Talk:Urocyon progressus

Readers want to know...

...why is it called "progressive"? Chrisrus (talk) 00:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge

This article came into being in 2011 and is little more than a stub. It received one minor edit in 2019. I propose that it be merged under its own section into the genus Urocyon article. I shall wait for one week for interested editors to respond before actioning. William Harristalk 01:41, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

What else would the article need to merit its remaining independent from Urocyon proper? I mean, wouldn't it make for a large and unwieldy subsection there?--Mr Fink (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

It is able to remain independent now. However, given that Urocyon is only 6 kilobytes in size but gets 70 visitors per day average, and U. p. only 3 kb with 8 visitors per day average, there is merit in a merge into a mere 10 kb article. Especially when U. p. will get more visitor exposure. William Harristalk 09:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be more prudent to do more research to expand both articles, instead, then?Mr Fink (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

That has not happened in the past 9 years (and expanding these articles is not my interest). Should someone in the future want to do that, then they can simply revert what would be this redirect back into an article again. I have been around the extinct canines long enough to know that generally, when a species or genus goes out by itself into a small article, it becomes forgotten. William Harristalk 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Simply because an article that's not a stub isn't visited frequently doesn't justify turning it into a redirect.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

In light of what you've said about the references for U. progressus, and how it's actually based on scrappy remains, together other fossil species, I elect to rescind my previous argument and push forward with your recommendation to convert this page into a redirect to Urocyon, and have a section on the fossil species.--Mr Fink (talk) 06:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Most commendable. I tend to shift disputed species back to the genus article where I can - extinct or not, sizable or not. Tedford was in no doubt that these fossils were Urocyon. Let us wait and see if other editors hold an opinion. William Harristalk 06:29, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Discrepancy in description

Does anyone have access to Kurten's book? The second statement in the description section says "The collected material of U. progressus shows that it was slightly larger in size, although had a smaller skull than the modern gray fox," but, do they mean proportionally smaller in terms of head to body size ratios, or literally smaller head with a bigger body? I want to rewrite/reword this statement to be more easier reading, but, I don't want to reword it into a statement unsupported by the cited reference, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Kurten's book is dated and hard to find copies of. The heavy-weight PHYLOGENETIC SYSTEMATICS OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FOSSIL CANINAE (CARNIVORA: CANIDAE) by Tedford, Wang, and Taylor (2009) which is more accessible finds that there is not enough fossil material to be able to claim it as a species. It also lists several other extinct Urocyon species that have not made it onto Wikipedia. William Harristalk 05:36, 18 January 2020 (UTC)