Talk:Chacoan pygmy opossum

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Low-importance).
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Merge into Agile Gracile Opossum

This article is about the animal know as Gracilinanus agilis, the Agile Gracile Opossum. WP should not have 2 articles on the same species that are only differentiated by a different taxonomic source. MSW3 (2005) does not recognize this taxonomy from 2004. There is no need to have a duplicate article. --Tombstone (talk) 06:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are decidedly distinct species (and genera). MSW 3 was out of date when it was published. I will revert your change. Ucucha 06:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that MSW 3 does recognise this as a species distinct from G. agilis (the "Pygmy Opossum", Gracilinanus formosus). The 2004 paper describing a new genus simply came too late to be included by Gardner. Ucucha 06:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the merge proposal before an actual discussion can occur; I re-added the template for the time being. Question: Is this the source you were using, it was the only hit Yahoo! returned. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 07:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. And I do not see why a discussion should occur when the proposal is clearly wrong, as in this case. Ucucha 15:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they only had one specimen to study and it was 83 years old. On page 7, under the heading "Phylogenetic Relationships", they admit "our very limited material is a significant problem". The proposal uses "application[s] of missing-entry replacement" that "can sometimes yield spurious results that are not supported by any observable data" [page 15]. As far as I can tell, there has been no additional studies done on this to corroborate the claim. That is why I am thinking WP should not call this a species as of yet. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 16:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1], [2]. It is no longer known only from the holotype. Furthermore, MSW 3 already recognized it as a separate species, as I noted before, and we do not have to judge if a particular taxonomic change was correct: there are taxonomists who do that. Ucucha 16:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We should be following MSW3, unless there is a preponderance of post-MSW3 evidence. The merge should be dropped. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Derby's Woolly Opossum which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 02:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]