Talk:Himalayan serow

The thar, or the Himalayan serow (not to be confused with the tahr)

This article was edited yesterday so as to include an alternative name for the Himalayan serow, citing the appropriate entry in The Chambers Dictionary reading:

thar n the serow, a Himalayan goat like an antelope; by confusion applied to the tahr. [Nepali (Indic language of Nepal) thār]

This was removed on the same day by BhagyaMani (talk) without any mention in the WP:ES. It was restored today with the inclusion of a more widely accessible source (The Collins English Dictionary, available online for free), which explicitly describes the two terms as pertaining to the same animal:

thar n a rare goat antelope (Capricornis thar) of mountainous regions of S Asia. Also called: Himalayan serow [from Nepali thār]

This enhancement apparently went unnoticed, and no more than an hour later the change was reverted by the aforementioned user on the grounds of what appears to be their own authority:

thar is NOT an alternative name for the serow !!

Not long thereafter the said editor proceeded to argue that the attested use of the appellation Himalayan serow by scholars somehow rules out the existence of a common synonym:

extended with ref : another one clearly using the name "serow"

I do not intend to start an WP:EW; the alternative name will be incorporated into the article once again with reference to this talk page in the WP:ES. Maciuf (talk) 15:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would the claimed alternative name be listed in the respective IUCN Red List, I would of course not object. But this name is NOT mentioned in a publication about this subspecies. True is that its Latin name is Capricornis sumatraensis thar, but NOT its common name. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<sarcasm>I did not realise how strictly forbidden the use of common names not listed in the IUCN Red List was.</sarcasm> On a serious note, common names are common names not because they have been approved by biologists, but because they are in common use, which is best assessed by lexicographers, who write dictionaries, which read (text enlarged due to BhagyaMani (talk) having apparent difficulty in deciphering letters):

thar n the serow, a Himalayan goat like an antelope; by confusion applied to the tahr. [Nepali (Indic language of Nepal) thār]
thar n a rare goat antelope (Capricornis thar) of mountainous regions of S Asia. Also called: Himalayan serow [from Nepali thār]

Thar being part of the scientific name does not rule out the possibility of it being a common name too. Maciuf (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A common name is a name commonly used in the majority of scientific publications about the taxon. Had the serow been commonly called "thar" in such publications, the resp. IUCN Red List assessors for the serow would have listed this name. But since they didn't, it is not a commonly used name. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since there is currently a discussion going on about common names of wildlife species, I would like to rope in @Jts1882, FunkMonk, Peter coxhead, and Pvmoutside: please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A common name is a name commonly used in the majority of scientific publications about the taxon. The one source of this definition appears to be your cerebral matter. In the article you linked to it is stated that:

In biology, a common name of a taxon or organism (also known as a vernacular name, English name, colloquial name, trivial name, trivial epithet, country name, popular name, or farmer's name) is a name that is based on the normal language of everyday life; and is often contrasted with the scientific name for the same organism, which is Latinized. A common name is sometimes frequently used, but that is not always the case.

Common names coined for consistency with scientific nomenclature are indeed prefered in formal publications, but that does not disallow the use of their mononomial equivalents. Maciuf (talk) 21:49, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two different discussions for the common name. One is about determining the most commonly used name for the species which would be used to the article title. This is clearly Himalayan serow. The second is about determining vernacular names to list in the lede. This can include less widely used names, but should not include obscure names or ones no longer in common use. It's not clear to me that Thar is used very often in material about this antelope. I couldn't find many uses outside the dictionary listings. I found an 1840 use of Thar Antelope and Thar is mentioned at EOL. It's not used in Groves' Ungulate Taxonomy where it is recognised as a species. — Jts1882 | talk 08:33, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Since I agree with your comment, I think that we should NOT rely on entries in dictionaries, but on names used in publications by people like Colin Groves. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The convention that common names are listed in the opening paragraph is perhaps unfortunate. If it was less prominent place, say like the synonymns in the taxobox, then a longer list wouldn't be a problem (as at some leopard pages). But for a listing so prominently in the lede we need to restrict it to common names with reasonably widespread current use. I'm open to adding it if we can find some evidence. The dictionaries show that it us a name that has been used, but don't say when or if it is in common current use. A historical use could be added elsewhere in the article, e.g. a description of the discovery and it being called the Thar Antelope in the Asiatic Society of Bengal publication. — Jts1882 | talk 11:51, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second edition of The Oxford English Dictionary contains examples of use, but those are all from over a century ago:

