Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals

Mammal Diversity taxon pages are gone

I noticed recently that https://mammaldiversity.com/ now gives 404 errors when trying to go to a page for a taxon other than a species or if trying to go to a URl with just the species and genus name. I was fixing the latter with AWB but the former issue does not have an obvious fix (see for instance the external link on Leopardus). Recommendations? Should these links be removed? In some cases they are used as a citation for the number of recognized species in a genus, such as on Petaurus, so it would make sense to link the IUCN red list search for the same info but in this case the number of species doesn't match up (ASM recognizes at least three more species). -- Reconrabbit 14:57, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't remember the taxon links such as https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1005994 working for anything other than species. The links to families and genera had a different format.

They've completely upgrade the site, which is now much slicker, but much more difficult to link to a taxon other than a species. I've yet to find a way other than navigating the tree in one of several ways.

In cases like https://www.mammaldiversity.org/tree.html#genus=Petaurus, you can still access it using the classic version https://www.classic.mammaldiversity.org/tree.html#genus=Petaurus, but note that is using a different style of link and that the display now only uses a third of the screen.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:22, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The Classic version looks like the only obvious solution for now. Thanks. Taxon links used to work where these two links went to the same place: https://www.mammaldiversity.org/tree.html#genus=Lepus&species=oiostolus https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1001099/ That is no longer the case, only the latter works. (If I am saying something you already stated, my bad) -- Reconrabbit 15:27, 3 February 2026 (UTC)(now using a third of the screen rather than half).

I don't think those links ever went to the same place. Your example with tree.html#genus=Lepus&species=oiostolus linked to the treeview and displayed the species info in a panel on the right of the pages. You can see that in classic now: https://www.classic.mammaldiversity.org/tree.html#genus=Lepus&species=oiostolus (although the info panel now uses a third of the screen rather than half). The link with taxon/1001099/ didn't display the treeview. An early version using explore.html displayed the species info on top of a table of taxa.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:42, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

I see. I'm confused why I thought that wasn't the case before - maybe I had just never used {{Cite mdd}} without the ID. -- Reconrabbit 15:51, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

At one point you could use {{Cite mdd}} without the ID, but it linked to the tree.html page with the treeview and still works in the classic version of the site. You could also use the explore.html page with genus+species+id but this only worked if the id was given. The genus and species were actually never used in the MDD code.

I've had another look, and I can't see anyway of linking to a order, family or genus on the new MDD site. There are several ways of navigating, but no permalinks to the new structure.  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:05, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for List of organisms of Place

There is a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Inclusion criteria for List of organisms of Place about what should be included in such lists. Please contribute there. Thank you. SchreiberBike | ⌨  03:39, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

New article assessment for Mexican long-nosed armadillo

A study in June 2024 reclassified the Mexican long-nosed armadillo (Dasypus mexicanus) as a distinct species and not a subspecies of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus). I created an article for the Mexican long-nosed armadillo by copying most of the information from the nine-banded armadillo article and changing the range of distribution and other geographic-centric entries in both articles. The two species are very close in everything except where they are found. If anyone would like to proofread and make improvements to the articles, it would be appreciated as I am no subject matter expert in this area. Thanks. Nv8200pa talk 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Another source: Widespread Armadillo Is Actually Four Different Species - Field Museum Nv8200pa talk 21:16, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Potential merge of Black jackrabbit

I'm not sure what to do with Black jackrabbit right now. Any input at Talk:Black jackrabbit is appreciated. -- Reconrabbit 18:58, 10 April 2026 (UTC)

"Cloud jaguar"

The lay media has a story about the sighting of a "cloud jaguar", which the even more lay-ai media is calling "clouded jaguar", in the cloud forest of Honduras. Supposedly this is rare because most jaguars stay below 1000 m a.s.l. If Cloud jaguar needs to be more than a redirect could somebody take care of it? Abductive (reasoning) 14:38, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Not finding any hits outside of this story. Can anyone think of a Spanish term it may be a translation of? CMD (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

I think it just refers to jaguars found in cloud forests, usually high for jaguars. There is some suggestion it is a new behaviour but I don't see anything to suggest a new article is needed.  —  Jts1882 | talk  15:03, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

It is a signal that we could perhaps better nuance the Jaguar article, which states "avoids montane forests" in a sentence very similar to the one in the 1996 source. CMD (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

The article needs clarification as cloud forests are montane forests. Looking at the history, a sentence saying sometimes found at high altitudes but avoids montane forests was in the article at least ten years ago. The 1996 source and the IUCN assessment both say typically avoids montane forests and have no mention of cloud forests for the jaguar. The bit about habitat including cloud forests was added in 2019 with no source. We need a source for cloud forest sightings in Honduras or elsewhere. It also looks like the found in dry deciduous forests is taken out of context. The 1996 source emphasises requirment for water before listing habitats including dry deciduous forest (presumaly near water).  —  Jts1882 | talk  16:51, 13 April 2026 (UTC)

Which type of sea lion?

