Hi Ucucha, great job with this list, Congratulations !!! Some suggests:
Miniopterus newtoni - separated from M. minor (JUSTE, J.; FERRÁNDEZ, A.; FA, J. E.; MASEFIELD, W.; IBÁÑEZ, C. (2007). Taxonomy of little bent-winged bats (Miniopterus, Miniopteridae) from the African islands of São Tomé, Grand Comoro and Madagascar, based on mtDNA. Acta Chiropterologica 9 (1): 27-37.)
Miniopters fuliginosus and Miniopterus oceanensis - separated from M. schreibersii (TIAN, L.; LIANG, B.; MAEDA, K.; METZNER, W.; ZHANG, S. (2004). Molecular studies on the classification of Miniopterus schreibersii (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences. Folia Zooligica 53 (3): 303–311. // APPLETON B. R.; MCKENZIE J. A.; CHIRSTIDIS L. 2004: Molecular Systematics and Biogeography of the Bentwing Bat Complex Miniopterus schreibersii (Kuhl, 1817) (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae). Mol. Phylogen. Evol. 31: 431–439.)
Murina silvatica - considered synonymy of M. ussuriensis (Abe et al., 2005; Maeda et al., 2005)
Myotis escalerai - separated from M. nattereri (IBANEZ, C.; GARCÍA-MUDARRA, J.L.; RUEDI, M.; STADELMANN, B.; JUSTE, J. (2006). The Iberian contribution to cryptic diversity in European bats. Acta Chiropterologica 8 (2): 277-297.)
Hypsugo bodenheimeri - considered synonym of H. ariel (MAYER, F.; DIETZ, C.; KIEFER, A. 2007: Molecular species identification boosts bat diversity.Frontiers in Zoology 4: 4.)
Scotophilis mhlanganii - new species (JACOBS, D. S.; EICK, G.N.; SCHOEMAN, M.C.; MATTHEE, C.A. 2006. Cryptic species in an insectivorous bat, Scotophilus dinganii. Journal of Mammalogy 87: 161–170.)
Anoura aequatoris - separated from A. caudifer (MANTILLA-MELUK, H., BAKER, R. J. (2006). Systematics of small Anoura (Chiroptera: Phyllostomidae) from Colombia, with description of a new species. Occasional Papers, Museum of Texas Tech University 261, 1-18.)
Dermanura and Koopmania - elevated to genus status ((HOOFER, S. R.; SOLARI, S.; LARSEN, P. A.; BRADLEY, R. D.; BAKER, R. J. 2008. Phylogenetics of the Fruit-eating Bats (Phyllostomidae: Artibenia) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University 277: 1-16.)
Dermanura rava and Dermanura rosenbergi - D. rosenbergii separated from D. glaucus; D. rava separated from D. phaeotis (HOOFER, S. R.; SOLARI, S.; LARSEN, P. A.; BRADLEY, R. D.; BAKER, R. J. 2008. Phylogenetics of the Fruit-eating Bats (Phyllostomidae: Artibenia) inferred from mitochondrial DNA sequences. Occasional Papers Museum of Texas Tech University 277: 1-16.)
Artibeus triomylus - separated from A. jamaicensis (LIM, B. K.; ENGSTROM, M. D.; LEE, T. E., Jr.; PATTON, J. C.; BICKHAM, J. W. (2004). Molecular differentiation of large species of fruit-eating bats (Artibeus) and phylogenetic relationships based on the cytochrome b gene. Acta Chiropterologica 6 (1): 1-12.)
Coelops hirsutus - separated from C. robinsoni by Heaney (pers. comm. 2007) (IUCN 2009).
