n8upham commented 1 year ago

First in a series of conversations with @JelleZijlstra, Connor Burgin, and @n8upham (Jan 21, 2023):

So far I have gone over Afrosoricida (just one issue) and Artiodactyla (a lot). My plan is to go over the orders in alphabetical order and send you the results, but let me know if a different format would work better for you. After this is done, we can work on matching up synonyms, which will be easier once the classifications are more aligned. Key:

Straightforward changes listed at the beginning of each order +: I accept the MDD's classification (but there is perhaps room for further discussion) -: I choose to maintain my classification for now -!: Same, but I recommend that MDD change its classification AI: Action item

Afrosoricida

Chrysochloridae

Chrysospalax villosa vs. villosus (-)

MDD has villosus, I have villosa.

My notes on the name complex say: "From σπάλαξ spalax "mole-rat, spalacid". LSJ claims the word is feminine, sometimes masculine. The variant ἀσπάλαξ aspalax is masculine. In practice, -spalax names are treated as masculine." (e.g. Spalax graecus)

Gill's original description of the name talks about "C. villosa", but the C. stands for Chrysochloris, not Chrysospalax, as Gill named the taxon as a "section" of Chrysochloris.

AI: Confirm this specific epithet change; I think there's room for disagreement.

Artiodactyla

Straightforward accepted changes:

New mergers Alcelaphus caama and A. lichtensteinii -> A. buselaphus Capricornis milneedwardsii and C. thar -> C. sumatraensis Damaliscus korrigum and D. superstes -> D. lunatus Kobus anselli -> K. leche Minor: MDD doesn't cite a source for synonymizing this species; it merely states that the Groves & Grubb taxonomy is rejected. It should probably cite: Jeffery, R. and Nefdt, R. 2013. Kobus leche southern lechwe. In: J. S. Kingdon and M. Hoffmann (eds), The Mammals of Africa, Bloomsbury, London, UK, pp. 449-453. Alces americanus -> A. alces Delphinus capensis -> D. delphis Tursiops australis -> T. aduncus Tursiops gephyreus -> T. truncatus New splits Cephalophus rubidus < C. nigrifrons Eudorcas albonotatus and E. tilonura < E. rufifrons Madoqua cavendishi, M. damarensis, M. hindei, M. thomasi < M. kirkii Minor: your reference to Brotherton (2013) is missing page numbers (should be pp. 327-333). Cervus hanglu < C. elaphus Inia humboldtiana < I. geoffrensis New species Mesoplodon eueu Spelling fixes Mazama gouazoupira -> M. gouazoubira (I missed an ICZN decision) Recently extinct species omitted from my database export Lipotes vexillifer Other changes Mazama jucunda is a senior synonym of M. bororo Casatia, a fossil, was mistakenly marked as extant in Hesperomys Babyrousa bolabatuensis, a subfossil, was mistakenly marked as extant in Hesperomys Bovidae

Bos domesticus and banteng (-)

MDD recognizes domesticus as a separate species for the domestic banteng. Possibly more consistent, but this species isn't generally recognized in my experience. Gentry et al. (2004) do not discuss the banteng.

MDD attributes the name domesticus to Wilckens, 1905. I instead have Bos banteng domesticus Duerst, 1905, as a nomen nudum. This book is here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grundz%C3%BCge_der_Naturgeschichte_der_Haust/JWDZAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Grundz%C3%BCge+der+Naturgeschichte+der+Haustiere&printsec=frontcover

The book is a reworking by Duerst of a previous book by Wilckens, who was dead by the time it was published. In the foreword, Duerst explicitly says that he completely redid the section on cattle (p. iv). So I think the name should indeed be attributed to Duerst, not Wilckens. Whether or not domesticus Duerst is a nomen nudum is more debatable. The citation on p. 245 is very barebones ("Bos Banteng domesticus, das zahme Bantengrind"), but there is some more discussion of bantengs on pp. 239-242. However, I don't see any characters cited that are supposed to distinguish domesticated from wild bantengs.

MDD says domesticus is preoccupied but there is no other alternative name. According to my notes the name seleniceros Heller, 1890, may have been based on a domestic banteng; it came from Timor where wild bantengs do not occur. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate the original description. I did dig up the original description of seligniceros Meyer, 1879 (not 1878), a nomen nudum also based on a specimen from Timor (perhaps the same one?).

AI:

Figure out nomenclature for domesticus. Confirm whether seleniceros is available for the domestic banteng. In Hesp, consider recognizing domestic bantengs at the subspecies level at least. Bos indicus, B. primigenius, B. taurus (-)

B. primigenius was omitted from the list I sent only because it is extinct. I recognize it as valid.

MDD recognizes Bos indicus and Bos taurus as separate domestic species, based on Gentry et al. (2004). I have them as subspecies of Bos taurus.

