Talk:Vespertilionidae

Mammals: Bats High‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

Question

Since this is a group of bats, not a single species, shouldn't it be renamed "Vesper bats" (lowercase "bats")? Ditto for all other "Xxxx bat" which are multi-specific. Jorge Stolfi 02:54, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Bad Link

The genus Philetor links to an article of a different name, and of totally different meaning. There is no offer for redirection. 71.226.90.37 00:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)william —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.226.90.37 (talk) 00:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Miniopterus

Miniopterus is no longer believed to be a part of this familiy. The subfamily Miniopterinae has been raised to familial status, Miniopteridae (Hutcheon & Kirsch, 2004; Van Den Bussche & Hoofer, 2004; Miller-Butterworth et al., 2007). One of the studies also places it as sister taxon to Vepertilionidae (Miller-Butterworth et al., 2007)

So this page and the Miniopterine pages should probably be edited to reflect this

Hutcheon, J. & Kirsch, J. (2004) Camping in a Different Tree: Results of Molecular Systematic Studies of Bats Using DNA-DNA Hybridization. Journal of Mammalian Evolution, 11, 17-47. Van Den Bussche, R. & Hoofer, S. (2004) Phylogenetic Relationships Among Recent Chiropteran Families and the Importance of Choosing Appropriate Out-Group Taxa. Journal of Mammalogy, 85, 321-330. Miller-Butterworth, C., Murphy, W., O'Brien, S., Jacobs, D., Springer, M., & Teeling, E. (2007) A Family Matter: Conclusive Resolution of the Taxonomic Position of the Long-fingered Bats, Miniopterus. Molecular Biology and Evolution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.67.245 (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aaabat

According to this: [1] a genus of bat known as the Aaabat falls under this family. There is no species listed and according to the map ([2]), there is only one location where 3 speciments have been collected in 1925.[http://data.gbif.org/occurrences/searchWithTable.htm?c[0].s=20&c[0].p=0&c[0].o=16085421&c[1].s=19&c[1].p=0&c[1].o=105.0W,27.0N,85.0W,37.0N]. I was unable to find anything else with Google. I was hence thinking of putting this in this article and just redirecting the genus but I was unsure as to how to incorporate it (Under what subfamily it falls under I have no idea??!). Any suggestions/thoughts appreciated. Calaka (talk) 15:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's obviously just a placeholder name for what is presumably a couple of bats they couldn't identify below family level. Note that the link says "Unconfirmed taxon". Ucucha 15:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame they do not have photographs of said bats for maybe they are already identified by now and this particular classification of them was forgotten seeing as it was done in 1925. Yeah I found the "unconfirmed taxon" odd as well but I noticed that sight lists quite a number as unconfirmed whereas other sites would be more bold to list further down the line. Anyway, thanks for the info.Calaka (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 January 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved as requested per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 09:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vesper bat → Vespertilionidae – The most common, accessible, verifiable and neutral name for the family Vespertilionidae is Vespertilionidae. Four names, terms or descriptions are used in English sources to loosely refer to vespertilionids, vespertilionids, evening bats and vesper bats, the fourth is the reference to Grays description of an arrangement as family Vespertilionidae, and this name is what the article is about and this name is what authorities use to this day. cygnis insignis 07:21, 7 January 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. SITH (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per WP:COMMONNAME, the scientific name is far more commonly used than any of the vernacular names (see ngrams). Scientific names generally better fulfill the article title critera of PRECISION and CONSISTENCY than vernacular names. Plantdrew (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as the least ambiguous title per above, and per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Article_titles, though the common names, of course, should still be mentioned in the lead after the move. Family has multiple common names that are not, as a rule, used in the common names of its member species. -- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 03:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Obsidian Soul, good call, I intend to expand on the variety of common names with some context in the body of the article, and get the names emerging from descriptive labelling into the first couple of sentences. I find this all becomes clearer without bare names cluttering up the lead with bold type, parentheses, footnotes, and several inline citations, all vying for the title of the 'true' names that get editors so excited, before the article even gets around to describing what it is actually about. A lot of vernacular is a legacy of earlier conceptions of groups, and I often find a RS'd note on how a common name is now misleading, a species of 'forest bat' whose distribution is inland Australia, bats named for tombs found in Egypt which also occurs in a country without ancient tombs. Explaining the legacy or artifice of common names needs elbow room and citations, but well established (usable, hopefully descriptive) names should appear in the lead. Please excuse my appending a long reply to this post, it is a point that may be repeated in future move proposals that require little discussion and are needless and distracting to others. cygnis insignis 06:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Cistugo/Myotinae

