Talk:Muridae

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

How many subfamilies?

Muridae#Classification says 4 subfamilies. The very next section lists 5 subfamilies. If you click "Muridae on ITIS" in the references, it lists 17 subfamilies. Does this question have a definite answer? If not, should we omit the statistic? Art LaPella (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 17 value results from the inclusion of Cricetidae, Calomyscidae, Nesomyidae, and Spalacidae within Muridae, which is an obsolete taxonomy. The difference between 4 and 5 subfamilies results from the subfamily Lophiomyinae. The people who divided the old, big Muridae into five families (Musser and Carleton, 2005) placed Lophiomyinae in Cricetidae instead of Muridae, but they did not have access to molecular data (Jansa and Weksler, 2004) showing that Lophiomyinae actually belongs in Muridae. The five-subfamily classification is best in line with current knowledge, but I'm not sure whether there's a source that explicitly places Lophiomyinae in restricted-definition Muridae. Ucucha 14:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interwikis

I checked the interwikis for problems relating to incorrect interwikiing of Muridae and Muroidea.

For the following, I could not determine from the article whether Muridae or Muroidea was meant:

All others refer to Muridae in the sense used in this article, as indicated by a listing of subfamilies, a species number around 600-800, or other clues. Ucucha 12:55, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this just an issue of those articles not being very good/being out of date? Do we not interwiki to pages that we happen to think give the wrong definition of a word/concept? I'd have thought that was a matter for the communities in question, not for en.wiki. It's not as if they don't mean "Muridae", since the word is the same in all languages, it's just that they've got the meaning of that word wrong - probably because they're working from an old definition. Or am I missing some subtlety here? Anaxial (talk) 20:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When the older definition of Muridae is used, the pages are equivalent to Muroidea instead and should therefore link to that page. Ucucha 20:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are using "Muridae" in a sense that is equivalent to "Muroidea" and should be iw-ed there instead. The "-idae" vs. "-oidea" is an issue of taxonomic rank and not of content. Iw should link to the content definition. If another language uses the term Xenarthra as an order, we should not iw those pages to Pilosa just to force them to be of the same rank (order). --Aranae (talk) 20:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't think I agree, but if the consensus is against me, then fair enough. Anaxial (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Muridae. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:00, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Brown rat map

I removed the brown rat map since it's already been removed on other pages such as Brown rat for being inaccurate.ToweringHat (talk) 23:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding information on the Reproductive section

"The social behavior of murids has an impact on their reproduction while some murids are highly social and others are solitary. During the breeding season, Females display proceptive phase, one of which initiates males to mate with the female[1]. Females commonly produce several litters annually. In warm regions, breeding may occur year-round commonly producing an average of 8 to 18 pups [2]. The lifespans of most genera are less than two years, murids have high reproductive potential and this tends to result in an exponential increase in the population. In contrast, when a stressor is introduced, it results in a drastic decline in population. One of the factors that contribute to are limitation of food resources. This is often seen in a three- to a four-year cycle. In addition to reproduction, behaviors in nesting materials may affect the performance of the breeding season" [3] Azyla.m (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://journals.lww.com/behaviouralpharm/Abstract/2015/09000/Neuroanatomical_dichotomy_of_sexual_behaviors_in.8.aspx. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  2. ^ https://www.merckvetmanual.com/all-other-pets/rats/breeding-and-reproduction-of-rats. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  3. ^ https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0023677219862004. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Wiki Education assignment: Comparative Anatomy

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 February 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BenChance, Azyla.m, Jazzmk2000 (article contribs).

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Muridae"