This is mostly a philosophical disagreement, and I don't think there's been much discussion in the literature. I currently recognize the wild ancestors of the zebu and taurine cattle as the same species, Bos primigenius, so I think it makes sense to recognize a single domestic species. It's true that there are two independent domestications, but that appears to be true for several other domestic species too (e.g. pigs) and splitting them up isn't practical.

AI: Come to an agreement on how to handle this case.

Budorcas tibetana (+)

New split in MDD. I hadn't seen the main cited source and I'll accept the split.

MDD also cites Groves & Grubb's Ungulate Taxonomy but generally rejects their taxonomy. I have done the same thing because I felt they needed some incubation to know if they'd be accepted. Indeed, in this case G&G recognize four takin species, but we ended up with only two.

Nomenclature: I had the specific epithet as tibetanus, but I misread a dictionary entry and the Greek word δορκάς is actually feminine. The spelling tibetana is correct.

Capra caucasica vs. cylindricornis (-)

MDD recognizes Capra cylindricornis as a separate species, I have it as a subspecies.

I hadn't seen the cited source (Weinberg et al., 2010). However, it actually suggests naming the two species cylindricornis and severtzovi, because caucasica is supposedly based on a hybrid. They also don't even sound very convinced that there are really two species. Given this uncertainty and the absence of genetic evidence, I would prefer to stick to one species.

Minor: MDD has a typo in the journal name (should be Galemys, not Galemy). The original spelling of severtzovi is severtzowi; I'll list severtzovi as an incorrect subsequent spelling for now.

Cephalophus vs. Cephalophorus and Cephalophula (-)

MDD recognizes Cephalophorus (and Cephalophula) as a separate genus; I don't.

The cited source (Bärmann et al., 2022) is a mtDNA-only study that doesn't fully resolve the relationships among cephalophines, but Cephalophus is recovered as possibly paraphyletic relative to Sylvicapra. This seems a little marginal and I'm going to skip the generic rearrangement for now.

They also name Leucocephalophus as a new genus, with just barely enough to move it beyond being a nomen nudum. I will make it a subgenus for now.

Cephalophus kivuensis (-)

MDD recognizes C. kivuensis as a separate species from "C. nigrifrons"; I don't.

This is based on the same source. Their mtDNA tree (fig. 3) shows pretty much every other species in the group to be nonmonophyletic, suggesting that either mtDNA isn't good at sorting out species here or a much more thorough reclassification is in order. They don't specify where their samples of nigrifrons come from. There are various other available synonyms of nigrifrons from the eastern part of its distribution (e.g. emini). I would reject the change and wait for something more comprehensive.

Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-)

MDD has the epithet as silvicultor, I have silvicultrix.

The original spelling (which I have seen) is silvicultrix. It was combined with the feminine name Antilope, but now it is in masculine Cephalophus.

This is a Latin noun meaning "female forest cultivator". The masculine form would be silvicultor, but since the word is a noun, not an adjective, it does not change form based on the gender of the genus.

AI: Confirm this and publish it.

Eudorcas rufina (-)

MDD lumps rufinus/rufina within rufifrons while I have it as valid.

MDD cites Mammals of Africa p. 357 for lumping the two. But the account there sounds more like the author is discussing a related extinct species in the account of another one, not that they are necessarily synonymizing them. The name isn't listed as an explicit synonym or subspecies, and its range is not included in the range map for rufifrons. I would like to see more evidence before changing the classification.

Nomenclature: as with Budorcas, Eudorcas is feminine, so the -us names in my database are wrong and I will fix them.

Gazella arabica and erlangeri (+)

MDD reorganizes these species (enlarging arabica to include erlangeri and various subspecies of gazella), based on Bärmann et al. (2013), which I missed.

There is a discrepancy in the name of the form darehshourii, which MDD and Bärmann spell dareshurii. I did some digging but can't quite confirm which spelling is right:

The original description is at https://jsciences.ut.ac.ir/article_31396.html but the PDF link is broken An archive of Groves's old website is at https://web.archive.org/web/20130514055726/http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Bovids.htm but the link to this paper is broken (it goes to his Gazella bennettii paper instead). However, text on the page spells the name dareshurii. It was named after "Mr Bijan Dareshuri, Biologist of Fars Province, Iran". In the 2001 Action Plan (https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2001-024.pdf) Groves contributed the piece on Iran and there the name is spelled darehshourii (p. 117). MSW 3 also spelled it darehshourii. The bibliography of Groves by Rookmaker & Robovský (2018) spells it darehshourii. Karami et al. (2002) use dareshurii. Ref: Karami, M., Hemami, M.R. and Groves, C.P. 2002. Taxonomic, distributional and ecological date on gazelles in Iran. Zoology in the Middle East 26:29-36. Chiozzi et al. (2021) list the original description as being darehshourii, but cite Karami et al. (2002) as the first to use dareshurii. Ref: Chiozzi, G., De Marchi, G., Fasola, M., Ibrahim, K.M., Bardelli, G., Hagos, F., Rocca, F. and Masseti, M. 2021. Insular gazelles of the circum-Arabian seas: origin, distribution, dwarfism and taxonomy. Mammalian Biology 102(1):1-20. doi:10.1007/s42991-021-00186-3 Based on the above I think most likely the original spelling was darehshourii and Groves/the Iranians started changing it in 2002 (maybe Dareshuri let his preference about the spelling of his surname be known?). But that's pure speculation until we have the original description. Either way, there's enough of a disagreement here that we should publish a discussion of the spelling of this form.

