Talk:Camas pocket gopher

this current photo...

Lists the animal as being from California!!! —Gaff ^ταλκ 03:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

aadt'l refs

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/species/mammals/gopher.asp http://books.google.com/books?id=IUg-AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA624&lpg=PA624&dq=thomomys+borealis&source=bl&ots=1gGeHQAxQU&sig=jZ7ztKgnEFn5K9ZF_T5O0NtRXH8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=r35vVKSKB5CoogS-6oCgBQ&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=thomomys%20bulb&f=false

Richardson text

https://archive.org/stream/faunaborealiamer01rich#page/206/

GA Review

GA Review This review is transcluded from Talk:Camas pocket gopher/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: FunkMonk (talk · contribs) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC) Hi, I'll review this, some preliminary comments first. FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC) The sections seem a bit unconventional in structure. Distribution should be in the same section as habitat, and behaviour should be with ecology. "Description and morphology" is a pretty redundant name, description should be enough. Conservation could be a subsection of human interaction. Under ecology, you have a bulleted list, these are discouraged, should be written as prose. I'm not sure, as per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Embedded_lists#Long_sequences, but we can try both and see which looks best. There are 14 animals of the list, with not a lost of text to support it. I might try a table. Let me look at a few other articles. —Gaff ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Here is what it looks like as a list with only common names. Not bad. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gaff/Camas_pocket_gopher_draft&oldid=635196892 —Gaff ταλκ 05:01, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, it has been done before, see for example dodo, which I wrote. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I dropped the binomials and went with common names. " This name was taken up by subsequent writers and is used in the gopher article of the 1879 edition of The American Cyclopædia." Needs citation. Cited the wikisource. There is a mislabeled image/woodcut in that article, which might be of use. —Gaff ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) You could make the synonym list be less intrusive by doing the same as seen on for example red rail. It's a bit hard to get an idea of how the animal looks from the taxobox image alone. Consider madding this one somewhere, as it shows the head in a different view.[1] Can I ask your advice on image use? Of the 14 images at Commons https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Thomomys_bulbivorus I have uploaded 12. The other two there before are the taxidermy in the Italian museum and the woodcut from the 1800s encyclopedia. Both incorrectly labeled as "California". Do you think the article would benefit from having those images added, to highlight the complex taxonomy issues discussed in the article? Also, where/how best to incorporate the other image you mentioned? —Gaff ταλκ 04:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I changed the layout so that most images are now in use. FunkMonk (talk) 09:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC) "Mis-lettered Diplostoma douglasii" How is it mislettered? Will clarify. I just found this (valuable?) reference text yesterday. —Gaff ταλκ 04:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Still seems a bit odd for a "mislettering", it is a completely different word. I think "mislettered" at the time may have meant more that the letters were laid out wrong at the printer or something along those lines. The reference here reads "The fourth (Diplostoma 1 bulbivorum) was based on the skin of a "Camas-rat," from the "banks of the Columbia," an animal said to be very common on the plains of the Multnomah River" (F. B.-A., I, p. 206, pl. xviii/>, wrongly lettered " Diplostoma douglasii")." The reference F. B.-A. is the Fauna boreali-americana and the plate/image is the one here. I think "mislabeled" is more appropriate than "mislettered." —Gaff ταλκ 04:50, 25 November 2014 (UTC) If the title is the common name, this should be used throughout the article. That is how most articles about extant mammals are written. FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2014 (UTC) "the only place on the Columbia from which" Too esoteric for non-Americans. I have edited it and tried to clarify. The wikilink for Columbia River goes to the 1,243 mi (2,000 km) river. "It was to have been in" Seems a bit awkward. better? "Even prior to that, it seems that this specimen was not well preserved" What did it consist of? The water is a bit murky. I'll read up more when I get a chance. Made some edits for now. * okay? No word on the former genus it was classified in, Diplostoma? What is it? Here's a start. I'll keep working on it. —Gaff ταλκ 22:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Okay. The "genus" never really amounted to much and was soon dispensed with, having been more a product of Richardson's (mis)-interpreations. There is an account in Abstract of Results of a Study of the Genera Geomys and Thomomys By Elliott Coues. I have clarified this murkiness in the article. Thoughts? —Gaff ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "In 1855, Brandt first referred to the Camas pocket gopher as Thomomys bulbivorou" Seems like reclassification, should be stated and clarified. Did some digging. The original reference is by Johann Friedrich von Brandt in German. Here is a copy. Here is a really nice (public domain) image from the work, with a much needed profile view. If you can read German well enough to translate, it would be helpful. Or I can keep digging. I'll get the image uploaded to commons soon. —Gaff ταλκ 05:17, 25 November 2014 (UTC) I doubt that it is going to be worthwhile to translate the Brandt text. I ran some through Google translate, without much information. I'm not sure how to go about getting more clarity on this point (not for lack of searching). I'll keep in on the to-do list, but need to focus on bigger issues first. —Gaff ταλκ 16:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC) There just is not much in the Brandt text about this. I;ve clarified a lot in the article. This again seems an "artifact" of the Diplostoma affair. —Gaff ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "what at the time as thought" Was thought? "at that time for the Camas pocket" Only for the? That is my understanding. I've added the "alone." Its in the first paragraph of referenced article, under "Context and Content". The rationale was questioned later by some other naturalists. I'll have to review references to get the full story & clarify. Something about some minor concavities of the pterygoids, if I remember. I'm not sure what prompted adding the others later. I acutally cannot find anything about one of the species in the subgenus listed in ITIS http://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=900156 : Thomomys atrovarius —Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) -- this has been addressed. "In the 1920s, reference is made to the "Willamette Valley Gopher." Why shift of tense here? fixed "In German is is known as "Camas-Taschenratte," in French, "Gaufre bulbivore," and in Italian, "Gopher gigante." Why do we need to know the name in countries where it doesn't even live? It's referenced and somewhat interesting in a trivial way. I moved it to the talk page. Yeah, the thing is, one could write such lists for prettt much every6thing on Wikiedia, but its relevance would be questionable, especially when a species isn't native to the places these languages are spoken. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC) ::* I get it. I had added that when the article was still a stub, because it seemed interesting in the moment. It is obviously not essential. That it is called Gopher Gigante in Italian is marginally relevant, since it is the largest in the group. But I vote we leave it out. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "No subspecies of the Camas pocket gopher are described." Why present tense? "The patterning reflects a destructive event occurring across a broad expanse of the territory about 13,000 years ago." With what consequences for the animal? I thought the sentence immediately prior helped clarify. A study was done in 1993 analysing genetic patterns and tracing patterns back to an event at that time. The two references I have listed in the article are a bit. From IUCN http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/42594/0 : "This species exhibits a genetic pattern of limited inbreeding within populations and much differentiation among populations; pattern reflects a cataclysmic event affecting the entire geographic distribution of the species about 13,000 years ago (Carraway and Kennedy 1993)." I will try to find the original paper, but need to avoid relying too much on primary sources. —Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I've pulled the reference (http://www.jstor.org/stable/1382434) (found it through JSTOR at my local library) and will expand on this information. —Gaff ταλκ 16:53, 26 November 2014 (UTC) Yes, could be interesting to note what this event consisted of, if that is explained in the paper. FunkMonk (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC) The floods have a stand-alone article here: Missoula Floods. (The map shows the Willamette Valley flooded (near the west coast). I'm prepping the discussion section from the journal article in user space: User:Gaff/Camas pocket gopher draft and will add it to the article once polished. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) The story of the floods. I put it in the biology section, with the map. Will need to sort out the image layout later. —Gaff ταλκ 21:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) "Diplostoma douglasii from Fauna boreali-americana, 1829" Is that a depiction of the type specimen? This image is parked in the middle of the section of the book on the animal. Again, we are in murky water. I'll try and sort it out. —Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) I think this has been addressed as best as possible. Thoughts? —Gaff ταλκ 02:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC) "One of the four initial species of Richardson was Diplostoma ? bulbivorum." Add that this is an old name for the Camas pocket gopher. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC) The taxonomy section is a wall of text, could be split into at least two or three more paragraphs. better now? "now known as Thomomys bottae." You could mention the common name in parenthesis. "They most closely resemble Botta's pocket gopher.[citation needed]" All such tags should be dealt with prior to nomination in the future. Likewise with the second to last paragraph in the description section. "peculiar fur" That means little by itself. -- clarified "This heavy rostrum" Should be the, it is only a part of the skull. But I wasn't aware that any mammals had anything referred to as such, does the source really say rostrum? Yes. Here is the ref towards bottom of the page, section heading. The Verts/Carrway Land Mammals of Oregon ref on the page also uses this wording. It is these skull features that differentiate subgenuses Megascapheus and "Thomomys. I'll fix the copy edit... —Gaff ταλκ 20:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC) That being said, "rostrum" seems like an awkward word. I may switch to Snout. —Gaff ταλκ 20:48, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Would at least make it more understandable to the average reader. FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)  Done After dividing paragraphs under taxonomy (which will create room), the museum specimen could maybe be moved there to illustrate mislabelling. . We now have the skull cross sections. I don't think we need both for the article. —Gaff ταλκ 22:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Yeah, maybe four skeleton images are a bit much? FunkMonk (talk) 15:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I took down the skull cross section. Not sure if that one or the full skeleton pic from the Oklahoma museum needed to go. —Gaff ταλκ 16:59, 29 November 2014 (UTC) Maybe under conservation (for no particular reason), then you could right align the 1855 drawing... FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 