Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 11

134:). Artiodactyla is still used in more papers than Cetartiodactyla, although use of Cetartiodactyla is climbing (in papers written from 2010-2014 the ration of Artiodactyla:Cetartiodactyla is 10.7, for 2019, the ratio is 3.5). It's hard to tell whether authors who write papers about traditional artiodactylans and use Artiodactyla as the order instead of Cetartiodactyla: a) support an expanded definition of Artiodactyla, b) don't particularly care about how whales are classified, or c) reject findings that place Cetacea within Artiodactyla. I suspect there are very few people in group c), a large number in group b), with group a) being in between b) and c). If continued use of Artiodactyla in the literature is mostly due to people who work with land animals not caring about whale classification, Knowledge should use Cetartiodactyla. If continued use of Artiodactyla is due to workers adopting an expanded definition of Artiodactyla that includes whales, Knowledge should use Artiodactyla. 460:(3rd edition) seems to summarize the current position: "The discovery of a whale + hippo relationship has cast doubt on a much older taxonomic name, Artiodactyla. First coined by Owen in 1848, this name was used up to the mid-1990s to include all terrestrial cetartiodactyls, but not cetaceans. Some authors have now redefined Artiodactyla to include Cetacea, making it equivalent to Cetartiodactyla (e.g., Spaulding et al., 2009), whereas others view Artiodactyla as being an outdated name that should be abandoned. It is suggested that readers who encounter the term Artiodactyla pay careful attention to the context where it is used to determine if the author includes Cetacea within this group." This latter is the problem. There are about 5,000 articles found by Google Scholar from 2018 onwards that use "Artiodactyla" (far more than use "Cetartiodactyla"), but most do so as a higher taxon for groups that would be placed in the 740:. Apart from the fact that the list is a list of missing mammal species so technically tribes or sub families should not be on the list in terms of scope (though can be argued to be put in a separate missing page list), is it fair to say that those missing names are not notable? I am not an expert in taxonomy so I welcome thoughts from the community here. Would they be more satisfactory as redirects for example in to the higher orders? I have no strong views either way, but thought of seeking a broader opinion on the list. I originally repopulated the list with additional species found in User:Ucucha's excellent listing of mammals, and just added the higher levels as I found them when compiling the missing species. Kind regards. 1156:. The difference is, that someone corrected the name in the process. It is correct in the index of the printed version, which may have helped. The three differences I mentioned are very common or even systemic. They occurred right from the start, when the site (or rather its predecessor) was launched in 2007/2008(?). I first noticed these differences in the chapter on muroid rodents and asked someone at Bucknell about it. The answer wasn’t very specific, but I was told that the database was indeed known to have problems. Later I found the same differences in other chapters. I have not been keeping track of it, but I don’t have the impression that any of the problems of the Bucknell database have been fixed since then. 115:), where I noticed that the order was incorrect- listing Artiodactyla instead of Cetartiodactyla. Since I've learned a bit more about the templates, I now know that the edit would need to be made as far back as Artiodactyla. I tried to circumnavigate the template issue by creating a new box, but I have been informed by a more experienced editor that this is not ideal. I would like to know what the Mammal group thinks is the best way forward? Ideally, the taxonomy boxes for cetacean species should reflect the most up-to-date information included in IUCN species assessments and current literature. Is a manual box okay, or should the templates be adjusted? Thank you so much for your advice. 919:- which it did not include - and it has now proven wrong on the Dhole. We have the COL/ITIS reference that was reviewed by Wozencraft in 2015 - there are 7 subspecies of the Dhole in the printed MWS3 and on the ITIS database reviewed by Wozencraft, as opposed to the 3 listed on Bucknell. To assume that the Bucknell website is correct must require a simple proof - who was the taxonomic authority who recently reclassified the Dhole to have only 3 subspecies, and in what way is this secondary source widely accepted? 2218:, which I gather is fairly well supported (or at least better supported than any finer resolution of the relationship between these 3 phyla). Tactopoda represents tardigrades+arthropods as sister to onychophorans. The competing hypothesis has arthropods+onychophorans sister to tardigrades. A trickle down effect from Awesome's promotion of Tactopoda is that another editor was pushing to change "Arthropoda" to "Euarthropoda" in taxoboxes, which was in place for more than a year. 1164:), although it obviously does not perfectly do so. I think that it’s fine to link to the database from within Knowledge. But I also think it should rather not be used as a reference (and certainly not with the citation suggested by the website itself). Scientific literature hardly cites the website as a reference; it’s almost always the book. We should do the same. Difference number two (new combinations) is reason enough to almost always check other sources. -- 31: 1354: 1344: 1240: 1230: 1011: 1001: 941: 931: 756:

articles on every taxon. Some subfamilies and tribes are rarely used and are better handled in the family or genus (when monotypic) articles (with redirects). Others, especially in large families, are essential to divide material in manageable chunks, but the decision will be on a case by case basis. A list of all tribes and subfamilies might falsely give the impression the articles are needed.

576:) define Artiodactyla as an order and Cetartiodactyla as a clade. Given the strong consensus cetaceans are even-toed ungulates, I'd recommend using Artiodactyla to mean excluding cetaceans and Cetartiodactyla to mean including cetaceans, but we can just leave it to the discretion of editors whether to use Artiodatcyla or Cetartiodactyla in an article if that's more agreeable 2004: 215:

blocked, I think they chose to switch cetaceans and reptiles due then existing inconsistencies in manual taxoboxes; order Cetartiodactyla/Artiodactyla in cetaceans, class Reptilia/Sauropsida for reptiles. With automatic taxoboxes in place, it only takes a single edit to change the orders for cetaceans to Cetartiodactyla if it is decided to do so.

492:), who argued that if the Cetacea were the sister group to the Artiodactyla as such, the name Cetartiodactyla would be appropriate; yet, as they are deeply nested within the Artiodactyla, there should be no change of ordinal name (on the precedent of, for example, the Carnivora, which retained that name even with the inclusion of Pinnipedia). 1300:. It largely follows recent phylogenetic groupings. It finally drops order Cetacea, but is still keeps Soricomrpha and Erinaceomorpha. I think we could consider this as a source to use for the higher classification of mammals, perhaps jointly with the ASM. It's published and should be close to MSW4 if it is ever published. 1076: 184:

Cetartiodactyla. Also, all IUCN assessments and species pages have switched to Cetartiodactyla. If the consensus here is to stick with Artiodactyla, perhaps the marine mammal editors should just include something about Cetartiodactyla in the taxonomy section of the article. Thank you all for the input.