Ok, now I'm getting confused. Apart from misspeaking in the edit summary (meant to say "is NOT in Myotinae"), I'm no longer sure that's the case. These seem to have been shuffled around at least twice in recent years, and I may not be finding the current consensus state. Let me check. Cygnis insignis, what most recent source are you using? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:04, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So: ITIS has a family Cistugidae (based on Lack et al. 2010) - but no Myotinae at all, helpfully. In the literature after 2010 we have a mix of use of Myotinae (e.g. 2013 [3]) and Cistugidae (e.g. [4]). Hmm. Seems the reclassification is slow to catch on. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:17, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Impressive revert, dude - here I am talking about the cite, and you can't come up with anything better than a "I want to have my way!" revert. How about not acting like a petulant child who wants to be right at all costs, but commenting productively on the above? This is getting quite pathetic. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:14, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very well then: reinstated removal of genus Cistugo from Vespertilionidae, based on reclassification to family Cistugidae by Lack et al. (2010) ^[1] and usage by ITIS ^[2]. Thank you for your collegial and mature aid in this matter. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 04:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You might have fixed the whole uncited section in the time it took you to … do what you usually do. If there is a current treatment of the acknowledges all the sub-familial ranks I was intending to revise and replace this list at some point, what has been there and flagged as unreferenced is worse than useless. I'll have it look it at sometime, unless the above sublimates their outrage into something useful like a valid contribution, instead of prosecuting an edit war because they were wrong in just about every edit that hit my watchlist. I am actually fussy about collaborating with racialists, they are sensitive as AF. cygnis insignis 07:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Okay, that's it. - I can live with a superseded classification being present on this page. While the above references demonstrate that Cistugo no longer belongs in that subfamily; there's no feasible way to add an inline citation to reference the absence of an entry in the list; and all this achieves is the retaining of misleading information for purposes of personal gratification - that's not exactly an encyclopedia-breaking issue.

What I will not tolerate is a ongoing running battle with someone who acts like a petulant child in a sandbox. I am herewith putting you on notice. The next time you revert one of my edits merely from personal animosity or ownership behaviour, edit-war over MOS-conforming edits, obstruct my or anyone else's constructive work to make a WP:POINT, or call me a racist (I assume that's what "racialist" above is meant to be): I will gather up all that WP:BATTLEGROUND crap and bring it to AN/I. That usually results in a thorough examination of past edit history of all concerned, and you may not be too happy about that.

I hope the current discussion at Wikiproject Tree of Life will at least remove the common/scientific name friction point. I'd much prefer being able to work alongside (if not together with) you than feeling I have this kind of vindictiveness to contend with. - Copied to your talk page (where you will doubtlessly immediatley remove it). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ITIS recognises Myotinae Tate, 1942 as a child of Vespertilionidae, same as MSW, the taxon Cistugidae is cited as a family, as you say, and placed with this one within Superfamily Vespertilionoidea. What an odd thing, separated to its own family Bats are very poorly researched, yet so important, chiroptera hampered with some upside down ideas for a long time (pun not intended). cygnis insignis 16:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: am I dismissed? cygnis insignis 17:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lack, J. B.; Roehrs, Z. P.; Stanley Jr, C. E.; Ruedi, M.; Van Den Bussche, R. A. (2010). "Molecular phylogenetics of Myotis indicate familial-level divergence for the genus Cistugo (Chiroptera)". Journal of Mammalogy. 91 (4): 976–992.
^ "Oldstyle id: 7539827da517bd6273a4a3836578cb24". Catalogue of Life. Species 2000: Leiden, the Netherlands.

Vespertilionidae

So i'm confused. If cygnis insignis accepts the Cistugo change, why is he reverting to a page that has dots that don't include anything? The remainder of my edits simply removed the dots, so the page looks cleaner.....Pvmoutside (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the duplicate post on my page. cygnis insignis 04:04, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Lack, J. B.; Roehrs, Z. P.; Stanley Jr, C. E.; Ruedi, M.; Van Den Bussche, R. A. (2010). "Molecular phylogenetics of Myotis indicate familial-level divergence for the genus Cistugo (Chiroptera)". Journal of Mammalogy. 91 (4): 976–992.

[2] "Oldstyle id: 7539827da517bd6273a4a3836578cb24". Catalogue of Life. Species 2000: Leiden, the Netherlands.

[1]

[2]