Talk:List of mammals of the United States

Unclear statements
The article is peppered with statements such as "Rodents make up ... over 40 percent of mammalian species", "There are around 20 extant species", "Bat species account for about 20% of all mammals", "The carnivores include over 260 species" etc. etc., where it is unclear, in this context, whether the statistics apply to mammals found in the US or mammals generally. I flagged a couple inline, but really someone needs to go through the whole article clarifying these. 81.152.168.164 (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC).

Conservation Status
Conservation status has been updated for all species on the list. Removing the LC tag from least concern species would make this list more readable and let the species of concern stand out. Any objections?Footwarrior (talk) 03:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen your updates on my watchlist in the last few days&mdash;thanks!
 * I can see your point in removing LC, but I think we need to distinguish between non-assessed and LC species. I don't think there are currently any US species that should be on this list and that the IUCN does not assess, but there are many on other country lists, and it would be nice to maintain consistency with those. Ucucha 03:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That sounds reasonable. I will leave the LC tags in place.Footwarrior (talk) 01:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of mammals of the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140111122851/http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=254 to http://www.hawaiihistory.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=ig.page&CategoryID=254

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:19, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Mastodons
An ip editor added the comment "Add mastodons and etc., pls." to the text of the article. I've removed it, but added it here. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 22:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

List of mammals of North America north of Mexico
Hello ... Here is newly created List of mammals of North America north of Mexico (made from parts of List of mammals of North America) and discussion about its deletion: Articles for deletion/List of mammals of North America north of Mexico Maybe somebody would be interested. Darekk2 (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Multiple issues with page
There are many issues with this article, but a lot of them hinge on some things that could be up to ones opinion. Some subspecies are included while the majority are not, and even within the subspecies that are included, they are all presented in different ways which makes it confusing to the reader. Why have subspecies included at all? I get some are endangered but does that really even warrant them being on the list? Endangered subspecies in birds aren't included on the list of birds of the united states. And even if we are to include said subspecies, multiple subspecies are included (with dead links included) just because they are recognized as a species by a single source. And species that are treated as a species by Wikipedia (and for many of them most of the scientific community) are also treated as subspecies because that same source treats them as one. As far as I was aware Wikipedia was the lead authority when it came to taxonomy, and while I'm not sure what greater authority Wikipedia uses for Mammals I do know that as long as its treated as a species on its own article, its treated as a species on all other articles. This article also uses names for species that aren't frequently used because they are used in the source (American Red Squirrel as "North American Red Squirrel"). Using only one source to decide everything on the page makes for a poorly written article. Qwexcxewq (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There are included subspecies, which are treated as separate species by some authors. This is why they are included. Darekk2 (talk) 11:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We are all volunteers. The article's not had a good review in a while; inconsistencies accumulate over time if a list is not monitored closely. If you've got time, I and the rest of the world would appreciate your help. We could begin here by agreeing on standards for the list, though that it's often difficult to standardize when sources do not. We could also agree to use a single source for the list, possibly with agreed upon exceptions. This is an important list and you are right that it needs work. I've not got the time to dedicate to it, but I'll help. SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 20:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I would like to make these changes. I made this topic because I wasn't sure if this was something that shouldn't be changed. What I think I'll do is make some minor changes but keep the subspecies, because it seems like that change is unwanted. Qwexcxewq (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Be bold! SchreiberBike &#124; ⌨ 20:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)