1904:

Two issues. This seems to be generally recognised as a species in its own right, rather than a subspecies of African clawless otter (IUCN redlist, IUCN Otter SG, ASM-MDD), while MSW3 and ITIS (following MSW3) has it as subspecies. I've added a comment that it is sometimes recognised as a species, but

1323:

I do not see it as an absurd interpretation of your position because what was outside of the brackets was using your own words. (What was inside the brackets was my commentary.) By what process of logic do you believe that you have inferred that there are two versions of MSW3? You had to have arrived

965:

ITIS and COL follow the MSW3 taxonomy and in the case of the dhole they follow the print version. You make the claim that the COL/ITIS reference was reviewed by Wozencraft in 2015. I dispute this, largely on the grounds that Chris Wozencraft died in 2007. But this is irrelevant to the point at issue,

1205:

Bucknell University hosts a website, on which one webpage purports to represent MSW3. A search facility is provided on that page which delivers taxonomic information (no doubt the search facility is accessing a database; the veracity of what this search facility is able to deliver from that database

1082:

I think you are correct about the missing bold for the dhole subspecies. Curiously there a bolding error for the last 14 wolf subspecies (in the downloadable CSV) but this error doesn't appear in the website output suggesting that downloadable database and the one used for the website output may not

961:

My objection was the addition to the project guidelines of a statement that the database version contains errors. We don't know that. We don't know if the book or the database is the most up to date version. All we can say is that there are differences in a neutral manner, which is what my edit did.

914:

was written by the mammalogist W.C. Wozencraft - he is the author and taxonomic authority of that section of the book. The "Bucknell website" is not printed, is not the reference book recommended by WikiProject Mammals, and offers "information" without a designated author. It has proven itself to be

547:

Seems it is difficult for us to come to a consensus because taxonomists haven’t yet either. Seems clear that we mostly agree that whales and land-based even-toed ungulates are in a single clade, and a grouping of just the latter is paraphyletic. So maybe the best thing to do is to have one article

517:

There are some comparable cases with other taxa. For example, it's clear that Hexapoda is embedded within traditional Crustacea, rendering the latter paraphyletic, but I guess because "Crustacea" and "crustacean" are so well established, a different name, "Pancrustacea", is used for the monophyletic

231:

Aside from whether this should be adopted in the autotaxobox, which is conservative by necessity, there is some opportunity for improvement to article content. The taxobox reflects some of the content in the taxonomy section of articles, the current situation might be linked (and briefly noted where

1773:

Progress on this new ASM mammal database has been slow and the online version 1 hasn't been updated in a while. However they are developing a new version which can be accessed on github. It's clearly a work in progress, but there have been substantial changes in the last week, which is encouraging.

852:

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you?

662:

I agree. An article on the paraphyletic group "even-toed ungulates" and a separate article on the monophyletic group seems to me the best approach. As for titles, there's an argument that for clarity within Knowledge, we should use "Cetartiodactyla" as the title, while explaining the alternative in

2134:

At any rate, this claim of a weakly favoured hypothesis and the listed parent clade of Boreoeutheria contradict each other, so something needs changing. Personally, I think that the parent clade of Boreoeutheria should be changed to Placentalia, and that Xenarthra and Afrotheria should also retain

1391:

place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Knowledge offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know.

1390:

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options below. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking

1292:

I think it the best available, although with caveats. They haven't made any visible progress since late 2017 and it appears that they lost control of the website for a while. They also say they are planning to convert it to some graphical output, which seems ambitious when progress on a relatively

1216:

2005, and that "You cannot say whether the printed book (which can't be corrected) or the online database (which can) is the correct version" (This almost hints as if Professor Reeder spends her days at Bucknell trawling through the system fixing up minor errors that the subject matter experts may

1124:

or was that in the database they were given. We can't know, which is why I think our guidelines for the project should neutrally say there are difference between the printed book and online database. Hundreds (thousands?) of Knowledge articles link to the MSW3 website so we should be saying it has

1048:

The Buckwell site is clearly an imperfect digitalization of the printed MSW3. I found three types of differences (but there may be more): 1. missing taxa and synonyms; 2. missing information on new combinations regarding species and subspecies names (but not regarding synonyms); 3. missing letters

1026:

As for the COL reference, that got dropped when I restored the neutral statement. I didn't add it back because it's not really relevant to the differences between the book and the online database. It certainly can't be used as a reference for implying that the book is error free and all the errors

1022:

I did answer your questons, at least those relevant to the issue at hand. The taxonomy of the dhole is not an issue here. It's the addition to the project guidelines to say the online database has errors, implying that the book doesn't. You know the latter is not true and have acted according when

755:

I think the missing species list is a reasonable list because I believe there was a discussion that concluded that Knowledge should have articles on all species. So the list of redlinked articles contains articles that should be written. With tribes and subfamilies there is no requirement to have

501:

reference they give doesn't seem to have this discussion. But the argument that Cetartiodactyla was proposed in addition to Artiodactyla, a taxon containing Artiodactyla and Cetacea as sisters, rather than as a replacement for a Artiodactyla containing deeply embedded cetaceans, makes some sense.

214:

Cetaceans adopted automatic taxoboxes circa September 2016, right at the beginning of major efforts to use automatic taxoboxes (I started switching plants to automatic taxoboxes in February 2017). While the editor who switched cetaceans/ungulates (and many reptiles) to automatic taxoboxes is now

183:

I agree about the nomenclature. I'm not a taxonomist, so personally, using one over the other doesn't bother me as long as the definition is clear. These pages (that we're updating) are however, being reviewed by experts, and they have pointed out the "mistake" of listing Artiodactyla instead of

2130:

pages currently claim that Atlantogenata (Xenarthra + Afrotheria) is actually the weakly favoured hypothesis of major placentalian relationships. In that case, it would be possible to argue that the parent clades of all three major clades should reflect this. However, not only is this favouring

618:

The article on even-toed ungulates is problematic in its current form. While the "Taxonomy and phylogeny" section deals with the whole order, the rest of the article is exclusively on even-toes ungulates. For instance, the anatomy section doesn't mention cetacean modifications of the limbs. The

548:

using the common name (even-toed ungulates) and redirect both Cetartiodactyla and Artiodactyla to it. The article should also include all this about the name being in flux. Then we have taxonomy templates for both scientific names that pipe to the same article. If one name wins out, a quick

1209:"I think the online database is the database used to compile the checklist (see here). My guess is this was passed to Johns Hopkins Press and they used it generate the printed book. I suspect that during the editing process they corrected some errors in the database and generated some new ones" 971:

Anyway, the project needs to seriously consider moving on from MSW3. The cut-off for primary literature was 17 years ago and can't be considered a reliable reflection of modern mammalian taxonommy. The articles on most mammalian carnivores have moved to newer sources, but not in a uniform and

1375:

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interesated editors can get

614:

doesn't consider cetaceans as even-toed ungulates. They treat Artiodactyla as the order containing cetaceans and even-toed ungulates. While this might be a practical consideration based on material they had for a book, it is logical (ungulates have hooves) and the book is probably the most

522:

is way out of date). So maybe the logic here is the same: "Artiodactyla" and "even-toed ungulate" will still be used for the paraphyletic group, and "Cetartiodactyla" for the monophyletic taxon. It remains unclear what we should do, though, given that reliable sources differ in usage.