I'm hoping someone could look in on File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 01.jpg and File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 02.jpg and let me know whether they agree with the recent category changes there. If they are accurate, then the files need to be renamed, and the descriptions need to change. Thanks in advance. - Jmabel | Talk 03:25, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

Actually, I now see this is an issue for everything in this sequence, up to and including File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 07.jpg. (Both species were definitely present in the aquarium. File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 03.jpg is clearly California and File:Vancouver Aquarium - Steller Sea Lion 08.jpg is clearly Steller.)- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 7 May 2026 (UTC)

I just tried to learn how to tell the difference and based on the color I'd tend to agree. But I'm not an expert clearly. Naturedata (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Articles about recently described species

Hello everyone! I'm a developer of the List of living mammal species described in the 2020s. At the moment, a lot of species from this list don't have articles on English Wikipedia. I think it would be reasonable if enwiki became the most complete WMF's project on the popularization of newly described species, because English is the main working language of science today. Let's achieve this important goal together. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Elephant shrew#Requested move 30 May 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Elephant shrew#Requested move 30 May 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 16:11, 14 June 2026 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Dog § RfC on scientific name

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Dog § RfC on scientific name. Jako96 (talk) 15:36, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Guideline update

I think it is long past due to update the Guideline section of the project. While MSW3 was the "official" taxonomy we aligned to, with the expectation that we would adjust when MSW4 came out, MSW4 never did and instead the ASM produced the MDD as a replacement. That has been the de facto guiding taxonomy for many years now. I suggest revising the section to read as follows:

The American Society of Mammalogists' Mammal Diversity Database is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. This resource is the de facto successor to the Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) in both the real world and in this WikiProject. It is accepted practice to override any existing taxonomy to align with the Mammal Diversity Database. New species articles should wait until either they are listed in the MDD, or are listed by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Redlist (IUCN Redlist).

Specific cases of divergence should be handled via discussion on the relevant talk page, with a courtesy notification to this project made via a note on the project's talk page.

- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

I oppose such a move, speaking from the outsider view of limited taxonomy involvement, to be made due. In general Wikipedia should not give such excessive primacy to any one source. While that is the current status quo, I do not see it as beneficial to further promote it by renewing it's mandate.

The information Wikipedia gives front row presence should be representative of scientific consensus. That is something one single source may not determine. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written with neutrality, representing significant views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Allowing a single or few source to determine the taxbox, the section which people quick reference, to me reaks of an WP:NPOV violation through giving undue weight. Official Wikipedia policy further guides no wikiproject or other community guideline may overwrite a core policy such as NPOV.

So because the guideline, which you propose to update, is already in some degree of conflict with principles of Wikipedia it should not receive further recognition by being changed. In fact discussion should take as to whether it is even permissible for taxonomy to deviate from the infobox norms aplying to every other field on Wikipedia. So I respectfully strongly oppose Finfixer (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

For comparison, here's the current guideline:

The Third edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World (2005) is the basis for the taxonomic framework used by WikiProject Mammals. The MSW3 classification may be overridden by the conclusions of more recent studies which are widely accepted in secondary sources. MSW3 listings can be found online at the Bucknell University here. (Note: there are some differences between the print edition and the online database. For instance, the online database shows three subspecies of dhole^[1] whereas the print edition lists seven.^[2])

The Mammal Diversity Database is a new resource that reflects taxonomic changes since the publication of MSW3. It is accepted practice to override the MSW3 taxonomy if both the Mammal Diversity Database and IUCN agree on the change.

