Talk:Pseudocheirus

citation
The citation seems quite explicit, and its species were assigned to that genus; those names are given in recentish references. I saw it is described as currently monotypic,at least since 1994 (?), but this needs to be explained at the genus article. cygnis insignis 18:54, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you were inferring, but your conclusion was certainly wrong. Pseudocheirus previously included the species now placed in the separate genus Pseudochirulus, which were separated in the 1990s. Since Pseudocheirus peregrinus is the only remaining species (that itself, incidentally, is not certain; some consider the Western Australian population to be a separate species), Pseudocheirus should redirect to the article on that species. Ucucha 18:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I see your point, genus redirects to monotypic, but the earlier name still occurs in the literature. This creates a bad path for those trying to find, for example, "Pseudocheirus herbertensis" ghits (Pseudochirulus herbertensis). cygnis insignis 19:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then something should be added to the article on P. peregrinus; your edit sent people who were looking for species actually classified in Pseudocheirus now to the article on a different genus. Ucucha 19:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Which I've now done. Ucucha 19:27, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That species article is only tangentially related, and only 'currently' rather than 'actually', the place to explain it would also be other genus article, for whatever direction a user arrives from. Another possibility is to disambiguate, or create an article with the history of the taxon. There may also be something I'm overlooking, I find it difficult to discuss things when they are couched in such an absolute way, why don't we get a second opinion? cygnis insignis 19:37, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is much more than tangentially related; in the current literature, Pseudocheirus is bound to refer to that species. I may be absolute in rejecting edits that to me (still) don't make any sense, but I'm open to alternative possibilities. In fact, I found that there is a second (and dubious), fossil species of Pseudocheirus, so I simply created a genus article explaining that other ringtails were previously classified as Pseudocheirus. Ucucha 20:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yep, simple. Now I'm wondering how to get you to add something about the author, collector and first description, while I continue with what I was doing :-) cygnis insignis 20:20, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Of the genus? I might be able to find that, but it's a fairly arcane detail; I think what we have now, explaining the contents and previous contents of the genus, is most important. And, of course, I also have other things to do. :) Ucucha 20:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)