Talk:Bali cattle

	Agriculture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture 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.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Livestock task force (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 articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Introduction[edit]

The Bali cattle are bred for meat, maybe they should be introduced to the USA and the UK as livestock. Dennis the mennis 12:52 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Potential rich sources for future research[edit]

"Light" Sources

"Heavy" Sources

Tangential Sources

https://americanart.si.edu/artwork/bali-cow-22464

The Amazing Matt (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Correct nomenclature for this taxon[edit]

In trying to sort some of this mess out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely different question from whether or not it is a species or a subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name requires a replacement. Since this is original research, it can't be added to the text of the article, but do bear in mind that I am an acting Commissioner of the ICZN, and as far as I can see, this is a serious and apparently unresolved problem in dire need of attention from some mammalian taxonomists. Dyanega (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Woah, didn't expect to get someone in your position involved! You're right in that this seems to be a major problem. The MammalDiversity database, the main authority which considers it a distinct species, states that domesticus is preoccupied but notes that there's no replacement name for it. Until the theoretical time that a replacement name is proposed, what should we refer to this as? Perhaps "Bos domesticus" in quotation marks, Bos sp., or just Bos javanicus domesticus?Geekgecko (talk) 19:23, 16 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quotation marks are not a bad idea, but given that the title of the article is "Bali Cattle", it might make more sense to "comment out" the taxobox temporarily and deal with the nomenclatural problem in a section of the text (in which you could use quotation marks whenever "domesticus" is written). If the MammalDiversity database cites the problem, then it is fair game to discuss it, and not OR at that point. It's not surprising that folks might argue about whether it's a species or not, but I find it very surprising that there would be no available name for it; that's a major oversight. Dyanega (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]