2150:

I agree. As soon as I read your first sentence I was thinking Placentia is the best choice. As far as I can tell Atlantagenata and Exafroplacentia seem more favoured now than Epitheria, but there is not clear favourite and we don't have a favoured supraordinal mammalian taxonomy.

1529:

when I click the tasks button on the nav box it redirects me to a page with a redirect saying something about bamboos tools? is this correct? shouldn't it be an internal redirect to some wikipedia page? I don't really know how these things work, just kind of learning the ropes to

707:

Agreed. However, this approach should also mean using "Cetartiodactyla" in the taxoboxes. I see the merits of both sides, there is no right or wrong answer, but we need a consistent approach. Of course, changing it might be a way to get the opponents involved in the discussion.

2092:. However, the interrelationships between the three widely accepted major placentalian clades (Boreoeutheria, Afrotheria and Xenarthra) are still controversial, right? So why is one hypothesis being favoured here? It seems obvious to me that this parent clade needs changing. 1704:). It seems to me that the species shouldn't be in headers so the TOC only shows down to genera (is there a magic word solution?). I'm not sure how to handle this as its a change to the whole article and the way its been developed, not just a matter of recent changes. — 156:, that explicitly use Artiodactyla to include cetaceans (in this case dolphins). It's not clear to me why it's felt necessary to change the name of the order when it's found to include a previously excluded group. However, there is a problem with the article at 130:

The phylogenetic position of cetaceans is pretty clear, but the nomenclature is less clear. Google Scholar shows recent papers using Cetartiodactyla as the order for traditional Artiodactyla, as well as papers using Artiodactyla as the order for cetaceans (e.g.

1987:

is used in ALL articles about the species in the Bulletin of the Otter SG and in mooost articles published elsewhere post-2000, with only very very few exceptions. In view of the IUCN RL assessors also using this sci name, I recommend using it here as well. --

591:

The first article does say "Cetartiodactyla has become the generally accepted name for the clade containing both of these orders" but that is in addition to retaining the traditional orders, rather than as a replacement for both. There are three approaches:

1159:

What you write about the ‘’ seems intriguing and on its own certainly supports the view that the database may be based on an older version of the project. Whatever, according to the website itself the database is supposed to mirror the printed version

1493:) has been changing animal names in article leads and changing redirect pages without giving any rational. Some of the edits don't seem to be by an English speaker. I have reverted most of them but someone knowledgeable may want to take a look. 552:

can be added to the deprecated synonym. So editors can display either name in the taxobox, but either way it redirects to the same place. Essentially they are synonyms, but we don’t know who junior is yet. Crazy enough to work, or no?

441:

I don't have any recommendations at the moment, but this has started a very interesting discussion! I would love to pass this on to some of the relevant experts in the Society for Marine Mammalogy and can share a good source when I find

571:

publication says "Cetartiodactyla has become the generally accepted name for the clade containing both of these orders " and other studies use Artiodactyla over Cetartiodactyla to specifically exclude cetaceans. A few studies (such as

1194:

third edition was published by John Hopkins University Press in 2005 and was edited by Wilson and Reeder (note that they wrote none of it, it was compiled by them from material supplied by subject matter experts e.g. Wozencraft on

1252:

That is an absurd interpretation of my position. But you are right in that I don't think a website claiming to be the online version of MSW3 being hosted by the institution where one of the editors works is purely a coincidence.

795:. But we want all the connections to be there to another article with more information. No one will really go back in all the articles and add links for a subtribe when an article is created, so it's best to redlink them as per 1685:. A number of pictures have been added, as have the names in what I guess is the local alphabet. The table of contents has become very confusing. Could someone more knowledgeable about policy take a look at the article?-- 1401:

Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as

482:

uses Order Artiodactyla and Infraorder Cetacea, although the latter are not covered in the book because they are not ungulates (an argument for a page move?). They mention an argument by Helgen (2003) for retaining

2111:'s parent clade from Exafroplacentalia to Placentalia, which nobody appears to have had any contention with. This does mean however that there is currently an inconsistency between the two that needs addressing. 1079:). My guess is this was passed to Johns Hopkins Press and they used it generate the printed book. I suspect that during the editing process they corrected some errors in the database and generated some new ones. 991:

You have avoided both of my questions. In particular if as you say the current "ITIS and COL follow the MSW3 taxonomy and in the case of the dhole they follow the print version", why was that reference removed?

2041:

article (from redirect to monotypic genus) and added the three species now recognised. It will be interesting to see what taxonomic revision will eventually be made now there is a second genetic study showing

877: 606:

Recent usage seems to divide between the latter two. I'd agree that the use of Cetartiodactyla is more common with people studying cetaceans, while studies of the phylogeny of the whole group tend to use

1908:

The second issue is that the primary name seems to be Congo clawless otter in all the references (the IUCN lists Cameroon clawless otter as one of several alternatives) so a page move seems appropriate.

619:

lifestyle section doesn't mention social interactions among whales or dolphins and marine habitats and distributions aren't covered. Short of a major rewrite, adding material that would be duplicated in

1162:

The citation for this work is: Don E. Wilson & DeeAnn M. Reeder (editors). 2005. Mammal Species of the World. A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, 2,142 pp.

168:

redirect to it, but it seems to me that the English name only applies to Artiodactyla s.s., i.e. not the monophyletic taxon. (Another illustration of the problems caused by not using scientific names.)

1700:

It's not so much the addition of the local language but that nearly all the text of the article is in headers, with only pictures in the sections. This predates the addition of local languages (see

1278:, so much more current. I think MSW3 is too dated to be considered our critical taxonomic reference text (many species have been described since 2005!) In my judgment, ASM is the best alternative. 1165: 1062: 803:'s removal of all the taxa from the list, as that list is the right starting point to see if a subtribe can support its own article or redirects to the taxonomy section of the family's article. -- 107:

Hello everyone! I am new to Knowledge and still learning the ropes, so I hope this is okay to post here. I'm working as part of a larger group updating marine mammal species pages on behalf of the

2193:) edits to taxonomy templates. They all should be reviewed by somebody who has a better knowledge of animal phylogeny than me. They set various parents that represent poorly supported hypotheses. 256:

Is there movement in the scientific literature and by organisations towards one or the other? The IUCN is using Cetartiodactyla. The ASM's Mammal Diversity Database uses Artiodactyla. MSW3 uses

2131:

apparently "weak", but the cited papers are a few years old now so the current state of placentalian taxonomy could be quite different by now. Could anyone with more knowledge shed some light?

1376:

involved. For those of you at this very active WikiProject, your input would be very helpful, so I wanted to get your input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen.