AI: Confirm spelling of dareshurii.

Nanger notata/us and N. petersii (+)

Two species split from N. granti; another similar situation and I will accept the split.

Spelling: MDD has Nanger notatus, I have the epithet as notata. I looked up the original description of Nanger by Lataste (1885) and can confirm the name is masculine, so notatus is right. Lorenzen et al. (2008) also use notata though.

Ovis (+)

MDD has Ovis gmelini and O. vignei as separate species; I lump them into Ovis aries with subspecies aries (domestic), arkal, and cycloceros. This is a big mess. I am going to follow your classification because clearly you have thought about this more, but below are some more notes.

My classification doesn't make much sense here: I should put the wild and domestic forms in separate species for consistency, and I don't know how I ended up with cycloceros when there are numerous older names synonymized under it.

MDD's main cited source is Rezaei et al. (2010). They show good evidence for separate species orientalis (Turkey to Iran and introduced Mediterranean populations) and vignei (Iran to Pakistan and southern Central Asia). MDD rejects the name orientalis as based on a hybrid and uses the name gmelini for this species instead. MDD cites no source for the claim that orientalis is based on a hybrid. There is apparently a lectotype for orientalis in Moscow, so that can provide a way to resolve the question. MDD doesn't state why the older name musimon Pallas, 1811, isn't used over gmelini Blyth, 1841. However, the wild sheep of Sardinia are probably an ancient feral populations, so perhaps they should go into aries, just like dingos go into Canis familiaris.

The original spelling of gmelini Blyth, 1841, is actually gmelinii, though the form gmelini seems to be used more often. However, some recent authors also use gmelinii, so I would favor reverting to the original spelling. I wasn't able to find any sources explicitly discussing this spelling. Its type locality is "Erzeroom" = Erzurum, eastern Turkey. A few sources I read claim that this is erroneous because wild sheep do not occur there, but at least the map in Rezaei et al. (2010) does show the species there.

The name arabica is in Oman, which doesn't have sheep on the Rezaei et al. map, but I'll trust you that it should go with vignei. The name erskinei is from somewhere in Iran; I'm putting it in gmelini but this needs confirmation. My database had both isphaganica and isphahanica; I looked up the original descriptions and concluded that isphaganica is the original spelling but isphahanica is a justified emendation by prevailing usage.

AI:

Establish the spelling of gmelini/gmelinii. Establish whether orientalis is available. Taurotragus vs. Tragelaphus (+)

I recognize Taurotragus as distinct from Tragelaphus, MDD doesn't.

Comments in MDD say that Taurotragus isn't recognized because the Groves & Grubb classification is generally rejected, but Taurotragus was recognized as a genus in Grubb (2005: p. 696, MSW3). However, Hassanin et al. (2018) show that Tragelaphus is paraphyletic relative to Taurotragus, so I will accept the synonymy.

You don't recognize the genus Ammelaphus Heller, 1912, but it's worth noting that Strepsicerastes Knottnerus-Meyer, 1903, appears to be an older name for this group (which is probably worthy of recognition as a subgenus). I haven't seen the original publication to confirm this though.

AI: Consider publishing the Ammelaphus/Strepsicerastes situation.

Camelidae

Lama vs. Vicugna (-)

I have Vicugna as distinct; MDD lumps it under Lama.

The cited reason is low genetic distance. That's probably fair, but I feel like a taxonomic database shouldn't make such a change on its own initiative; it should be proposed in a peer-reviewed paper first.

Cervidae

Elaphurus/Rusa/Rucervus (+)

MDD recognizes Rusa (4 species) and Elaphurus (1 species) as separate genera and puts the species eldii in Rucervus. I have them all as Cervus.

MDD's cited source is Heckeberg (2020). Her molecular tree is on p. 23. The mtDNA tree aligns well with my classification (all genera are monophyletic), but the nDNA tree is quite different. In either case several of the genera in the MDD are nonmonophyletic.

I can't remember what I based my generic classification on, and I can't find a source that uses this classification. I am going to change to your/Heckeberg's classification so at least I'm not making it up. To resolve Cervini into monophyletic genera we're probably going to need a bigger nuclear dataset.