Thanks! I won't have time to go into this in detail for a week or so. There are some that I genuinely missed, and a few that I excluded on purpose: I believe that Artibeus triomylus and Anoura aequatorialis have been synonymized again in subsequent publications, for example. The naming of "Scotophilus mhlanganii" was an act in utter contempt of the Code that I am unwilling to legitimize in any way. Ucucha17:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm lost. I'm looking through a Jacobs et al. (2006). Not only do I not see a valid species description, I don't even see a bad attempt at a species description or even the name "Scotophilus mhlanganii". I just see a paper where they reported results that led them to conclude that a cryptic species exists within dinganii and you're led to believe that they will probably get around to naming it someday. What'd I miss? --Aranae (talk) 19:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the paper before me right now, but as I remember they say at the end of the Introduction something in the lines of: "We are studying two species, one of which doesn't have a scientific name, and we're going to call it Scotophilus mhlanganii just for fun." It's easy to miss. Ucucha19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is: Jakobs et al., 2007. Can. J. Zool., 85:883-890. "not yet named but tentatively called here "Scotophilus mhlanganii". Amazing. They didn't actually use the name in the 2006 paper, but then do so in the 2009 one. --Aranae (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I include mhlanganii only because an article that i see last week (JACOBS & BARCLAY. 2009. Niche differentiation in two sympatric sibling bat species, Scotophilus dinganii and Scotophilus mhlanganii. Journal of Mammalogy, 90(4):879–887.): "Scotophilus dinganii (A. Smith, 1833) and its recently discovered sympatric sibling species, S. mhlanganii (Jacobs et al. 2006, 2007b)". I didn't knew of the problem in original description (I don't have the article of 2006). Sorry for confusion. Regards Burmeister (talk) 22:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That was some very subtle wording in that 2009 paper. Clearly you weren't the only one tricked - it got past the reviewers. --Aranae (talk) 22:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should have looked at that a little better. I find it particularly troubling, though, that the Can. J. Zool. let this slip by. I've seen some examples before of new species descriptions of questionable compliance with the Code (Hipposideros khasiana, Panthera tigris jacksoni), but this is by far the worst example I've ever encountered—they don't even try not to make it a nomen nudum. I think it should be the journal's responsibility to prevent that, especially when the instructions explicitly state (as is the case for this journal) that authors should follow the Code. Ucucha02:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By "slipped past the reviewers", I was referring to the reviewers in the 2009 paper. I'm not making excuses for the reviewers of the 2007 paper. It was probably reviewed by ecologists given its emphasis, but most ecologists I know know better. Regarding the broader discussion, I definitely agree that Scotophilus mhlanganii doesn't warrant a place on your list. --Aranae (talk) 12:24, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More one suggestion to include in the list:
Miniopterus griffithsi - new species (GOODMAN, et al. (2009) Patterns of morphological and genetic variation in the endemic Malagasy bat Miniopterus gleni (Chiroptera: Miniopteridae), with the description of a new species, M. griffithsi. Journal of Zoological Systematics and Evolutionary Research)
Miniopterus newtoni: Juste et al. did not include sequences from Minipterus minor sensu stricto, so their analysis cannot provide evidence that M. newtoni is a species distinct from M. minor.
Miniopterus fuliginosus and M. oceanensis: There is strong evidence that there are multiple species within the current M. schreibersii, but the study you cite unfortunately doesn't give a credible alternative to lumping all of it within M. schreibersii. The name they use for the Australian species, for example, which is Miniopterus oceanensis Maeda, 1982, is not the oldest name for the Australian form. As shown in the Appleton et al. paper you cite, the actual situation is much more complex than what Tian et al. suggest. I feel that at this point there is too much taxonomic uncertainty here to change the species list.
Murina silvatica: There seems to be some disagreement in the literature about it. I have not found the references you gave, but Kruskop (2005, Russian J. Theriol. 9(2):91-99) considers M. silvatica to be a subspecies of M. ussuriensis, but a paper by Fukui et al. (2005, Acta Theriologica 50:309-322), which I haven't seen, disagrees, and the recent description of Murina bicolor, M. gracilis, and M. recondita also maintains it as separate. I'll keep M. silvatica as a species for now, but clearly it would also be defensible to consider it a subspecies.
Myotis escalerai: You are right. I had seen some references to M. escalerai as a species (it apparently also occurs in France), but I hadn't found the paper which substantiated its species status.
Hypsugo bodenheimeri: You are right, but Benda et al. (2008, Acta Soc. Zool. Boh. 72:1-103) gives a much more comprehensive justification for the synonymy than the paper you cite.
Scotophilus mhlanganii: This has been adequately discussed.
Anoura aequatoris: Griffith and Gardner in Gardner (2007, Mammals of South America, Vol. 1) do not recognize this as separate pending a full revision, and I follow their opinion here. The elevation of A. aequatoris to species status was also recently critized by Jarrin-V. & Kunz (2008, Acta Chiropterologica 10(2):257-269).
Artibeus and Dermanura: This is a somewhat contentious area; see Lim et al. (2008, Acta Chiropterologica 10(2):243-256) for an argument for not recognizing the two as separate. No one seems to recognize Koopmania as a genus any more, and Hoofer et al. actually include it in their restricted Artibeus. Both parties recognize that the decision on the generic status of Dermanura is ultimately a subjective one. Redondo et al. (2008, Mol. Phyl. Evol. 49:44-58) also recognized a single genus. I prefer to wait a little longer to see whether Dermanura as a genus gains general acceptance.
Dermanura rava and D. rosenbergi: Thanks for pointing that out. I added them to the list.
Artibeus triomylus: Synonymized under A. jamaicensis again by Larsen et al. (2007, J. Mamm. 88(3):712-727).
Coelops hirsutus: Heaney et al. (2006, Fieldiana Zool. 112:30-31) also provisionally retain it as a separate species, so I am including it now.
Miniopterus griffithsi: This article is still in press; I prefer to wait until it gets formally published.
On October 26, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Galidiinae, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I was thinking about a table, but there will probably have to be a page devoted to it or just use the Blake mythology page. It is a very complex issue and it changes between the different books (the first set was his "Continental" works, then he had a series of Biblical prophecies, then he had the "Four Zoas", and ended it with "Jerusalem"). I've been trying to improve the Blake pages so that the main biography can be improved (i.e. use the biography more for summary style and have a strong organization). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Just saw the message after posting message below this. I believe you deserve this as you suggested an alternative and for the coedits. Thank you very much Ucucha--Chanaka L (talk)01:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Field Ornithology Group of Sri Lanka
Thank you very much for the copy edits and suggesting an alternative. Looking forward to nominate issue-free hooks in the future. I've seen your interesting Caribbean rodents articles recently in DYK. Keep up the good work. Regards--Chanaka L (talk)01:40, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering about the best way to go about changing these links... Of course the easiest thing to do is just change the exact URL to the new exact URL, but that is probably not the best solution. Evidently, this is already the second time they've changed their website in recent history. I more permanent solution that generates the URL based on a template is probably in order.
