Talk:Black-tufted Marmoset

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Black-tufted Marmoset is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
To-do list for Brazil:
WikiProject Primates Black-tufted Marmoset is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

The black-tufted marmoset is the incorrect name for the species Callithrix penicillata. The source you have listed is not a peer-reviewed scientific paper. Most of the sources that I listed are peer-reviewed scientific articles and only the ones that are not refer to the Black-pencilled marmoset as black-tufted. There is some contension as to the spelling of the common name of this species (pencilled vs. pincelled) although this is typically a language difference. The Black-pencilled marmoset has also been refered to as the black tuft-eared marmoset, however, both this name and the black-tufted marmoset are typically used by non scientific sources, particularly in the pet market. These animals are often frequently confused with the Weids black tuft-eared marmoset (Callithrix kuhlii). In the scientific community, however, Callithrix penicillata is refered to as the black-pencilled marmoset. Feel free to check the Animal Diversity Web, one of the leading databases currently out there on most species of animals. Professor Myers is a mammologist and helped create the site as well as verified the information I submitted to the site on Callithrix penicillata. I am sure he would be happy to assist you in any questions you may have (his contact information is on the site). Vackley 03:47, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

MSW3 notes about its use of common names:

Unlike previous editions, we have provided a common name for each recognized species. The starting point for these names is Wilson and Cole (2000), but each author was encouraged to examine those names and to provide a different one if there was a good reason to do so. Thus, this list can be viewed as a second edition of Wilson and Cole (2000) There are no rules governing vernacular names, but Wilson and Cole (2000) outlined several reasons for adopting a single name for each species of mammal.

For consistency, WP:PRIM is following Groves in MSW3 for its structure and naming.Granted that MSW3's info is as much as two years old, I can give some slack, and most animals have multiple names. For these reasons, we put the other names in bold in the opening paragraph, and have redirects to the article. If you can get Myers and Groves to agree on a name, then I'd be happy to move the article to another name. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd think we should follow MSW 3 in this matter. There are apparently three common names in use for this species (Black-tufted, Black-pencilled, and Black tufted-ear), but none does really have general use. Black tufted-ear marmoset is maybe the most accurate name (if I've understood correctly, all these names refer to a black tuft on the ear, and the other names don't make clear that it's on the ear). However, common names are very commonly not accurate, and I think Black-tufted is the most current one. Many uses of "black-pencilled" probably stem from the second edition of MSW (http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/form and look for Callithrix), which indeed calls it the Black-pencilled Marmoset. I know that ADW is consistently following MSW 3. They don't have enough time and people to keep it up-to-date. So Groves himself changed the name from pencilled in '93 to tufted now, which I think is good evidence in favour of it. Ucucha (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I may have been misunderstood. The Black tufted-ear marmoset and the black-tufted marmoset are the commonly used names for Callithrix kuhlii (though its correct name is Weids Black-tufted-ear marmoset) not Callithrix penicillata. The two species look very similar and are often confused. The MSW link that is on this discussion also lists Callithrix pencillata as the black-pencilled marmoset and the Callithrix kuhlii as the Black tufted-ear marmoset. Since this is one of the main resources being followed to identify the species I think that they should be accurately represented on Wikipedia as they appear on that site as well as nearly all other scientific sources. Though I know that there is a new edition of Groves book where he changes the names, I dont think one person's changes should be looked at over most other scientific authorities or what the original MSW site says. As well as the fact that his changes do not appear to be widely enough accepted to change either the original MSW site or other scientific sources. Vackley 00:38, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The link I gave was to the second edition of MSW. They don't change that version any more. The most current (3rd) edition, however, calls it black-tufted. It's probably the most authoritative source on mammals that currently exists. The common name for C. kuhlii Coimbra-Filho, 1985 is apparently "Wied's Marmoset". Ucucha (talk) 06:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, I believe for common names we should consistently follow MSW 3. One may always say "this is better", but common names are almost always imperfect and it's better to have one source used for everything than long discussions on every species. Of course, alternative common names should be included in the first line of the article. Ucucha (talk) 08:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

I have a couple points to contest in these statements. First who claims that this is the most authoritative source on mammals that currently exists? I'm curious to know this because if you google that phrase, several sites and books all claim that honor. Who determined that this was the most authoritative?
Second, wikipedia is a web-based resource, wouldn't going off the most current website (http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/form) be more accurate, since people using wikipedia are more likely to refer to that source rather than the third edition of the book?
You maintain that the book should be used because you want the sites to be uniform, but should they be uniform to the point of being incorrect? Particularly when that one source is going against the general opinion of the scientific community, therefore being in itself non uniform.
Third, if common names are so inconsistent and imperfect then wouldnt it make more sense for each site to be listed by the scientific name, which rarely has this much contention? Personally I think this would be the best option as a book will rarely change a scientific name to suit its own purposes and therefore uniformity would not come into question as much as it appears to be with the common names. Vackley 20:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
From my experience, MSW is the most authoritative source on mammal taxonomy. It's the most referenced work everywhere. For me, it's pretty clear in fact.
That is actually not the most current version, since that site contains the SECOND edition of the book, rather than the third which has just been published. I've heard that database will be switched to contain the 3rd edition later this year.
I believe it does not go against the general opinion of the scientific community. The fact that multiple names exist for this species does not mean that adopting one goes against the opinion of the scientific community.
In many cases, scientific names are also not uniform. Look at the very relatives of the species we are discussing. Should we call the Amazonian marmosets Mico or Callithrix (Mico)? Furthermore, this question has been discussed often and thoroughly. See the archives of WT:TOL. I don't want to go into it here and now - it's been discussed enough. Ucucha (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)