- In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Support. There needs to be a primary guideline source used for determining appropriate article titles and the taxonomy in the taxobox for consistency across articles. Alternative opinions should be discussed in the articles. MSW3 is terribly out of date, almost a quarter century for its literature cut-off date, and many of the people involved in MSW3 and the planning of MSW4 were involved in developing the MDD. The ASM committee that was behind the MSW series is behind the MDD under a new name. In many cases the MDD follows the IUCN specialist groups. Where the Red List diverges from the MDD it is usually because the IUCN changes are more involved, requiring a new conservation assessment rather than just changing the name in a database.  —  Jts1882 | talk  17:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I do understand the need for this consistency, but I do believe it can be achieved through concensus of multiple reputable sources instead of forcing consistency by contravening NPOV. Sources will mostly differ on what a species should be called. Genus placements etc seems to be far less disputed. It is convenient for there to be a primary guideline source, but convenience in creating consistency should not be a standart on Wikipedia. It is much more reasonable for there to be a lists of recommended, reputable, and unreputable sources instead of one source that is presumed to be correct. As I already stated NPOV is not something a community consensus may override. I do admit it is true that taxoboxes may include synonyms. Even then the given primary species name retains the ability to in some cases cause undue weight if not supported by a sufficiently broad scientific consensus.

As such this aproach is not spinnable as being in line with NPOV in cases where reputable primary and secondary sources do not agree. In taxonomy articles, I think, NPOV should mean taking the broadest consensus and not altering it unless a new even broader scientific consensus arises. That is vastly different from what this guideline proposes to editors. Finfixer (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Differences from the de facto standard can be addressed in the article itself, which is where all discrepancies and disagreements should be dealt with, eh? This guideline is for what the default baseline should be, so that (for instance) one article doesn't call the dingo a species, while another calls it a synonym of the domesticated dog. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 18:09, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Default should be the most consensual thing in the recent scientific works, not anything else. I don't want we saying our readers "Ah, hello, this is the scientific consensus here, but we only followin' that sometimes quite unconsensual taxonomic database for default for no reason." Jako96 (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I think what UtherSRG is trying to say is that MDD (in contrast to the outdated MSW3) can generally be assumed to represent the most recent consensus in mammology, as a database compiled by a peak national mammological body, and editors can consider it to at least represent the predominant view of that influential body if not the wider mammological community. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 07:10, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Indeed. It's the highest regarded, it's updated frequently, it is produced by the same body that produced MSW3, and it is not a primary source. It should be our first piece for mammal taxonomy alignment, and any deviation should need a very strong argument with multiple secondary sources supporting the change. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose - I recognize that MSW3 is getting very out of date, and I'm willing to buy the MDD being the de facto successor to it, but I disagree that the only reason for the IUCN to not match the MDD is because they lag behind due to needing to put on red list ratings. There's a ton of DD species out there, and there's a ton of species that MDD recognizes that the IUCN has not picked up for years and years of updates. There's even a handful of complicated cases where the IUCN recognizes a species that the MDD doesn't. I would prefer a standard of dropping MSW3 and relying on the combination of MDD/IUCN, though I admit that is not as clean as using a single database. --PresN 18:42, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I agree to a degree. If this guideline is to continue in any form, that is a good aproach. However, I would make it a three way test instead where the majority wins. That would already demonstrate some resemblance of scientific consensus of such nature that would not result in undue weight and NPOV issues. It is more radical than what you propose and a degree more complicated, but a three pronged majority test is far superior to giving one source supremacy. Finfixer (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

I correct;

Giving one or even two sources supremacy Finfixer (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Specific cases of divergence should be handled via discussion on the relevant talk page, with a courtesy notification to this project made via a note on the project's talk page. This was my attempt at being more generic that the original's wording in regards to "both MDD/IUCN" and also the fact that the redlist is updated at a much slower cadence. Would some amendment to that statement help in pulling you in? - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 22:00, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

So, for context, I spend my time on the the lists of species per family/subfamily/order, so I'm not generally looking at a single species (except for making range maps) but trying to sort out the taxonomy of an entire family+. So, I'd prefer, where possible, solid rules that don't need per-species interpretation where amateur editors (me) have to evaluate if new species are legit or just DNA-test star-hunting slop, because I don't have a PhD and really shouldn't be deciding if a 1-month-old paper overrides a decade of taxonomy. The current rules are clear- if I look at MSW3 for Ochotonidae, and it has 30 species, and I see that in the 25 years since IUCN has combined 2 species, and MDD has agreed but also added 8 more from various mountain peaks in China, that's straightforward. It's 29 species. But if we move to a model of "IUCN + MDD and we decide ad-hoc where they disagree but there's no guidance as to what that means", then suddenly which of those 8 questionable species "count" depends on my own opinion (which isn't worth much) of if the papers that MDD was cool with are just whatever grad-student work someone got published, or if the IUCN was right to ignore them for 5+ years. Your proposal is to say that the MDD is right to accept them and the IUCN wrong to reject them, but I don't know that either of us can make that call. And we're both implicitly saying that ITIS (which contradicts lots of stuff) doesn't matter, but why so? Because it's not as convenient to source?