Muntiacus muntjak group (+)

Here MDD recognizes three species based on genetic data: M. malabaricus in S India and Sri Lanka, M. vaginalis in most of India and mainland Southeast Asia, and M. muntjak in insular Southeast Asia/Sundaland. I recognize two species based on some of Groves's work: M. vaginalis in South Asia and M. muntjak in SE Asia, both mainland and islands.

I don't think my classification is tenable so I'm going to change to the MDD one, but want to highlight that the cited source (Martins et al., 2017) explicitly disclaims any taxonomic changes. A more conservative option would be to recognize all three as a single species, as in MSW 3.

Singh et al. (2021) recently recognized another species in this group, Muntiacus aureus. Should MDD follow suit? Ref: Singh, B., Kumar, A., Uniyal, V.P. and Gupta, S.K. 2021. Phylogeography and population genetic structure of red muntjacs: evidence of enigmatic Himalayan red muntjac from India. BMC Ecology and Evolution 21(1):1-15. doi:10.1186/s12862-021-01780-2

An interesting nomenclatural aspect is that malabaricus was named twice, under the same name, by Wroughton and Lydekker, both in 1915. Both databases attribute the name to Lydekker. The type specimen is said to be BMNH 13.8.22.133 by Lydekker and BMNH 13.8.22.103 by Wroughton but I suspect one of those is a typo and it's the same specimen; MDD says the type is 13.8.22.103. The BMNH online catalog also has 103: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/record/3626309 As for the date, Wroughton's name was published on 30 September 1915 according to the issue cover (in BHL). Lydekker (1915) doesn't bear a precise date, but the preface is dated 19 April 1915. I suppose it was published not long after that.

AI: Confirm priority of descriptions for malabaricus

Delphinidae

Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-)

I have this species as macrorhyncha, MDD has macrorhynchus.

This hinges on whether the name is an adjective or a noun in apposition. It sounds like an adjective to me ("long-nosed"), but macrorhynchus is overwhelmingly more common in recent literature, and for names like this sometimes there's a credible argument that the epithet is a noun.

AI: Figure out whether this has been discussed in the literature. MSW 3 only refers to Van Bree (1971).

Hippopotamidae

Malagasy Hippopotamus (-)

MDD recognizes two species of extinct Malagasy Hippopotamus: H. lemerlei and H. madagascariensis (including H. guldbergi). I instead recognize H. laloumena, H. guldbergi, and H. lemerlei, the latter including H. madagascariensis.

H. laloumena may have been excluded from MDD because it is supposed to be older.

This is a confusing situation but I reviewed it in some detail a few years ago and came to the conclusion that the literature indicates that the holotype of H. madagascariensis is indeed a H. lemerlei. See http://hesperomys.com/n/22965

AI: Consider publishing this discussion.

Physeteridae

Physeter catodon vs. macrocephalus (+)

MDD calls the sperm whale P. macrocephalus and I use P. catodon.

I reviewed Husson & Holthuis (1974) and the argument for macrocephalus seems solid under the Code; I am making the change. I didn't do it before because MSW 3 uses catodon, and there hasn't been any published work (that I have seen) making a reasoned argument for change.

AI: Publish this discussion.

Suidae

Sus domesticus vs. Sus scrofa (-)

This is the domestic pig. MDD recognizes it as a species; I don't.

MDD is being consistent here, but there is little precedent for recognizing domestic pigs as a separate species, so I'm going to punt on this one.

Sus bucculentus (+)

I recognize this species; MDD lumps it under Sus scrofa.

The main cited source in MDD is Robins et al. (2006). I don't find that totally convincing, because it is based on mtDNA only and acknowledges that their result may be because of introgression. However, Meijaard & Groves (2013) accepted bucculentus as a synonym of their "Sus moupinensis", which included pigs from a big chunk of the range of Sus scrofa. If Groves doesn't even believe in the species any more, that's enough for me to accept the change. Reference:

Meijaard, E. and Groves, C.P. 2013. New taxonomic proposals for the Sus scrofa group in eastern Asia. Suiform Soundings 12(1):26-30.

Tayassuidae

Catagonus vs. Parachoerus (-!)

MDD places the Chacoan peccary in the genus Catagonus; I use Parachoerus.

This is based on Dutra et al. (2017), a phylogenetic analysis of Tayassuidae. They found that C. wagneri isn't closely related to the type species of Catagonus, which is a Pleistocene fossil, and accordingly revalidated the genus Parachoerus Rusconi, 1930, for wagneri and another fossil species, Parachoerus carlesi. Reference:

Parisi Dutra, R., Casali, D. de M., Missagia, R.V., Gasparini, G.M., Perini, F.A. and Cozzuol, M.A. 2016. Phylogenetic systematics of peccaries (Tayassuidae: Artiodactyla) and a classification of South American tayassuids. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 24(3):345-358. doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9347-8

JelleZijlstra commented 1 year ago

Here's the formatted version:

Afrosoricida

Chrysochloridae

Chrysospalax villosa vs. villosus (-)

MDD has villosus, I have villosa.