817:

One problem is that I don't know of any databases that routinely include tribe/subfamily for mammals (or really any other vertebrates). Tribe/subfamily placement can be difficult to source.

595:

A new clade Cetartiodactyla to contain orders Artiodactyla and Cetacea. This seemed to be the original usage of Cetartiodactyla, before it was established that cetaceans were deeply nested.

1961:. So while I agree a taxonomic change is needed (the phylogeny was confirmed in Law et al, 2018), we must follow sources. The taxonomic change made also seems speculative as expanding 1957:, which gives a reference for the phylogenetic relationship that suggests a change is necessary, but not a source for the change been implemented. The IUCN and ASM-MDD continue to use 845:! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the 1327:

The published MSW3 consists of 1,600 pages. Nobody is challenging its taxonomic accuracy but you. The only error discovered in the printed MSW3 was one letter in one word (filchne

280:

Are cetaceans even-toed ungulates who have lost hooves or is hoofiness an essential part of being an ungulate. The title of that page is extremely irritating and needs addressing.

502:

I've being trying to find a taxonomic discussion of the issue with no success. It's surprising how many books and databases still follow MSW3 and use the two traditional orders.

1105:

as a subspecies. This seems more like a deliberate change as its hard to see how it happened by accident. The book also has a spurious "" without a corresponding synonym where

1023:

needed. I put a neutral version to say that there are differences between the print edition and the online version, which is accurate, concise and doesn't require taking a POV.

737:

Hi all, recently Kaldari removed a number of redlinked articles on the missing mammal list, in particular those of the higher level taxa (tribes and sub families). See here:

200:

To answer about the taxobox, you should use the Automated taxobox. Otherwise, you would have to change the boxes on the page of every species, genus, etc. in the order. --

1206:

is questionable, apart from the data integrity of the underlying database itself. I note that Bucknell University did not publish MSW3, John Hopkins University Press did.)

2290:

Can someone please check the recent IP edits. Different IPs are adding the same stuff and only someone familiar with the topic would know if it is possibly reasonable.

356: 1641:

It's throwing up the error message because the templates for those two taxa don't exist. Hit the "fix" button and follow the instructions, and that should be it

94: 89: 84: 72: 1572: 67: 59: 1820:

Anyone have access to this book? Interlibrary loans are no longer happening where I live. I'll try resource request next, but figured I'd ask here first.

285:

Whatever the answers, we need a consistent approach. Using manual taxoboxes to get around the current preference for Artiodactyla is not a good solution.

885: 881: 954:

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3) exists in two forms, the printed book version and the online database. The database has the full title "

1053:

the boldfacing of the first four subspecies was not recognized, so they and their synonyms where assigned as synonyms to the nominate form. In case of

498: 1797:

Nice! I was hoping they would keep up the database. I might download it later to see if I can update the missing species list for this WikiProject.

1575:

and added an ugly smattering of 'the's in front of common species names that ours is a subspecies of. I'd like to revert, but am unclear on policy.

2135:

Placentalia as the listed parent clade. But perhaps the current situation is not as contentious nowadays as Knowledge generally seems to make out?

854: 274:

Is there a difference of opinion between those studying terrestrial and marine animals, favouring Artiodactyla and Cetartiodactyla, respectively?

245:

seemed to gather wide acceptance when the relationship was established, but then it seem that the trend was the accept the broader definition of

922:

Additionally, I am concerned that a reliable source has been removed simply because an editor did not like it. On what basis was that removed?

799:. They may not have enough information to support their own article, but as accepted taxa they are almost assuredly notable. I disagree with 789: 1169: 1066: 849:

that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

1384: 47: 17: 1335:

i). From this you have inferred that we cannot be sure if it is accurate. Do you believe that you are not over-stating the position?

1061:) might have caused a problem (or might be pure coincidence). These are just errors; there has been no taxonomic reassessment. -- 1498: 403: 376: 2073: 1727:

and left a note on the talk page. I think this makes it easier to see what is in the article, but we'll see if others agree. —

1120:

However, as you point out the errors are not just in the online database as the book contains some too. Did they introduce the

779: 1878:? I don't have a scanner or copier so I'll have to send some smartphone pictures, but hopefully that will be readable enough. 1458: 1403: 277:

If so, should we use different taxonomy templates to reflect the difference? Extant reptiles that fly get special treatment.

1418: 2116: 1424: 348: 108: 2261: 2256: 2207: 2140: 2108: 1751: 1494: 2189:

to Exafroplacentalia (I don't know whether Epitheria is appropriate). I've been meaning to bring up this user's (and

2107:). However, I couldn't change Boreoeutheria's myself as it was protected (it still is). I was however able to change 1412: 910:, 3rd Edition, is a reference that is recommended by WikiProject Mammals. You can hold it in your hand. The section 846: 610:

I don't think there is strong or any consensus that cetaceans are even-toed ungulates. The Grubb and Groves book on

2265: 38: 1152:

disappears and the name only remains as a synonym of another form. The same thing happened with the subspecies of

958:". It is hosted at the home institution of one of the editors of MSW3 and hasn't been taken down by the publisher. 1682: 1535: 233: 2319: 2248: 2032: 1946: 1875: 1647: 1514: 1347: 1233: 1004: 934: 582: 1297: 366: 2136: 1898: 1759: 1690: 1444: 668: 528: 469: 174: 1452: 1125:

errors, impying the book doesn't, when there are instances of the book containing the error. Should we use

1027:

are in the database. COL and ITIS use the print version for the subspecies of dhole, but their spelling of

300:

Below is a table for listing who uses what. This is preliminary and incomplete so please feel free to add.

2341: 2323: 2299: 2227: 2176: 2161: 2144: 2056: 2019: 1997: 1979: 1938: 1919: 1887: 1869: 1844: 1829: 1806: 1791: 1763: 1737: 1714: 1694: 1668: 1651: 1635: 1587: 1557: 1539: 1518: 1502: 1475: 1358: 1310: 1287: 1263: 1244: 1173: 1139: 1070: 1041: 1015: 982: 945: 897: 884:. It's not just Christmas, but anything festive from December-ish. Feel free to add some ideas to the 866: 826: 812: 766: 749: 718: 702: 672: 645: 586: 562: 532: 512: 489: 473: 451: 318: 295: 236: 224: 209: 193: 178: 143: 124: 398: 2015: 1296:

Incidentally, I did find a book that has a listing of mammal orders and families that they claim is the

308:, can you suggest any recent taxonomic source where the relative merits of the two names are discussed? 2182: 2166:

I've changed it and added a comment that any proposed change should be discussed at this talk page. —

2115:. Once a consensus is obtained, we will have the impetus to make the according changes. Incidentally, 1752:

Talk:Bengal tiger/Archive 1#Request for comment on the first sentence of articles about subpopulations

573: 2329: 2028: 1993: 1989: 1934: 1930: 1545: 1531: 567:

In general, I see publications dealing with cetaceans will prefer Cetartiodactyla over Artiodactyla.

