
652:Sure, done
576:P. simplex
458:Gran Chaco
408:Holochilus
1529:WP:FAC/ar
1525:candidate
1434:Guettarda
1405:Guettarda
1122:in 1921?
846:subfossil
705:deer mice
368:Jimfbleak
293:Jimfbleak
265:Jimfbleak
243:Jimfbleak
1547:Karanacs
1523:: This
1508:Ling.Nut
1481:Ling.Nut
1453:Dabomb87
1334:complete
1132:Taxonomy
1101:article.
1061:Red List
882:Lundomys
871:stricken
701:deermice
669:Lundomys
644:Taxonomy
536:Comments
511:Ealdgyth
507:Comments
462:Barn Owl
412:Lundomys
196:Fifelfoo
172:Fifelfoo
168:Comments
139:Comment:
125:Lundomys
103:Analysis
54:Karanacs
50:promoted
1504:Support
1430:Support
1146:Oecomys
1011:Overall
1002:Comment
959:Support
929:Georgia
632:convert
627:That's
476:Kingdon
456:), its
421:Kingdon
397:content
351:Kingdon
337:Kingdon
315:Comment
143:DSachan
95:Toolbox
1494:Ucucha
1467:Ucucha
1420:Ucucha
1320:Molars
1313:here).
1238:Ucucha
990:Ucucha
967:Sasata
946:Sasata
906:Ucucha
891:Sasata
856:Sasata
803:Added.
771:wlink
755:Ucucha
689:wlink
684:Fixed.
615:Ucucha
554:Ucucha
540:Sasata
524:Ucucha
495:Ucucha
466:Ucucha
436:Ucucha
404:here's
402:Well,
282:Ucucha
220:Ucucha
211:Ucucha
157:Ucucha
130:Ucucha
75:Ucucha
1270:Done.
1179:Done.
1048:Done.
927:Sandy
795:here.
777:Done.
725:Done.
695:Done.
605:Done.
581:Done.
569:Done.
393:prose
16:<
1551:talk
1457:talk
1449:Dabs
1438:talk
1409:talk
1094:much
1059:The
1035:Lead
1023:much
971:talk
950:talk
934:Talk
895:talk
860:talk
844:See
811:Yes.
773:buff
666:and
544:talk
515:Talk
480:talk
425:talk
355:talk
341:talk
200:talk
176:talk
170:2c:
147:talk
1543:bot
1536:FAC
1384:GSC
1236:).
1139:and
711:)?
52:by
1553:)
1539:}}
1533:{{
1506:•
1459:)
1440:)
1411:)
973:)
952:)
936:)
897:)
862:)
635:}}
629:{{
546:)
513:-
482:)
427:)
371:-
357:)
343:)
296:-
268:-
246:-
202:)
178:)
149:)
59:.
33:.
1549:(
1455:(
1436:(
1407:(
969:(
948:(
932:(
893:(
873:.
858:(
707:(
542:(
478:(
423:(
414:/
410:/
353:(
339:(
198:(
174:(
145:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.