My notes on the name complex say: "From σπάλαξ spalax "mole-rat, spalacid". LSJ claims the word is feminine, sometimes masculine. The variant ἀσπάλαξ aspalax is masculine. In practice, -spalax names are treated as masculine." (e.g., Spalax graecus)

Gill's original description of the name talks about "C. villosa", but the C. stands for Chrysochloris, not Chrysospalax, as Gill named the taxon as a "section" of Chrysochloris.

AI: Confirm this specific epithet change; I think there's room for disagreement.

Artiodactyla

Straightforward accepted changes:

New mergers
- Alcelaphus caama and A. lichtensteinii -> A. buselaphus
- Capricornis milneedwardsii and C. thar -> C. sumatraensis
- Damaliscus korrigum and D. superstes -> D. lunatus
- Kobus anselli -> K. leche
  - Minor: MDD doesn't cite a source for synonymizing this species; it merely states that the Groves & Grubb taxonomy is rejected. It should probably cite: Jeffery, R. and Nefdt, R. 2013. Kobus leche southern lechwe. In: J. S. Kingdon and M. Hoffmann (eds), The Mammals of Africa, Bloomsbury, London, UK, pp. 449-453.
- Alces americanus -> A. alces
- Delphinus capensis -> D. delphis
- Tursiops australis -> T. aduncus
- Tursiops gephyreus -> T. truncatus
New splits
- Cephalophus rubidus < C. nigrifrons
- Eudorcas albonotatus and E. tilonura < E. rufifrons
- Madoqua cavendishi, M. damarensis, M. hindei, M. thomasi < M. kirkii
  - Minor: your reference to Brotherton (2013) is missing page numbers (should be pp. 327-333).
- Cervus hanglu < C. elaphus
- Inia humboldtiana < I. geoffrensis
New species
- Mesoplodon eueu
Spelling fixes
- Mazama gouazoupira -> M. gouazoubira (I missed an ICZN decision)
Recently extinct species omitted from my database export
- Lipotes vexillifer
Other changes
- Mazama jucunda is a senior synonym of M. bororo
- Casatia, a fossil, was mistakenly marked as extant in Hesperomys
- Babyrousa bolabatuensis, a subfossil, was mistakenly marked as extant in Hesperomys

Bovidae

Bos domesticus and banteng (-)

MDD recognizes domesticus as a separate species for the domestic banteng. Possibly more consistent, but this species isn't generally recognized in my experience. Gentry et al. (2004) do not discuss the banteng.

MDD attributes the name domesticus to Wilckens, 1905. I instead have Bos banteng domesticus Duerst, 1905, as a nomen nudum. This book is here: https://www.google.com/books/edition/Grundz%C3%BCge_der_Naturgeschichte_der_Haust/JWDZAAAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Grundz%C3%BCge+der+Naturgeschichte+der+Haustiere&printsec=frontcover

The book is a reworking by Duerst of a previous book by Wilckens, who was dead by the time it was published. In the foreword, Duerst explicitly says that he completely redid the section on cattle (p. iv). So I think the name should indeed be attributed to Duerst, not Wilckens. Whether or not domesticus Duerst is a nomen nudum is more debatable. The citation on p. 245 is very barebones ("Bos Banteng domesticus, das zahme Bantengrind"), but there is some more discussion of bantengs on pp. 239-242. However, I don't see any characters cited that are supposed to distinguish domesticated from wild bantengs.

MDD says domesticus is preoccupied but there is no other alternative name. According to my notes the name seleniceros Heller, 1890, may have been based on a domestic banteng; it came from Timor where wild bantengs do not occur. Unfortunately I haven't been able to locate the original description. I did dig up the original description of seligniceros Meyer, 1879 (not 1878), a nomen nudum also based on a specimen from Timor (perhaps the same one?).

AI:

Figure out nomenclature for domesticus.
Confirm whether seleniceros is available for the domestic banteng.
In Hesp, consider recognizing domestic bantengs at the subspecies level at least.

Bos indicus, B. primigenius, B. taurus (-)

B. primigenius was omitted from the list I sent only because it is extinct. I recognize it as valid.

MDD recognizes Bos indicus and Bos taurus as separate domestic species, based on Gentry et al. (2004). I have them as subspecies of Bos taurus.

This is mostly a philosophical disagreement, and I don't think there's been much discussion in the literature. I currently recognize the wild ancestors of the zebu and taurine cattle as the same species, Bos primigenius, so I think it makes sense to recognize a single domestic species. It's true that there are two independent domestications, but that appears to be true for several other domestic species too (e.g. pigs) and splitting them up isn't practical.

AI: Come to an agreement on how to handle this case.

Budorcas tibetana (+)

New split in MDD. I hadn't seen the main cited source and I'll accept the split.