1086:

Your third type of error looks like a character set mismatch between the database and the HTML page.

371: 267:

Should the project choose a new taxonomic authority for use in all articles? MSW3 is hopeless here.

2315: 2223: 1656: 1643: 1583: 1510: 1457:

Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as

1438: 1337: 1223: 1144:

I consider part of your fourth difference to be a variation of my first difference: The subspecies

994: 924: 822: 698: 578: 220: 139: 2337: 2313:), and s/he puts links to random extinct monotreme groups with "platypus/echidna-like ancestors" 2295: 2095:

Over a year ago, I tried chainging Boreoeutheria's listed parent clade from Exafroplacentalia to

1755: 1722: 1686: 1623: 893: 862: 808: 664: 558: 524: 465: 447: 205: 189: 170: 157: 120: 955: 2172: 2157: 2081: 2052: 1975: 1929:

in line with post-2000 articles in the Bulletin of the Otter SG and in 2015 RL assessment. --

1915: 1787: 1733: 1710: 1306: 1259: 1135: 1037: 978: 762: 714: 641: 508: 314: 291: 132: 2328:

Thanks. I have no idea how these got on my watchlist, but please also check the activity at

2119:'s parent clade is currently listed as Placentalia, which I believe should probably remain. 2011: 1883: 1865: 1853: 1840: 1825: 1802: 1553: 1471: 1283: 796: 745: 385: 149: 112: 1486: 962:

This is the point I requested a source for, the basis for say the database contains errors.

415: 2190: 1663: 1630: 1490: 1275: 842: 632: 250: 242: 165: 419: 2219: 1579: 1293:

simple version is so slow. But I have doubts about whether MSW4 will ever be published.

818: 694: 389: 249:(both in the literature and on Knowledge). I remember making a number of edits towards 216: 135: 2333: 2291: 2215: 2127: 2100: 2077: 889: 880:

last month, there's a new contest for the (Northern hemisphere's) Winter holidays at

858: 804: 554: 443: 303: 201: 185: 116: 2252: 2168: 2153: 2048: 1971: 1911: 1783: 1729: 1706: 1302: 1255: 1131: 1033: 974: 800: 772: 758: 710: 637: 628: 504: 436: 310: 287: 257: 246: 161: 2282: 1548:, no, it's supposed to be an external link. I fixed it, so it should work now :) 2096: 1879: 1861: 1849: 1836: 1821: 1798: 1549: 1467: 1353: 1343: 1279: 1239: 1229: 1129:

when it is clearly a mistake. In this case the online version is more accurate.

1010: 1000: 940: 930: 741: 663:

the text. This will make the two articles more clearly distinct to non-experts.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

1075:

I think the online database is the database used to compile the checklist (see

568: 2211: 2089: 1778: 1660: 1627: 1619: 1615: 1605: 1598: 1594: 519: 153: 2113:

I thereby request for any opinions on what the listed parent clades should be

2186: 2104: 2085: 951:

There is so much misinformation there that its hard to know where to start.

623:, the best approach might be to restrict the article to even-toed ungulates 232:

relevant) from that section to illuminate the arrangement in the taxobox. ~

775:

said, many will not be that significant, and will end up as redirects with

2309:

is Latin for hedgehog but that's actually Ancient Greek (and it should be

2099:, to avoid favouring any of the three hypotheses (i.e. Exafroplacentalia, 1719:

I've limited the TOC to four levels, so the species aren't included, with

2123: 1681:

There is some very strange native language stuff going on at the article

598:

Replace Artiodactyla with Cetartiodactyla to reflect the new composition.

771:(Sub)tribes and other valid taxa should always be links, red or no. As 2244: 620: 261: 956:

Wilson & Reeders' Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition (MSW3)

464:

circumscription, so it's not possible to tell what they really mean.

2069:

The parent clade for Template:Taxonomy/Boreoeutheria needs changing

1385:

Knowledge:Village pump (proposals)#Idea for new community workspace

2037: 1409:

Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as

1049:(‘Yiğit’ may become ‘Yi—it’ or ‘Yi?it’, for instance). In case of 2206:

What tipped me off to problems with Awesome's edits was noticing

1925:

I concur : lets use Congo clawless otter as common name for this

1626:, the creator of the articles to make them error free. Thank you. 1274:

is a great resource given the datedness of MSW3. It's related to

2046:

non-monophyly. Until then we must follow the sources we have. —

966:

a statement in the guidelines that the database contains errors.

1271: 733:

Removing tribes from missing mammals list, not notable enough?

25: 2035:

to reflect the IUCN and ASM position. I've also restored the

1217:

had made, and that the online version is the most up-to-date)

2122:

There is potentially something else to consider though. The

253:

and was persuaded otherwise. So a few questions and issues.

409: 1860:) and it looks like the pages I would want are 376-377. 2278: 2274: 2270: 1954: 1701: 738: 271:, I'd say mammal articles are leaning towards the IUCN. 1835:

I have it! Let me know what you need to know from it.

1398:

If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?

1089:

There is a fourth difference. The online database has

601:

Redefine Artiodactyla to reflect the new composition.

1451:Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as 1221:And you see no possibility of error in this logic? 1187:JTS, the flow of your thinking appears to be this: 103:

Taxonomy templates: updating order Cetartiodactyla?