1833 B. H. Hodgson in Proc. Zool. Soc. 10 Sept. 105 As compared with the Ghŏrăl, Antilope Goral, Hardw.‥the Thâr is a massive beast, twice the size, and has suborbital sinuses, and a mane along the back of the neck and shoulders. Ibid. 24 Sept. 111 A cavity also exists in the osseous core of the horns of the Thâr Antelope. 1834 Ibid. 12 Aug. 86. 1834 Penny Cycl. II. 89/2 The Thar (A. thar, Hodgson) was described for the first time in a paper by B. H. Hodgson, Esq., British resident in Nepaul.‥ The thar inhabits the central region of Nepaul. 1885 Cycl. India III. 885/1 Thar, the forest goat, is the Nepal name of Nemorhædus bubalina, called Eimu and Ramu on the Sutlej and Kashmir, and Serow in the hills generally.

I do not have access to the third edition. Maciuf (talk) 12:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The emergence of an interlocutor capable of exercising both good judgement and the English language, hitherto unprecedented in this discussion, calls for gratitude on my side. I do not own a great deal of writings on mammalian taxonomy. However, some valuable information could be found on the Internet; thar is included in some checklists, 19th century literature, Johnson's Natural History and contemporary dictionaries; on the other hand, many works do not mention it: the IUCN Red List, Bovids of the World and Walker's Mammals of the World amongst others; I could not determine whether or not this name is listed within the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World. Maciuf (talk) 12:28, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think those links and mine above establish that it was a name used in the 19th century. As for recent use, it seems to be often used for the Himalayan Tahr, e.g. this New Zealand checklist's mention of the Himalayan Thar (Hemitragus jemlahicus). Is this an error or evidence that Thar is used for more than one species?

Your first link there provides information that could be the basis of an etymology section, giving the origin of the species epithet to the local name (albeit perhaps not specific). This could be a place to mention additional common names. Alternatively the same information could be in a taxonomy section mentioning how it was first described, with additional information on species recognition in G&G but subspecies elsewhere.

I don't know if it's mentioned in the Illustrated Checklist of the Mammals of the World. I'd guess not, though, as its not mentioned among the common names for Capricornis sumatraensis in the ASM's MDD. — Jts1882 | talk 12:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me it also looks like the other name *was* used together with serow in the 19th century. But I do NOT recall any publication dating to the last couple of decades calling it any other than just "serow". Therefore I recommend to remove the dictionary entries in the lead, also because these contribute to confusion but do NOT help to clarify naming! – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to be a rather uncommon name for a rather insignificant subspecies. There are not many checklists of Nepalese mammals, one of them lists thar as a synonym, others likely do not; you cannot expect it to appear frequently in scientific papers, just as you cannot expect to encounter researchers referring to turkey vultures as buzzards. In response to the charge of having hindered lucidity, I added footnotes to both this article and those concerning the tahr, hopefully clarifying the nominal singularities. Maciuf (talk) 15:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If this is a common name for a specific subspecies, and not the species as a whole, I don't think it belongs in the intro, but to the taxonomy section or somewhere the subspecies is discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see this is a subspecies article. Those are usually merged with the species article, any reaosn why this very short article needs to be separate? FunkMonk (talk) 20:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this has to do with this page's history : when it was created, the Himalayan serow was still considered to be a species Capricornis thar and assessed as such on the iucn Red List in 2008, but later subsumed to C. sumatraensis. The page was kept though and only scientific name amended acc. to later assessment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC); see this diff – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the sorry state of the article, I think it should be merged. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I wouldn't oppose to merging, but the parent page is also a sorry one with 3 of 3 sections unsourced. – BhagyaMani (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merging?

I just copy-pasted the sourced content in this page to the parent page mainland serow and propose to redirect this page. Let me know whether you agree, or why you do not agree. – BhagyaMani (talk) 08:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Himalayan serow was until recently considered a separate species; the amount of information on it may therefore be sufficient for expanding what is currently a stub into a comprehensive article. Maciuf (talk) 09:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]