Talk:Harnessed bushbuck

Africa: Angola Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Angola (assessed as Low-importance).

Mammals 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Johnnybirder (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I dispute the accuracy of this article. The taxonomic status of the species is far from settled (Plumptre and Wronski 2013; Moodley & Bruford 2007; Moodley et al. 2009; Hassanin et al. 2012). As such, this entry should refer to a subspecies or species group, rather than giving the impression that this is a accepted species.[reply]

There are other issues as well. For example, while some local people may call this taxon kéwel, this is not the accepted english name. I have now edited this article to "harnessed bushbuck" as the main name, to mitigate some of the confusion. Unfortunately I could not change the title of the page.

References

Plumptre and Wronski 2013. Tragelaphus scriptus BUSHBUCK; pp 163–172 in Kingdon, J. et al. (eds) 2013. Mammals of Africa. Bloomsbury Publishing, London.

Moodley, Y. & Bruford, M. W. 2007. Molecular biogeography: towards an integrated framework for conserving pan-African biodiversity. PLoS One 2 (5): e454.

Moodley, Y., Bruford, M. W., Bleidorn, C., Wronski, T., Apio, A. & Plath, M. 2009. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA data reveals non-monophyly in the bushbuck (Tragelapgus scriptus) complex. Mammalian Biology 74: 418–422.

Hassanin, A., Delsuc, F., Ropiquet, A., Hammer, C., Jansen van Vuuren, B., Matthee, C., Ruiz-Garcia, M., Catzeflis, F., Areskoug, V., Nguyen, T. T. & Couloux, A. 2012. Pattern and timing of diversification of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria), as revealed by a comprehensive analysis of mitochondrial genomes. Comptes Rendus Biologies 335: 32–50.

Johnnybirder (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC) This animal = Bushbuck. Dual article.--Хомелка (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Beall (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's no secret that the taxonomy of the tragelaphines known as "bushbucks" is a muddled and contested topic (Grubbs and Groves (2011) recognized 8 species and a potential for more). But while a single page detailing a species complex is definitely a possible solution, I feel that recombining both of the existing pages is an unnecessary step, as T. scriptus and T. sylvaticus are already widely accepted as distinct species in most sources. The problem is that more species of bushbuck may exist apart from these two. I'm under the impression that a section noting this and other debated aspects of bushbuck taxonomy to both the "imbabala" and "kewel" pages would be sufficient to solve this for now, until more studies can be published and a broader consensus is reached on the subject.

I do agree that the pages should be renamed to their respective English names.

Johnnybirder, could you supply a source for the name "South Africa bushbuck"? A web search couldn't turn any recorded uses of the name. If you chose it just for clarity's sake, I understand, but I'd wager Cape bushbuck, a decently popular common name, would suffice for now? Feel free to discuss.

Luke Beall (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 27 November 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as uncontroversial. (closed by page mover) SkyWarrior 03:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kéwel → Harnessed bushbuck – According to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section (alternative names), English common names should be prioritized over non-English names. This is especially relevant in this case, where the non-English name is rarely used internationally in comparison to the English one. Luke Beall (talk) 06:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. bd2412 T 23:08, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Older binomial names, disputed classification

The article should note the older names of this species. It seems that this species is the same as T. bor (Heuglin, 1877), T. cottoni; maybe more?^[1]
The article should also try to explain the controversies on its classification. While it is OK to pick one classification in order to organize the artcles, it is not the role of Wikipedia to take sides or normatize a subject.
--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 07:40, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

^ Colin Groves and Peter Grubb (2011): "Ungulate Taxonomy"

Pictures

Flickr - Rainbirder - Imbabala Bushbuck (Tragelaphus sylvaticus).jpg & Bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) female (16657214033).jpg The two pictures actually belongs to this bushbuck, but they're false tagged and sci-named as cape bushbuck. Ishan87 (talk) 10:48, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[groves-1] Colin Groves and Peter Grubb (2011): "Ungulate Taxonomy"

[1]