1568:And, yes, I do mean that in the sense of grammar. 1395:Would you be interested in an idea of this nature? 2084:, the proposed clade including Boreoeutheria and 1905:I think the taxobox should reflect the change. 841:Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the 148:It's interesting that there are papers, such as 1435:as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like 1379:we are discussing this proposal right now at: 1202:Reeder works at Bucknell University (currently) 1031:matches that in the use on the online version. 627:Grubb & Groves and create a new article on 486: 2214:. Onychophora, Arthropoda and Tardigrada form 1608:I am asking for help on {{Automatic taxobox}} 1431:Create a new collaborative page or forum, but 1298:preliminary classification being used for MSW4 1212:Which implies that there exists two copies of 872:First annual Tree of Life Decemberween contest 2185:was responsible for changing the parent from 8: 1573:List of endemic species of the British Isles 853:We have collected all of these questions at 1945:A related issue is that the article on the 1779:https://mammaldiversity.github.io/taxa.html 1622:. It would be of great help for myself and 882:Knowledge:WikiProject Tree of Life/Contest 488:In this, we follow Helgen (2003; see also 1485:An editor (who seems to be using two IPs 837:Request for information on WP1.0 web tool 1852:, great! I'm working on the article for 903:Mammal Species of the World, 3rd Edition 325: 241:I thought this issue had been resolved. 111:. I have just completed the first page ( 1746:Request for Comment in this WikiProject 1459:Knowledge:WikiProject History/Town Hall 1404:Knowledge:WikiProject Council/Town Hall 1166:2001:16B8:1EC1:CC00:6CDB:64C1:D4A5:46F4 1117:was moved without the preoccupied part. 1113:synonym in the database. It looks like 1063:2001:16B8:1EC1:CC00:6CDB:64C1:D4A5:46F4 2305:Looks like vandalism to me. S/he says 549: 478:The Grubb & Groves (2011) book on 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 7: 2076:currently lists the parent clade of 1419:Knowledge:WikiProject Bulletin Board 857:where you can leave your response. 1750:If you are interested, please see 1425:Knowledge:WikiProject Water Cooler 615:authoritative source on ungulates. 390:10.1016/B978-0-12-804327-1.00090-X 24: 18:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Mammals 2181:I was not surprised to find that 2010:I've swapped Cameroon to Congo. - 693:I think this is a good approach. 345:American Society of Mammalogists 2002: 1508:Looks like a bunch of vandalism 1371:Idea for new community workspace 1352: 1342: 1238: 1228: 1009: 999: 939: 929: 29: 2074:Template:Taxonomy/Boreoeutheria 1413:Knowledge:WIkiProject Town Hall 1057:a typo in the printed version ( 2027:I've revised the pages on the 719:19:39, 10 September 2019 (UTC) 703:18:20, 10 September 2019 (UTC) 673:06:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC) 458:Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 382:Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals 1: 2228:19:00, 4 September 2020 (UTC) 2177:16:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC) 2162:15:55, 4 September 2020 (UTC) 2145:13:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC) 1769:ASM Mammal Diversity Database 1571:Someone has updated the page 1519:21:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1503:18:34, 29 February 2020 (UTC) 1272:ASM Mammal Diversity Database 898:18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC) 888:and enter early and often. -- 646:09:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 587:03:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 563:03:10, 9 September 2019 (UTC) 533:21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 513:15:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 474:14:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 452:22:55, 8 September 2019 (UTC) 319:12:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 296:07:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 237:01:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 225:16:30, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 210:23:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 194:04:31, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 179:02:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC) 144:20:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 125:17:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC) 2342:02:14, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 2324:02:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 2300:00:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC) 2117:Template:Taxonomy/Afrotheria 1593:Taxonomic box errors for at 1476:20:43, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 1359:05:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) 1311:08:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 1288:05:39, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 1264:08:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC) 1245:21:28, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1174:16:41, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1140:14:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1071:12:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1042:15:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC) 1016:21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 983:13:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 946:10:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC) 867:04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC) 377:Society for Marine Mammalogy 109:Society for Marine Mammalogy 2208:Template:Taxonomy/Tactopoda 2109:Template:Taxonomy/Xenarthra 2057:10:50, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 2020:09:52, 20 August 2020 (UTC) 1998:18:07, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1980:14:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1939:18:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1920:13:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC) 1604:Hi, as an AfC reviewer for 1214:Mammal Species of the World 1192:Mammal Species of the World 908:Mammal Species of the World 876:After all the fun with the 827:19:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 813:14:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 790:R animal with possibilities 767:12:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 750:11:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC) 414:UC Museum of Paleontology ( 2360: 1558:02:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 1540:02:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC) 1324:at this position somehow. 