I do think I see this pretty plainly now that I've finished all of the mammal lists- for most families, MDD and IUCN are pretty close. The dog/wolf argument that sparked this is fairly rare (though they ironically agree in that case). It's really the small mammals - the pikas, the shrews, and stars help me the million rat species - where MDD just has a bunch of species that the IUCN rejects, and I can't really say that it's because the IUCN is slow but moreso because they're purposely conservative on adding new species based on limited evidence. So we need a guideline that works for more than just the (relatively) static megafauna families, e.g. "what should you do if there's a species in MDD that's not in IUCN". --PresN 02:55, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

How do you do a species list when two sources disagree? A species list should mostly follow a single source, else it is tempting original research. Your example of Ochotonidae may not be as simple as one lump by the IUCN compare to MSW3. My quick comparison has five MSW3 species not being recognised by the IUCN and four new ones (although one might be a change of species epithet).

I don't know that either of us can make that call If we can't make that call, who should? If we can't make the call, how can we determine the consensus? This seems a good reason to chose a guideline source to make the choice for us.  —  Jts1882 | talk  10:00, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

The whole driving principle of Wikipedia is editors together determining consensus. There is nothing absolute that prevents taxonomy editors coming together to decide things when disagreements arise.That is much more in line with the nature of Wikipedia than a single de facto rule. Most editors, unless new, will be aware of the general sourcing and consensus conventions of Wikipedia. They will rightly presume those conventions or related conventions aply all across Wikipedia. The idea of one source, and to lesser degree few sources, dominating is not in line with those conventions nor adaptations of them to fit narrowly defined encyclopedic needs. This all means that avoidance of source disputes instead of resolving them through consensus and inclusion in accordance with NPOV is not, in my mind, the purpose of Wikipedia.

I of course agree that in taxonomy there is obviously a need for a high degree of standartisation. However, this should be achieved through classifying sources and providing guidelines for resolving disputes between them on a case by case basis. That can be done and there is room for tighter rules for levels above species. Something being difficult or unpleasant due to how Wikipedia works is not a valid reason for a single WikiProject to override conventions and certainly not to override official policy. In fact no valid reasons exist for overriding official policy. Decisions must be made for each dispute individually in the article where not resolved in other articles or issue specific discussions here. Finfixer (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

"How do you do a species list when two sources disagree?" - by following the (current) WP:MAMMAL guidelines - start with the MSW3 list, and if there's a change that both the IUCN and MDD agree on, do that. Just using MDD would also be straightforward (though annoying for me to go back and verify), but I disagree on ditching IUCN as "slow". But if we don't ditch IUCN, then we need a stated rule for how to decide what to do if there's a species in MDD and not in IUCN (or vice-versa). --PresN 12:39, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Wikipedia should be based on recent consensus of different sources, not a single source, especially, definitely not a taxonomic database down to the species level. Also, new species articles should never wait until they are listed in the MDD, a taxonomic database, which is a secondary and when compared to scientific works, a much less important source; shouldn't restrict us from talking about a PHYSICALLY existing new mammal species. Jako96 (talk) 06:52, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

I am aware of very few cases where a mammal is described (in a manner that is convincing enough to establish a new species) and the MDD does not update to include it. Being hasty and relying on primary sources can lead to doing a lot of work that ends up not being worthwhile (northern green anaconda, for example, was made a good article but eventually got merged). Secondary sources are better than primary sources. -- Reconrabbit (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Support in general. MSW3 is 21 years old (more like 22 or 23 if you look at its oldest references). Many important molecular studies were published right after MSW3 and just barely failed to influence MSW3 (or were new enough that a few authors chose to wait and see before making big changes such as bat suborders or Cetacea + Artodactyla. It was a fantastic reference when it was published, but it has long been superseded by more up to date sources. The industry standard for the 2010s was the Handbook of Mammals series. Wikipedia should have switched from using MSW3 as standard to Handbook at that time. Regardless, MDD is the current standard. Journals such as Journal of Mammalogy (also published by ASM) require authors to adopt MDD taxonomy or provide an explanation as to why they deviate ( https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/pages/author-guidelines see Style section, para 2). As has been noted, IUCN is slow to update, does not focus on taxonomy as its primary goal, and has limited information on nomenclature or taxonomy above the species level. I would certainly support a well-sourced deviation from MDD on a case by case basis and controversy should definitely be discussed in the text. Choosing a standard to be used across taxoboxes is not a violation of NPOV so long as the alternatives are also discussed. --Aranae (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2026 (UTC)