MDD also cites Groves & Grubb's Ungulate Taxonomy but generally rejects their taxonomy. I have done the same thing because I felt they needed some incubation to know if they'd be accepted. Indeed, in this case G&G recognize four takin species, but we ended up with only two.

Nomenclature: I had the specific epithet as tibetanus, but I misread a dictionary entry and the Greek word δορκάς is actually feminine. The spelling tibetana is correct.

Capra caucasica vs. cylindricornis (-)

MDD recognizes Capra cylindricornis as a separate species, I have it as a subspecies.

I hadn't seen the cited source (Weinberg et al., 2010). However, it actually suggests naming the two species cylindricornis and severtzovi, because caucasica is supposedly based on a hybrid. They also don't even sound very convinced that there are really two species. Given this uncertainty and the absence of genetic evidence, I would prefer to stick to one species.

Minor: MDD has a typo in the journal name (should be Galemys, not Galemy). The original spelling of severtzovi is severtzowi; I'll list severtzovi as an incorrect subsequent spelling for now.

Cephalophus vs. Cephalophorus and Cephalophula (-)

MDD recognizes Cephalophorus (and Cephalophula) as a separate genus; I don't.

The cited source (Bärmann et al., 2022) is a mtDNA-only study that doesn't fully resolve the relationships among cephalophines, but Cephalophus is recovered as possibly paraphyletic relative to Sylvicapra. This seems a little marginal and I'm going to skip the generic rearrangement for now.

They also name Leucocephalophus as a new genus, with just barely enough to move it beyond being a nomen nudum. I will make it a subgenus for now.

Cephalophus kivuensis (-)

MDD recognizes C. kivuensis as a separate species from "C. nigrifrons"; I don't.

This is based on the same source. Their mtDNA tree (fig. 3) shows pretty much every other species in the group to be nonmonophyletic, suggesting that either mtDNA isn't good at sorting out species here or a much more thorough reclassification is in order. They don't specify where their samples of nigrifrons come from. There are various other available synonyms of nigrifrons from the eastern part of its distribution (e.g. emini). I would reject the change and wait for something more comprehensive.

Cephalophus silvicultor vs. silvicultrix (-)

MDD has the epithet as silvicultor, I have silvicultrix.

The original spelling (which I have seen) is silvicultrix. It was combined with the feminine name Antilope, but now it is in masculine Cephalophus.

This is a Latin noun meaning "female forest cultivator". The masculine form would be silvicultor, but since the word is a noun, not an adjective, it does not change form based on the gender of the genus.

AI: Confirm this and publish it.

Eudorcas rufina (-)

MDD lumps rufinus/rufina within rufifrons while I have it as valid.

MDD cites Mammals of Africa p. 357 for lumping the two. But the account there sounds more like the author is discussing a related extinct species in the account of another one, not that they are necessarily synonymizing them. The name isn't listed as an explicit synonym or subspecies, and its range is not included in the range map for rufifrons. I would like to see more evidence before changing the classification.

Nomenclature: as with Budorcas, Eudorcas is feminine, so the -us names in my database are wrong and I will fix them.

Gazella arabica and erlangeri (+)

MDD reorganizes these species (enlarging arabica to include erlangeri and various subspecies of gazella), based on Bärmann et al. (2013), which I missed.

There is a discrepancy in the name of the form darehshourii, which MDD and Bärmann spell dareshurii. I did some digging but can't quite confirm which spelling is right:

The original description is at https://jsciences.ut.ac.ir/article_31396.html but the PDF link is broken
An archive of Groves's old website is at https://web.archive.org/web/20130514055726/http://arts.anu.edu.au/grovco/Bovids.htm but the link to this paper is broken (it goes to his Gazella bennettii paper instead). However, text on the page spells the name dareshurii. It was named after "Mr Bijan Dareshuri, Biologist of Fars Province, Iran".
In the 2001 Action Plan (https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/documents/2001-024.pdf) Groves contributed the piece on Iran and there the name is spelled darehshourii (p. 117).
MSW 3 also spelled it darehshourii.
The bibliography of Groves by Rookmaker & Robovský (2018) spells it darehshourii.
Karami et al. (2002) use dareshurii. Ref: Karami, M., Hemami, M.R. and Groves, C.P. 2002. Taxonomic, distributional and ecological date on gazelles in Iran. Zoology in the Middle East 26:29-36.
Chiozzi et al. (2021) list the original description as being darehshourii, but cite Karami et al. (2002) as the first to use dareshurii. Ref: Chiozzi, G., De Marchi, G., Fasola, M., Ibrahim, K.M., Bardelli, G., Hagos, F., Rocca, F. and Masseti, M. 2021. Insular gazelles of the circum-Arabian seas: origin, distribution, dwarfism and taxonomy. Mammalian Biology 102(1):1-20. doi:10.1007/s42991-021-00186-3

Based on the above I think most likely the original spelling was darehshourii and Groves/the Iranians started changing it in 2002 (maybe Dareshuri let his preference about the spelling of his surname be known?). But that's pure speculation until we have the original description. Either way, there's enough of a disagreement here that we should publish a discussion of the spelling of this form.