354:Grubb & Groves (2011) 1949:uses the scientific name 1888:21:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1870:15:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1845:15:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1830:14:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC) 1807:14:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC) 1792:12:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC) 1764:10:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC) 1738:06:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 1715:06:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 1695:02:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC) 1683:List of mammals of Kerala 1669:05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 1652:20:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 1636:20:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 1611:missing taxonomy template 635:for the clade and order. 349:Mammal Diversity Database 154:10.1007/s10914-016-9376-3 2033:Asian small-clawed otter 1947:Asian small-clawed otter 1876:Special:EmailUser/Ucucha 490:Asher & Helgen, 2010 1899:Cameroon clawless otter 1588:20:14, 3 May 2020 (UTC) 410:Int. Whaling Commission 338:Artiodactyla + Cetacea 1953:. This was changed by 1874:Could you email me on 1858:Pteropus neohibernicus 1677:Strange language stuff 1495:Fountains of Bryn Mawr 1445:Knowledge:Water Cooler 878:Spooky Species Contest 780:R from monotypic taxon 518:clade (the article at 494: 384:(Third Edition), 2018 1969:is an alternative. — 1814:Mammals of New Guinea 1453:User:Sm8900/Town Hall 1276:this 2018 publication 1101:, while the book has 1055:Canis lupus filchneri 1029:Canis lupus filchneri 917:Canis lupus filchneri 42:of past discussions. 2330:Short-beaked echidna 2088:to the exclusion of 2029:Congo clawless otter 1564:The definite article 456:This quote from the 2316:User:Dunkleosteus77 1644:User:Dunkleosteus77 1511:User:Dunkleosteus77 1439:Knowledge:Town Hall 972:systematic manner. 579:User:Dunkleosteus77 1816:1995, Tim Flannery 497:Unfortunately the 158:Even-toed ungulate 2210:as the parent to 2137:Zigongosaurus1138 2082:Exafroplacentalia 1481:Unexplained edits 886:Festive taxa list 612:Ungulate Taxonomy 480:Ungulate Taxonomy 427: 426: 357:Ungulate Taxonomy 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 2351: 2322: 2286: 2268: 2183:User:Awesome 210 2175: 2160: 2055: 2009: 2006: 2005: 1978: 1951:Amblonyx cinerea 1918: 1854:great flying fox 1790: 1736: 1726: 1713: 1650: 1613: 1517: 1356: 1350: 1346: 1340: 1309: 1262: 1242: 1236: 1232: 1226: 1138: 1040: 1013: 1007: 1003: 997: 981: 943: 937: 933: 927: 855:this Google form 794: 788: 784: 778: 765: 717: 644: 585: 551: 511: 440: 406:(following MSW3) 326: 317: 307: 294: 81: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 2359: 2358: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2314: 2259: 2243: 2240: 2191:User:Awesome209 2167: 2152: 2071: 2047: 2007: 2003: 1970: 1910: 1902: 1818: 1782: 1771: 1748: 1728: 1720: 1705: 1679: 1666: 1642: 1633: 1609: 1602: 1566: 1546:PrecociousPeach 1532:PrecociousPeach 1527: 1509: 1483: 1387: 1373: 1348: 1338: 1331:i spelt filchne 1301: 1254: 1234: 1224: 1130: 1032: 1005: 995: 973: 935: 925: 912:Order Carnivora 905: 874: 839: 792: 786: 782: 776: 757: 735: 709: 636: 633:Cetartiodactyla 577: 503: 434: 335:Cetartiodactyla 309: 301: 286: 251:Cetartiodactyla 243:Cetartiodactyla 234:cygnis insignis 166:Cetartiodactyla 113:Dall's porpoise 105: 77: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 2357: 2355: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2288: 2287: 2239: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2230: 2199: 2198: 2197: 2196: 2195: 2194: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2063: 2062: 2061: 2060: 2059: 2025: 1985:Aonyx cinereus 1942: 1941: 1901: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1890: 1817: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1770: 1767: 1747: 1744: 1743: 1742: 1741: 1740: 1678: 1675: 1674: 1673: 1672: 1671: 1664: 1657:Dunkleosteus77 1631: 1601: 1591: 1565: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1530:wiki-projects. 1526: 1525:tasks redirect 1523: 1522: 1521: 1482: 1479: 1464: 1463: 1462: 1461: 1455: 1449: 1448: 1447: 1442: 1429: 1428: 1427: 1422: 1416: 1407: 1396: 1382: 1372: 1369: 1368: 1367: 1366: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1339:William Harris 1316: 1315: 1314: 1313: 1294: 1268: 1267: 1266: 1225:William Harris 1219: 1218: 1210: 1207: 1203: 1200: 1185: 1184: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1157: 1118: 1087: 1084: 1080: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1024: 996:William Harris 986: 985: 969: 968: 967: 963: 959: 926:William Harris 904: 901: 873: 870: 838: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 829: 734: 731: 730: 729: 728: 727: 726: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 705: 682: 681: 680: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 653: 652: 651: 650: 649: 648: 616: 608: 604: 603: 602: 599: 596: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 539: 538: 537: 536: 535: 495: 484: 454: 425: 424: 423: 422: 412: 407: 401: 394: 393: 392: 379: 374: 369: 362: 361: 360: 352: 346: 340: 339: 336: 333: 324: 323: 322: 321: 283: 282: 281: 278: 275: 272: 265: 239: 229: 228: 227: 198: 197: 196: 181: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 87: 82: 75: 70: 65: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2356: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2327: 2326: 2325: 2321: 2317: 2312: 2308: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2297: 2293: 2284: 2280: 2276: 2272: 2267: 2263: 2258: 2254: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2241: 2237: 2229: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2216:Panarthropoda 2213: 2209: 2205: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2192: 2188: 2184: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2174: 2170: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2146: 2142: 2138: 2132: 2129: 2128:Boreoeutheria 2125: 2120: 2118: 2114: 2110: 2106: 2102: 2101:Atlantogenata 2098: 2093: 2091: 2087: 2083: 2079: 2078:Boreoeutheria 2075: 2068: 2058: 2054: 2050: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2034: 2030: 2026: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1995: 1991: 1986: 1983: 1982: 1981: 1977: 1973: 1968: 1964: 1960: 1959:Aonyx cinerea 1956: 1952: 1948: 1944: 1943: 1940: 1936: 1932: 1928: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1917: 1913: 1906: 1900: 1897: 1889: 1885: 1881: 1877: 1873: 1872: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1859: 1855: 1851: 1848: 1847: 1846: 1842: 1838: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1827: 1823: 1815: 1812: 1808: 1804: 1800: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1780: 1775: 1768: 1766: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1756:AnomalousAtom 1753: 1745: 1739: 1735: 1731: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1716: 1712: 1708: 1703: 1699: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1687:SilverTiger12 1684: 1676: 1670: 1667: 1662: 1658: 1655: 1654: 1653: 1649: 1645: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1634: 1629: 1625: 1624:DinosaursRoar 1621: 1617: 1612: 1607: 1600: 1596: 1592: 1590: 1589: 1585: 1581: 1576: 1574: 1569: 1563: 1559: 1555: 1551: 1547: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1512: 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1500: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1480: 