I see there are a number of existing templates to do the job. (see for example {{IUCN2006}}) They generally do not link to the specific pages anymore because the last change to the redlist site broke the URLs and instead of fixing the links, they were just removed. However, it seems to me that as long as id= field is present that the new URL can easily be generated accurately. I don't really have any experience in the subject matter, so you'll have to correct me if I am wrong and there is some reason not to do this.
So, assuming the existing templates are updated the question becomes what to do with the citations that use {{cite web}} or something similar instead of the IUCN citation templates. One option is the try to convert them to IUCN templates by copying "author" to "assessors", "title" to "title", extracting the ID # from the URL, and so on. Personally I think that might be the best solution, albeit the most difficult. The other option is simply to replace the url= field with a template such as url={{IUCNlink|12345}} which simply expands into the full url.
Let me know what you think, and if you think we should seek further input on this matter.
I believe they also changed the ID number with one of the earlier updates, making the situation even more complex.
Considering the number of templates and other ways to link to IUCN accounts, I think the best solution might be to create, as you suggest, a {{IUCNlink}} template that simply provides the URL from the ID, so that we can easily correct it when they change the URL again. This template could then be called in other templates with IUCN links. When they change the IDs again, we are screwed, but there's little we can do about that. Ucucha14:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I had read them, I just hadn't replied yet. :) In any case, I think you are right - the simpliest solution is the best so that is what I'll do. I already have a bot approved to do the task, so I'll go ahead and unleash it tomorrow (about to go to bed now). I can probably run in on the species wiki too, but I haven't checked to see if they have a bot policy yet (most small wikis don't, in which case it won't be an issue). --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the unnecessary message, then. Yes, go ahead with it, and thanks for the time you're spending on this.
Quick update: I've tested the bot locally and I think I got all the kinks ironed out. I'm going to wait until tomorrow to make live edits though so that I'm online just in case something goes wrong. --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryzomys anoblepas, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Graag gedaan! But please do address the issue I raised on T:TDYK about the hook, because it would be great to have this article go to the front page. Ucucha23:59, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ucucha, I don't like the last sentence of the lead (...after...one of the oldest... sounds a bit dumb). Perhaps, if the spirit moves you, you care to tweak it? Also, I'm working on Opzij--feel free to add whatever you care to share. I know it's not exactly an unknown and possibly extinct mammal that we only know from some bones, but it's important to some people nevertheless. ;) Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you like the current version? One thing I'm concerned about is that I'm not exactly confident that there are no other older papers, since I only found the Leeuwarder by chance and didn't find another reference that says there are no other older papers.
I'm afraid I won't have much to share about Opzij or other parts of the Dutch media, although I know that there are certainly people who would gladly apply the description of an "unknown and possibly extinct mammal that we only know from some bones" to Cisca Dresselhuys. But you'll undoubtedly be able to write a decent article on it on your own. Ucucha16:41, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like it, thanks. Yeah, I'm having a problem finding just one comprehensive book that tells me which paper and when. Haarlem do claim they have the first one, and I don't think I found any other claims for Groningen--though that dissertation's authority shouldn't be questioned, I think. BTW, I did read your unknown rodent article (congrats, BTW!), and there's an exciting historical/taxonomical novel waiting to be written there. Drmies (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This also provides pretty strong evidence that it was in existence back in 1752; I am afraid I can't help with other sources.
C. andersoni is now a synonym of another Cerradomys, probably C. maracajuensis but I'll have to check that (see a recent Am. Mus. Novitates paper), and O. delticola and O. eliurus are now synonyms of O. nigripes (see the paper describing Oligoryzomys moojeni). I'll update the articles soon, hopefully over the next few days. Ucucha19:47, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Scientist, this is just ridiculous. At some point you have to tell the young man to stop and get back to studying. Ucucha, when's the last time you read a novel? Drmies (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DYK for Nephelomys childi
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys childi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys maculiventer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys moerex, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys nimbosus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys pectoralis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys pirrensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys albigularis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys auriventer, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys devius, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys caracolus, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys keaysi, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys levipes, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nephelomys meridensis, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
On November 8, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chilean Climbing Mouse, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Lundomys skin USNM.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. dave pape (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
I responded on the Urn FAC. By the way, I saw the discussion at Gigantomachy. If necessary, I could use some of my sources to rewrite the sections and attribute it to some scholarly works without direct quotes to help avoid the problem. That is, if there is still a problem in a few days. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'll have a look. With gigantomachy, the main problem seems to be that the user doesn't understand the concept of plagiarism. I don't have any special interest in the article, but any improvements would of course be welcome. Even without the plagiarism, the Internet sources the creator of that page used are not the best sources one can use for such an article. Ucucha21:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