AI: Confirm spelling of dareshurii.

Nanger notata/us and N. petersii (+)

Two species split from N. granti; another similar situation and I will accept the split.

Spelling: MDD has Nanger notatus, I have the epithet as notata. I looked up the original description of Nanger by Lataste (1885) and can confirm the name is masculine, so notatus is right. Lorenzen et al. (2008) also use notata though.

Ovis (+)

MDD has Ovis gmelini and O. vignei as separate species; I lump them into Ovis aries with subspecies aries (domestic), arkal, and cycloceros. This is a big mess. I am going to follow your classification because clearly you have thought about this more, but below are some more notes.

My classification doesn't make much sense here: I should put the wild and domestic forms in separate species for consistency, and I don't know how I ended up with cycloceros when there are numerous older names synonymized under it.

MDD's main cited source is Rezaei et al. (2010). They show good evidence for separate species orientalis (Turkey to Iran and introduced Mediterranean populations) and vignei (Iran to Pakistan and southern Central Asia). MDD rejects the name orientalis as based on a hybrid and uses the name gmelini for this species instead. MDD cites no source for the claim that orientalis is based on a hybrid. There is apparently a lectotype for orientalis in Moscow, so that can provide a way to resolve the question. MDD doesn't state why the older name musimon Pallas, 1811, isn't used over gmelini Blyth, 1841. However, the wild sheep of Sardinia are probably an ancient feral populations, so perhaps they should go into aries, just like dingos go into Canis familiaris.

The original spelling of gmelini Blyth, 1841, is actually gmelinii, though the form gmelini seems to be used more often. However, some recent authors also use gmelinii, so I would favor reverting to the original spelling. I wasn't able to find any sources explicitly discussing this spelling. Its type locality is "Erzeroom" = Erzurum, eastern Turkey. A few sources I read claim that this is erroneous because wild sheep do not occur there, but at least the map in Rezaei et al. (2010) does show the species there.

The name arabica is in Oman, which doesn't have sheep on the Rezaei et al. map, but I'll trust you that it should go with vignei. The name erskinei is from somewhere in Iran; I'm putting it in gmelini but this needs confirmation. My database had both isphaganica and isphahanica; I looked up the original descriptions and concluded that isphaganica is the original spelling but isphahanica is a justified emendation by prevailing usage.

AI:

Establish the spelling of gmelini/gmelinii.
Establish whether orientalis is available.

Taurotragus vs. Tragelaphus (+)

I recognize Taurotragus as distinct from Tragelaphus, MDD doesn't.

Comments in MDD say that Taurotragus isn't recognized because the Groves & Grubb classification is generally rejected, but Taurotragus was recognized as a genus in Grubb (2005: p. 696, MSW3). However, Hassanin et al. (2018) show that Tragelaphus is paraphyletic relative to Taurotragus, so I will accept the synonymy.

You don't recognize the genus Ammelaphus Heller, 1912, but it's worth noting that Strepsicerastes Knottnerus-Meyer, 1903, appears to be an older name for this group (which is probably worthy of recognition as a subgenus). I haven't seen the original publication to confirm this though.

AI: Consider publishing the Ammelaphus/Strepsicerastes situation.

Camelidae

Lama vs. Vicugna (-)

I have Vicugna as distinct; MDD lumps it under Lama.

The cited reason is low genetic distance. That's probably fair, but I feel like a taxonomic database shouldn't make such a change on its own initiative; it should be proposed in a peer-reviewed paper first.

Cervidae

Elaphurus/Rusa/Rucervus (+)

MDD recognizes Rusa (4 species) and Elaphurus (1 species) as separate genera and puts the species eldii in Rucervus. I have them all as Cervus.

MDD's cited source is Heckeberg (2020). Her molecular tree is on p. 23. The mtDNA tree aligns well with my classification (all genera are monophyletic), but the nDNA tree is quite different. In either case several of the genera in the MDD are nonmonophyletic.

I can't remember what I based my generic classification on, and I can't find a source that uses this classification. I am going to change to your/Heckeberg's classification so at least I'm not making it up. To resolve Cervini into monophyletic genera we're probably going to need a bigger nuclear dataset.

Muntiacus muntjak group (+)

Here MDD recognizes three species based on genetic data: M. malabaricus in S India and Sri Lanka, M. vaginalis in most of India and mainland Southeast Asia, and M. muntjak in insular Southeast Asia/Sundaland. I recognize two species based on some of Groves's work: M. vaginalis in South Asia and M. muntjak in SE Asia, both mainland and islands.

