I'm intrigued, as others have noted, that you find the common names of Zootierliste, translated from another language and sometimes with some unusual carry overs as a result, to be "absolutely perfect" while rejecting the taxonomy used by the same site. I think the reason you in particular get such strong pushback here is your tendency to come across as seeing everything very dogmatically (right or wrong, no shades of grey in between). I am not sure why Osphranter is 'obviously' Macropus, for example - when scientists who have spent time doing studies and come up with that conclusion from real data are being contradicted by one person on the web who when questioned just calls it "obvious" and "logic", surely you can see why people would query that?
I think saying you don't agree would be much less controversial - taxonomy is largely an artificial structure and opinion and judgment are very much part of it after all - but the reason you find yourself in arguments is telling others they are wrong when they are using well-sourced information to explain their position, or are simply recognising the consensus view.
Zootierliste is obviously not my only source for common names but is a major source that I've use overall in doubty cases, for example in species where common name is more rarely used than name. It's not systematic. Common names are just ornaments and have no rules, hence there is absolutely zero possibilites of get picky and peevish about common names, despite many people here just did it. I don't know if you are able to notice the lack of coherence of what you just said: that you find strange that I use Zootierliste for common names but reject the taxonomy. Even if that would be true (is not), then what? Would you find logic if I complain against you because you like the food that is served in certain restaurant but you strongly dislike the architecture of said restaurant? Illogic, it isn't? Then why do you the same with me? You're wrong again in what you said next, I'm not dogmatic, I just defend my position againts dogmatic people that wants to fight against me with their dogmas! Why
Macropus should be "osphranter" if zillion more scientist who have spent zillion more time (centuries) doing zillion times more exhaustive studies and come up with the conclusion of
Macropus being
Macropus from zillion times more real data are being contradicted by one person of a group of few person (in this case M. Celik, M. Cascini, D. Haouchar, C. Van Der Burg, W. Dodt, A. Evans, P. Prentis, M. Bunce, C. Fruciano, and M. Phillips, but they count as one as did just a single conjunct publication together about the subject), surely you can see why people should query that? Do you suffer the same problem of
@Sicarius that assumes that "old" is equal to "bad" and that knowlegde in mankind started just 5 years ago, calling invalid any scientific paper that is not the last about a subject???
Despite your reasonements that I find not very valid, there is one thing where you're absolutely right:
taxonomy is largely an artificial structure and opinion and judgment are very much part of it after all. I like a lot that youre able fo seeing that - many zoochatters are unable, and I think most of what complained against me in this thread demonstrates it. That's why I get so angry when people attack a obvious and logic taxonomy for force their modern "taxonomy" views. And you tell me "the reason you find yourself in arguments is telling others they are wrong when they are using well-sourced information to explain their position, or are simply recognising the consensus view". Really you're unable to notice that I'm NOT telling others they are wrong, but instead there are the OTHERS who are telling me that I'm wrong and I just have to reply and defend myself? And that's even more striking given the fact that, just like you wrote in your last phrase,
I'm simply recognising the general consensus view. Like I said earlier, I think that few more explanations can be given but the fact that many people here find fun in attack what is extremely obvious and insists in that red is green, a plum is a banana and the sun is the moon, attacking everybody that dares to tell any other thing.
