Talk:List of mammals described in the 2000s

Untitled
There's a few things I've done stylistically on here which I'll just mention, if anyone thinks of a better way to do it by all means change it, but it's best to keep it consistent.


 * In the text the common name of the new species is in bold, unless the animal has no common name yet, in which case it's the animal's scientific name (genus and species) that's in bold. I've held off from making up common names for animals that have none, for example Balaenoptera omurai could translate as Omura's Whale, but I'll wait for someone to coin it first.
 * All entries have a source, except for a few where the majority of the information has come from the animal's Wikipedia page.
 * New species within their respective orders are in rough reverse chronological order, at least by year. There's no hard and fast rule as to whether this is the date of discovery, date of scientific naming, or date of initial press coverage... play it by ear.
 * Animals that have tentatively been hailed as new species are covered (ie Giant Forest Peccary and Cat-fox), because there is genuine scientific proof of their existence, albeit not accepted by everyone. Bigfoot, Nessie, or even more realistic cryptids such as Orang Pendek shouldn't be put here unless they're actually announced as discovered (which would of course be great!). Again, one to play by ear.
 * I've used the controversial molecular classification system, which means Artiodactyls and Cetaceans are in the same order. Maybe this should be changed?

Very incomplete
This article is very incomplete. Have a look at the subpages of nl:Gebruiker:Ucucha/Nieuw: there are many more new species described in this century. Ucucha (talk)  18:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Cheers for the tip! I've been looking for a page just like that, it's just a shame it's in Dutch. Many thanks for highlighting it. Petemella 17:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

New species
There's the Grey-faced Sengi, where should that be put? Lampman (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

definition of species
what is the definition of a species? Are wolves different from dogs? Different breeds of dogs? Different races of humans? A clean division would seem to be based on inability to mate and create viable offspiring. But the desire to preserve diversity (and the Endangered Species Act) has driven recognition of several animals that are able to cross-breed as individual species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.32.84 (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * See species for details of all this. The traditional classification of a species is as you say - a group of animals that can only produce viable offspring with their own kind - but this is a very simplistic model that doesn't take into account such complicated systems such as ring species. The fact is the notion of a species was invented before evolution was fully understood, and it's not always a tidy concept that can deal with intermediate forms.

Wolves/dogs is a contested one, as they have variably been classified as distinct species (Canis lupus and Canis familiaris) or the domestic dog as a subspecies of wolf (C. l. familiaris). It's generally thought of as a wolf subspecies now. Different breeds of dog are purely that, different breeds, although the fact that chihuahuas and great danes are physically incapable of breeding makes an important point about the definition of species. Different races of human are not normally considered to have any taxonomic status.

The idea that environmentalists are too keen to split species in order to preserve animals is one that I've heard a lot - but you could argue who are we to decide a form of animal can go extinct, based on the whether or not they get the human label of species, subspecies, race etc.? --Petemella (talk) 10:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Alternative views?
How is the discovery and description of new species of mammals within the scope of alternative views? --Aranae (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge
It seems that List of mammals described in 21st century should be merged with this. Or perhaps into a new article called something like "Mammals described in the 21st Century"? It seems to sound less ambiguous, perhaps Zujua (talk) 09:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)