Wildlife/Animal Hot takes

CheeseChameleon1945

CheeseChameleon1945

Well-Known Member
5+ year member
Slightly different than @pachyderm pro's fantastic thread, you can now list hot takes about taxonomic things, the nitty-gritties of zoological study, or wildlife related things such as takes about invasive species and such.
All in all, a similar thread, just not targeted towards zoo/aquariums.
Mods: If it seems fit to merge this thread with zoo/aquarium hot takes, do so.

My first one. . .


I accept Canis lycaon and Canis lupus
 
CheeseChameleon1945 said:
Slightly different than @pachyderm pro's fantastic thread, you can now list hot takes about taxonomic things, the nitty-gritties of zoological study, or wildlife related things such as takes about invasive species and such.
All in all, a similar thread, just not targeted towards zoo/aquariums.
Mods: If it seems fit to merge this thread with zoo/aquarium hot takes, do so.

My first one. . .


I accept Canis lycaon and Canis lupus
Click to expand...
While it’s true not everyone accepts C. lycaon as a species, lots of people do so it’s not exactly a hot take. I doubt there’s a single taxonomist on Earth who doesn’t accept Canis lupus, so I’m assuming you meant Canis rufus? If so, then it’s the exact same situation as the Eastern Wolf.
 
Mo Hassan said:
Again, it's not a hot take. Those who don't accept it are not up-to-date with current thinking. I doubt there are many who know about it but still refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...
I know people who don't, thinking it wasn't accepted by everyone here on zoochat, so I took it as a hot take. Misinterpretation.
 
WalkingAgnatha said:
Is this really a hot take? The only person who I'd think would refute is Kakapo and he's not exactly the most respected person when it comes to taxonomy...
Click to expand...
i have birding firends who think we shoud mostly ingore dna couse he lost a few species one his life list du to not beaing abal to tell them apart, of coures if they had sean both and got dna prof thy suport the split:p
 
Mo Hassan said:
Again, it's not a hot take. Those who don't accept it are not up-to-date with current thinking. I doubt there are many who know about it but still refuse to accept it.
Click to expand...
It's not as simple as being up-to-date. Both Eastern timber and red wolves are the result of natural hybridisation between grey wolves and coyotes so it doesn't make it a clear cut case for species separation. More of an issue with how we use the Linnean system.
 
tetrapod said:
It's not as simple as being up-to-date. Both Eastern timber and red wolves are the result of natural hybridisation between grey wolves and coyotes so it doesn't make it a clear cut case for species separation. More of an issue with how we use the Linnean system.
Click to expand...

True. The Linnaean system is insufficient but it's what much of conservation (and other zoo-related topics) relies upon at this current time.
 
i dont now how contreversial these are
birds
split
mascarene paradise-flycatcher coud be split and meaby shoud to intrecse conservation eforts for the maritius sub
two cattel egreat western and eastern
island trush looks lik more then one species
lump
lump cassia and scottis crossbill into red again (meaby parrot to)

i think carrion crow and hooded crow shoud be (tho they are on my lifelist duo to folowing ioc
 
I don't know how much of a hot take this is, but here's one of mine: I think certain mammals and bird groups are highly splitted at the order level. There are so many orders containing a sole family, or very few species that it only makes it redundant. I know that some of these are very divergent branches, or the reason they have so few species now is because most of their relatives have gone extinct. But I find it...odd to say the least.

Some examples: I would prefer merging the lagomorphs and rodents into a slighly bigger Rodentia. Or lumping Scandentia into Primates. Or combining Dasyuromorphia, Notoryctemorphia and Peramelemorphia into a sole order of Agreodontya.
 
Carlos M said:
I don't know how much of a hot take this is, but here's one of mine: I think certain mammals and bird groups are highly splitted at the order level. There are so many orders containing a sole family, or very few species that it only makes it redundant. I know that some of these are very divergent branches, or the reason they have so few species now is because most of their relatives have gone extinct. But I find it...odd to say the least.

Some examples: I would prefer merging the lagomorphs and rodents into a slighly bigger Rodentia. Or lumping Scandentia into Primates. Or combining Dasyuromorphia, Notoryctemorphia and Peramelemorphia into a sole order of Agreodontya.
Click to expand...
But why? For aesthetic reasons...?
 
Carlos M said:
I don't know how much of a hot take this is, but here's one of mine: I think certain mammals and bird groups are highly splitted at the order level. There are so many orders containing a sole family, or very few species that it only makes it redundant. I know that some of these are very divergent branches, or the reason they have so few species now is because most of their relatives have gone extinct. But I find it...odd to say the least.

Some examples: I would prefer merging the lagomorphs and rodents into a slighly bigger Rodentia. Or lumping Scandentia into Primates. Or combining Dasyuromorphia, Notoryctemorphia and Peramelemorphia into a sole order of Agreodontya.
Click to expand...
While I do agree that there appears many cases of oversplitting, but mass lumping clades together doesn't work like when you allow for fossil species. Take aardvarks as a classic example of being a single species representing it's own order of mammals. When you take into account fossil relatives, it makes more sense to be kept separate.
Why would you want to join lagomorphs with the single largest group of mammals??? Seems arbitrary.
 
tetrapod said:
While I do agree that there appears many cases of oversplitting, but mass lumping clades together doesn't work like when you allow for fossil species. Take aardvarks as a classic example of being a single species representing it's own order of mammals. When you take into account fossil relatives, it makes more sense to be kept separate.
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, I completely agree with your point. I know it's very unrealistic, and the fossil record makes way more difficult to take that idea seriously. It's just a funny thought I like to think about that I considered could be a hot take xd.
 
tetrapod said:
Both Eastern timber and red wolves are the result of natural hybridisation between grey wolves and coyotes so it doesn't make it a clear cut case for species separation.
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, this theory has been subsequently disproved - although the status of Eastern Wolf is still uncertain, Red Wolf looks to be a solid species (albeit one which has been affected by hybridisation in recent decades) which was present in eastern North America long before either species alleged to be their progenitor.

Carlos M said:
: I would prefer merging the lagomorphs and rodents into a slighly bigger Rodentia.
Click to expand...

Issue there is that there are several major anatomical differences between the two groups, most notably in dentition and the digestive tract....

Carlos M said:
Or lumping Scandentia into Primates.
Click to expand...

....whilst this one, judging from the latest cladistic analysis, has the much deeper issue of also requiring Rodentia, Lagomorpha and Dermoptera to be lumped into Primates, as it now seems Scandentia is basal to the entirety of Euarchontoglires.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top