Template:Did you know nominations/Oriental Basin pocket gopher


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:21, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oriental Basin pocket gopher

 * ... that the Oriental Basin pocket gopher was first described as its own species in 1895, then considered to be a just a subspecies of another gopher in 1968, and then recognized as its own species again in 2005? Source: "Russell (1968) synonymized Merriam's (1895) species [...] fulvescens [...] under C. merriami (Thomas). Russell recognized 7 subspecies of C. merriami, including [...] fulvescens. [...] The name fulvescens Merriam is resurrected to represent members of this genus from southern Tlaxcala, east-central Puebla, and parts of west-central Veracruz."
 * ALT1:... that the Oriental Basin pocket gopher was thought from 1968 to 2005 to be a subspecies of another gopher, despite having been initially described as its own species in 1895?
 * ALT2:... that the Oriental Basin pocket gopher, a species first described in 1895, was thought from 1968 to 2005 to be a subspecies of another gopher?
 * Reviewed: Did you know nominations/Banksia blechnifolia
 * Comment: Open to wording suggestions

Created by Umimmak (talk). Self-nominated at 08:53, 6 February 2018 (UTC).


 * COMMENT: How about as ALT3 ... that the Oriental Basin pocket gopher was designated a species 1895–1968, demoted to subspecies of Merriam's pocket gopher, then restored to species status in 2005? David notMD (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)


 * yes I would also be happy with that wording. I went ahead and changed your hyphen to an en-dash though for the year-range :) Umimmak (talk) 12:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Or a slight tweak:
 * ALT4 ... that the Oriental Basin pocket gopher was designated a species in 1895, demoted to subspecies of Merriam's pocket gopher in 1968, then restored to species status in 2005?
 * Umimmak (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
 * REVIEW: I will review this DYK. Before getting into the check-offs, the article is too long, and poorly organized. For animal species, a more common ordering for sections is Description, Distribution, Conservation. For this one, recommend Taxonomic history be a section after Distribution, move the first paragraph in Biology into Description, and get rid of Biology and Genetics as sections and all the content now in those sections. As currently exists, the article is longer than the Gopher article, and WAAAAY longer than any other gopher article, so recommending a bias toward shorter. Like no parasites. However, do look at the Gopher article to see if there is content in description that could be used as model for OBPG. David notMD (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why this article should be be shorter just because other articles aren't as encyclopedic in scope... Information on the genetics, parasites, diet, etc., should be added to other articles about gophers if known. Why should information be deleted just because similar articles haven't been expanded yet? Umimmak (talk) 00:55, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I personally have a bias against what I feel is too much information. Sentences along the lines of "Oriental Basin pocket gophers have been found to carry parasitic lice, fleas and nematodes. Predators include snakes and hawks." should be sufficient. Could still use your citations. However, I will defer to your wishes on length. I do ask that Tax be moved to after Distribution before I start the DYK. David notMD (talk) 09:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Section moved as you have asked. Umimmak (talk) 09:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Good to go. David notMD (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2018 (UTC)