I don't think my classification is tenable so I'm going to change to the MDD one, but want to highlight that the cited source (Martins et al., 2017) explicitly disclaims any taxonomic changes. A more conservative option would be to recognize all three as a single species, as in MSW 3.

Singh et al. (2021) recently recognized another species in this group, Muntiacus aureus. Should MDD follow suit? Ref: Singh, B., Kumar, A., Uniyal, V.P. and Gupta, S.K. 2021. Phylogeography and population genetic structure of red muntjacs: evidence of enigmatic Himalayan red muntjac from India. BMC Ecology and Evolution 21(1):1-15. doi:10.1186/s12862-021-01780-2

An interesting nomenclatural aspect is that malabaricus was named twice, under the same name, by Wroughton and Lydekker, both in 1915. Both databases attribute the name to Lydekker. The type specimen is said to be BMNH 13.8.22.133 by Lydekker and BMNH 13.8.22.103 by Wroughton but I suspect one of those is a typo and it's the same specimen; MDD says the type is 13.8.22.103. The BMNH online catalog also has 103: https://data.nhm.ac.uk/dataset/collection-specimens/resource/05ff2255-c38a-40c9-b657-4ccb55ab2feb/record/3626309 As for the date, Wroughton's name was published on 30 September 1915 according to the issue cover (in BHL). Lydekker (1915) doesn't bear a precise date, but the preface is dated 19 April 1915. I suppose it was published not long after that.

AI: Confirm priority of descriptions for malabaricus

Delphinidae

Globicephala macrorhyncha vs. macrorhynchus (-)

I have this species as macrorhyncha, MDD has macrorhynchus.

This hinges on whether the name is an adjective or a noun in apposition. It sounds like an adjective to me ("long-nosed"), but macrorhynchus is overwhelmingly more common in recent literature, and for names like this sometimes there's a credible argument that the epithet is a noun.

AI: Figure out whether this has been discussed in the literature. MSW 3 only refers to Van Bree (1971).

Hippopotamidae

Malagasy Hippopotamus (-)

MDD recognizes two species of extinct Malagasy Hippopotamus: H. lemerlei and H. madagascariensis (including H. guldbergi). I instead recognize H. laloumena, H. guldbergi, and H. lemerlei, the latter including H. madagascariensis.

H. laloumena may have been excluded from MDD because it is supposed to be older.

This is a confusing situation but I reviewed it in some detail a few years ago and came to the conclusion that the literature indicates that the holotype of H. madagascariensis is indeed a H. lemerlei. See http://hesperomys.com/n/22965

AI: Consider publishing this discussion.

Physeteridae

Physeter catodon vs. macrocephalus (+)

MDD calls the sperm whale P. macrocephalus and I use P. catodon.

I reviewed Husson & Holthuis (1974) and the argument for macrocephalus seems solid under the Code; I am making the change. I didn't do it before because MSW 3 uses catodon, and there hasn't been any published work (that I have seen) making a reasoned argument for change.

AI: Publish this discussion.

Suidae

Sus domesticus vs. Sus scrofa (-)

This is the domestic pig. MDD recognizes it as a species; I don't.

MDD is being consistent here, but there is little precedent for recognizing domestic pigs as a separate species, so I'm going to punt on this one.

Sus bucculentus (+)

I recognize this species; MDD lumps it under Sus scrofa.

The main cited source in MDD is Robins et al. (2006). I don't find that totally convincing, because it is based on mtDNA only and acknowledges that their result may be because of introgression. However, Meijaard & Groves (2013) accepted bucculentus as a synonym of their "Sus moupinensis", which included pigs from a big chunk of the range of Sus scrofa. If Groves doesn't even believe in the species any more, that's enough for me to accept the change. Reference:

Meijaard, E. and Groves, C.P. 2013. New taxonomic proposals for the Sus scrofa group in eastern Asia. Suiform Soundings 12(1):26-30.

Tayassuidae

Catagonus vs. Parachoerus (-!)

MDD places the Chacoan peccary in the genus Catagonus; I use Parachoerus.

This is based on Dutra et al. (2017), a phylogenetic analysis of Tayassuidae. They found that C. wagneri isn't closely related to the type species of Catagonus, which is a Pleistocene fossil, and accordingly revalidated the genus Parachoerus Rusconi, 1930, for wagneri and another fossil species, Parachoerus carlesi. Reference:

Parisi Dutra, R., Casali, D. de M., Missagia, R.V., Gasparini, G.M., Perini, F.A. and Cozzuol, M.A. 2016. Phylogenetic systematics of peccaries (Tayassuidae: Artiodactyla) and a classification of South American tayassuids. Journal of Mammalian Evolution 24(3):345-358. doi:10.1007/s10914-016-9347-8

connorjburgin commented 1 year ago

I gave comments to this one over email that I'll eventually add here, but it's a bit of work to put it into a good commenting format, so give me a bit.