1478: 1477: 1473: 1469: 1460: 1456: 1454: 1450: 1446: 1443: 1440: 1437: 1436: 1434: 1430: 1426: 1423: 1420: 1417: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1405: 1400: 1399: 1397: 1394: 1393: 1392: 1388: 1386: 1380: 1377: 1370: 1360: 1357: 1355: 1351: 1345: 1341: 1334: 1330: 1326: 1325: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1317: 1312: 1308: 1304: 1299: 1295: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1281: 1277: 1273: 1269: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1251: 1250: 1249: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1241: 1237: 1231: 1227: 1215: 1211: 1208: 1204: 1201: 1198: 1193: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1175: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1158: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1128: 1123: 1119: 1116: 1112: 1109:appears as a 1108: 1104: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1085: 1081: 1078: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1068: 1064: 1060: 1056: 1052: 1047: 1043: 1039: 1035: 1030: 1025: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1014: 1012: 1008: 1002: 998: 990: 989: 988: 987: 984: 980: 976: 970: 964: 960: 957: 953: 952: 950: 949: 948: 947: 944: 942: 938: 932: 928: 920: 918: 913: 909: 902: 900: 899: 895: 891: 887: 883: 879: 871: 869: 868: 864: 860: 856: 850: 848: 844: 836: 828: 824: 820: 816: 815: 814: 810: 806: 802: 798: 791: 781: 774: 770: 769: 768: 764: 760: 754: 753: 752: 751: 747: 743: 739: 732: 720: 716: 712: 706: 704: 700: 696: 692: 691: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 684: 683: 674: 670: 666: 665:Peter coxhead 661: 660: 659: 658: 657: 656: 655: 654: 647: 643: 639: 634: 630: 626: 622: 617: 613: 609: 607:Artiodactyla. 605: 600: 597: 594: 593: 590: 589: 588: 584: 580: 575: 570: 566: 565: 564: 560: 556: 546: 545: 534: 530: 526: 525:Peter coxhead 521: 516: 515: 514: 510: 506: 500: 499:Helgen (2003) 496: 493: 491: 485: 483:Artiodactyla: 481: 477: 476: 475: 471: 467: 466:Peter coxhead 463: 459: 455: 453: 449: 445: 438: 433: 432: 431: 430: 429: 428: 421: 417: 413: 411: 408: 405: 402: 400: 397: 396: 395: 391: 387: 383: 380: 378: 375: 373: 370: 368: 365: 364: 363: 359: 358: 353: 350: 344: 343: 342: 341: 337: 334: 332: 329:Artiodactyla 328: 327: 320: 316: 312: 305: 299: 298: 297: 293: 289: 284: 279: 276: 273: 270: 266: 263: 259: 255: 254: 252: 248: 244: 240: 238: 235: 230: 226: 222: 218: 213: 212: 211: 207: 203: 199: 195: 191: 187: 182: 180: 176: 172: 171:Peter coxhead 167: 163: 159: 155: 151: 147: 146: 145: 141: 137: 133: 129: 128: 127: 126: 122: 118: 114: 110: 102: 96: 93: 91: 88: 86: 83: 80: 76: 74: 71: 69: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 2320:push to talk 2310: 2306: 2289: 2133: 2121: 2112: 2094: 2072: 2043: 2036: 1984: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1950: 1926: 1907: 1903: 1857: 1819: 1813: 1777:The link is 1776: 1772: 1749: 1680: 1659:, Thank you 1648:push to talk 1610: 1603: 1577: 1570: 1567: 1528: 1515:push to talk 1487:95.49.69.190 1484: 1465: 1432: 1389: 1381: 1378: 1374: 1336: 1332: 1328: 1270:I think the 1222: 1220: 1213: 1196: 1191: 1186: 1161: 1154:Cuon alpinus 1153: 1149: 1145: 1126: 1121: 1114: 1110: 1106: 1102: 1098: 1094: 1090: 1083:be the same. 1058: 1054: 1051:Cuon alpinus 1050: 1028: 993: 923: 921: 916: 911: 907: 906: 875: 851: 840: 736: 629:Artiodactyla 624: 611: 583:push to talk 487: 479: 461: 457: 416:Artiodactyla 381: 355: 330: 268: 258:Artiodactyla 247:Artiodactyla 162:Artiodactyla 106: 78: 43: 37: 2097:Placentalia 2012:Kj cheetham 1965:to include 1491:95.49.13.66 1097:as part of 160:since both 36:This is an 2212:Arthropoda 2090:Afrotheria 2024:Thank-you. 1990:BhagyaMani 1931:BhagyaMani 1620:Helohyidae 1616:Achaenodon 1614:errors at 1606:Helohyidae 1599:Helohyidae 1595:Achaenodon 1466:thanks. -- 843:WP 1.0 Bot 520:Crustacean 331:sensu lato 95:Archive 14 90:Archive 13 85:Archive 12 79:Archive 11 73:Archive 10 2220:Plantdrew 2187:Epitheria 2105:Epitheria 2086:Xenarthra 1967:Lutragale 1955:this edit 1723:TOC limit 1197:Carnivora 1150:filchnevi 1146:filchneri 1127:filchnevi 1122:filchnevi 1103:filchnevi 1091:filchneri 1059:filchnevi 915:wrong on 819:Plantdrew 797:WP:REDYES 695:Plantdrew 420:Cetaceans 217:Plantdrew 136:Plantdrew 68:Archive 9 60:Archive 5 2334:Johnuniq 2292:Johnuniq 2124:Eutheria 859:Walkerma 847:web tool 550:|sameas= 444:KimNiels 304:KimNiels 269:De facto 186:KimNiels 117:KimNiels 2311:echinos 2307:echinus 2262:protect 2257:history 2245:Echidna 2238:Echidna 2169:Jts1882 2154:Jts1882 2049:Jts1882 1972:Jts1882 1927:species 1912:Jts1882 1784:Jts1882 1730:Jts1882 1707:Jts1882 1661:~ Amkgp 1628:~ Amkgp 1578:Thanks— 1303:Jts1882 1256:Jts1882 1132:Jts1882 1115:laniger 1107:laniger 1095:laniger 1034:Jts1882 975:Jts1882 801:Kaldari 773:Jts1882 759:Jts1882 711:Jts1882 638:Jts1882 621:Cetacea 505:Jts1882 437:Jts1882 311:Jts1882 288:Jts1882 262:Cetacea 39:archive 2266:delete 1880:Ucucha 1862:Enwebb 1850:Ucucha 1837:Ucucha 1822:Enwebb 1799:Enwebb 1550:Enwebb 1468:Sm8900 1280:Enwebb 1111:chanco 1099:chanco 890:Nessie 805:Nessie 742:Calaka 555:Nessie 202:Nessie 2283:views 2275:watch 2271:links 2044:Aonyx 2038:Aonyx 1963:Aonyx 625:sensu 372:WoRMS 16:< 2338:talk 2296:talk 2279:logs 2253:talk 2249:edit 2224:talk 2173:talk 2158:talk 2141:talk 2126:and 2103:and 2053:talk 2031:and 2016:talk 1994:talk 1976:talk 1935:talk 1916:talk 1884:talk 1866:talk 1841:talk 1826:talk 1803:talk 1788:talk 1781:. — 1760:talk 1734:talk 1725:|4}} 1711:talk 1702:here 1691:talk 1618:and 1597:and 1584:talk 1554:talk 1536:talk 1499:talk 1472:talk 1349:talk 1307:talk 1284:talk 1260:talk 1235:talk 1170:talk 1136:talk 1093:and 1077:here 1067:talk 1038:talk 1006:talk 979:talk 936:talk 894:talk 863:talk 823:talk 809:talk 763:talk 746:talk 715:talk 699:talk 669:talk 642:talk 574:this 569:This 559:talk 529:talk 509:talk 470:talk 462:s.s. 448:talk 442:out. 404:ITIS 399:MSW3 367:IUCN 315:talk 292:talk 260:and 221:talk 206:talk 190:talk 175:talk 164:and 140:talk 121:talk 2080:as 1580:GRM 1433:not 785:or 631:or 386:doi 150:doi 2340:) 2332:. 2298:) 2281:| 2277:| 2273:| 2269:| 2264:| 2260:| 2255:| 2251:| 2226:) 2151:— 2143:) 2018:) 1996:) 1937:) 1909:— 1886:) 1868:) 1843:) 1828:) 1805:) 1762:) 1754:. 1721:{{ 1693:) 1665:💬 1632:💬 1586:) 1556:) 1538:) 1501:) 1489:, 1474:) 1441:or 1383:* 1286:) 1172:) 1069:) 896:) 865:) 825:) 811:) 793:}} 787:{{ 783:}} 777:{{ 748:) 701:) 671:) 561:) 553:-- 531:) 472:) 450:) 223:) 208:) 192:) 177:) 142:) 123:) 64:← 2336:( 2318:| 2294:( 2285:) 2247:( 2222:( 2171:| 2156:| 2139:( 2051:| 2014:( 2008:Y 1992:( 1974:| 1933:( 1914:| 1882:( 1864:( 1856:( 1839:( 1824:( 1801:( 1786:| 1758:( 1732:| 1709:| 1689:( 1646:| 1582:( 1552:( 1534:( 1513:| 1497:( 1470:( 1421:, 1415:, 1406:. 1333:v 1329:r 1305:| 1282:( 1258:| 1199:) 1168:( 1160:( 1148:/ 1134:| 1065:( 1036:| 977:| 892:( 861:( 821:( 807:( 761:| 744:( 713:| 697:( 667:( 640:| 581:| 557:( 527:( 507:| 468:( 446:( 439:: 435:@ 418:/ 388:: 351:) 347:( 313:| 306:: 302:@ 290:| 264:. 219:( 204:( 188:( 173:( 152:: 138:( 119:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Mammals/Archive 11 - Knowledge

Index