Support in principle as an improvement on the frankly untenable current guideline, though I think the text of the proposed guideline should be slightly altered to better reflect the fact that this (as with all WikiProject guidelines) is a recommendation for best practice based on a local consensus, not a strict policy that editors must always follow. While I think relying on the MDD instead of MSW3 is a massive improvement, it should not be taken as the gospel truth, and editors should always be encouraged to look at all available sources and use their best judgement when evaluating the current taxonomic consensus (especially considering MDD is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, rather than an international body). The second to last sentence somewhat conveys this, but applies only to new species, which I do not think is appropriate - I would recommend removing the new species stipulation and replacing the It is accepted practice to override any existing taxonomy to align with the Mammal Diversity Database. New species articles should wait until either they are listed in the MDD, or are listed by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Redlist (IUCN Redlist). section with something along the lines of It is accepted practice to align Wikipedia's taxonomy with the Mammal Diversity Database or, when there is disagreement, with the predominant consensus of mammalogists as evidenced by multiple non-primary sources, such as the International Union for Conservation of Nature's Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN Red List). Significant alternative or historical taxonomic placements should be noted in the body of the article per relevant reliable sources. This leaves breathing room for cases where the MDD holds an "unpopular opinion" not accepted by the international mammalogical community or the mammalogical community of a relevant region: not a common issue, as I understand it, but worth a carve-out for in my opinion.
Continued primary reliance on MSW3 is not acceptable. While an excellent source, it is now over two decades old - probably older than some of the regular editors in this space! - and cannot be updated to reflect the evolving research and changing taxonomic consensus among mammologists. The MDD, while not perfect, is a competently run database that receives frequent updates from the American Society of Mammalogists, and it can reasonably be assumed to generally reflect the taxonomic consensus among American mammalogists, if not the wider mammalogical community. The current guideline has been used as a bludgeon to force a sorely outdated taxonomic status quo on the topic area and from discussing this with other editors I know that this has driven several people away from working on mammal articles, so I welcome any effort to change this. It's 2026, this project needs to move on from clinging to MSW3. Ethmostigmus 🌿 (talk | contribs) 06:55, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

The American Society of Mammalogists commissioned MSW. The American Society of Mammalogists commissioned MDD. If latter had been presented as an online MSW4, would we even be having this debate? The transition form MSW3 to MSW4 would have been uncontroverisal. In fact an early argument not to accept MDD was because we were waiting for MSW4. A number of the other online databases have emerged from earlier published works (IOC, HMW/Birdlife, ASW, ECoF). For some reason published books are considered authoritative even though not peer reviewed, and databases treated with suspicion even when more open about their processes.  —  Jts1882 | talk  09:54, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

My continued objection to this reform is vested in a much more severe reading of the issue even you note. You noted that;

"it should not be taken as the gospel truth, and editors should always be encouraged to look at all available sources and use their best judgement when evaluating the current taxonomic consensus (especially considering MDD is published by the American Society of Mammalogists, rather than an international body)"

1)I obviously agree with this, but consider the issue much more severe. I believe that even if editors are encouraged to be critical the rule will inevitably produce unnecessary bias against arguably more consensus representing international readings. It is human nature to be biased where it allows not facing complex questions from multiple angles. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must accept we can't delegate the consensus determining task of this international community to a local one. That reduces the quality of the consensus. Simply inviting critisism does not work because it still places a local determination in a presumed position of correctness above an international position. A local view can not be given such prevalance in an international article. I once again refer to a quite literal reading of NPOV.

One thing to also be noted is that, as I have understood it, the quality of Wikipedia takes precedence over the speed at which information enters. So if using an international source means articles will remain claiming a dispute for longer, so be it. It is better to be safe than sorry. Very little harm will be done if the status quo stands here untill clearly broken. In a way Wikipedia should be the last place to shift. Other sources must do so first.

2)What is in the taxobox should, in the absence of consensus, represent the most significant view in the scientific community first and foremost. In this MDD also fails because American scientists alone can't provide the most significant view. They still need some scientists from other areas to join them.

In conclusion we should either scrap the guideline or adopt a global source. The question of whether such a guideline should even exist should have been considered before starting a discussion about what it should be. Finfixer (talk) 17:05, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

So I would encourage you to reconsider your stance in the light of the considerations which I presented Finfixer (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2026 (UTC)