29 November 2014 (UTC) I like the skeleton in the conservation section. It's like a warning... —Gaff ταλκ 03:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "such as T. mazama" Always remember to provide common names as well. Good with the new flood stuff, though it leaves some stuff repeated in the taxonomy section, and perhaps it would make more sense under distribution? That is, after all, what it is about. -- fixed redundancies there. Need to go over the rest of the article as well. It's certainly shaping up. FunkMonk (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2014 (UTC) We'll get there! "They are probably set upon by carnivorous mammals." What does this sentence mean? rephrased. The source is page 3; says that no species are identified, but presumptively so. "There are two parasitic worms, which were named after having been collected from the Camas pocket gopher." Which? done. I will probably wind up writing stubs on the red-links... —Gaff ταλκ 17:26, 30 November 2014 (UTC) The reproduction and growth stuff looks like it would be better of as a subsection under behaviour. Likewise, the last paragraph now under "biology" (about predators and parasites) seems like it would make more sense under ecology. Ecology could perhaps be its own section. After this, there would be no separate "biology" section, which doesn't make much sense anyway. Behaviour and ecology is biology. "The cataclysmic Bretz Flood crashed through the Willamette Valley approximately 13,000 years ago in an almost perfect overlay of this distribution at an elevation of around 122 m (400 ft)." Much of this appears to be redundant, after you added the new text on floods. fixed. "Before the floods, and since," Wouldn't "before and since" read better? done. "It is uncertain if burrow systems of different gophers communicate." Communicate? What is meant by that? Interaction? Exact quote from Verts :"Burrow systems of several pocket gophers may communicate although tunnels of adjacent individuals may be ..." It means the systems of gophers liveing near each other may connect. I fixed the odd phrasing. —Gaff ταλκ 01:34, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "Dandelions were found more often than other vegetation in the nests and burrows than other food sources." Repetition. Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "Their bones have been identified in the regurgitated material from predatory birds." This seems to overlap with a sentence in "biology", should be merged. Ceaned up and simplified throughout the article. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) "The gopher is also reportedly "one of the most vicious animals known for its size." Attribute direct quotes in the text. Placed in quotation block. —Gaff ταλκ 17:17, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Alright, what I meant was just that you need to name the person who stated it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC) I understood that, but thought the quote in its entirety may be interesting enough to stand alone. I'm not picky about the block quote being there or not. Kind of fun, because I didn't know how to make that until yesterday...—Gaff ταλκ 22:50, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Some of the intro seems to be short, abrupt sentences. Stuff that is related could be grouped together (morphology stuff, for example), to give a better flow. "may become tame in captivity" This is not covered in the article. There should be no unique info in the intro. -- fixed and expanded. Added a new reference to plunder. One last thing, which I'm unsure whether the article addresses: What does Camas mean? Refers to Camassia. They were thought to be devouring the bulbs. There is some controversy in the literature, but later authors say that they are not bulb eaters. Which makes bulbivorus a misnomer. I will spell this all out better in the article. —Gaff ταλκ 22:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I'll check this for accuracy and add the info from Camassia quamash page. Derives from Native American term... —Gaff ταλκ 22:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC) I'm not going into the origins of the word "Camas" too much, but linked to the article about the flower and clarified why it is the common name of the gopher. Good enough?? The intro seems long enough to be split into two paragraphs. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 1 December 2014 (UTC) done. Can still benefit from going over by an excellent copy editor. Request was placed at Guild of Copy Editors a while ago. —Gaff ταλκ 03:21, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Additional comments Awesome work with the dodo. I will plan on incorporating some of the boxed quotes from naturalists of the era and some other features of "your" article. Once this article passes GA, if you have additional ideas and want to help out, it would probably help me a lot in terms of developing my skills.—Gaff ταλκ 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Thanks, as for quotes, that was mainly done because the animal is long extinct and can't be observed by modern scientists, which means all we have are those old accounts, which should not really be interpreted, and are therefore left as they were. I'm not sure quotes are much relevant to extant taxa, and they could instead present outdated information. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC) There are problems with the citation style. I am fixing it, using Dodo and Rodrigues solitaire as templates. —Gaff ταλκ 15:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC) Alright, though I can't help with that, since it was implemented there by someone who has since been blocked... FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC) For FAC, I'd recommend that you request a copyedit here:[2] I always do that. But beware that it can take long before someone does it, as it is mostly done chronologically, so you could list it now already, this review will no doubt be done by that time. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Oh, I see you are a copy editor! Well, the thing here is that it seems some of the sentences are a bit convoluted, and some complicated stuff could need explanations. You could re-read it once this review is over. FunkMonk (talk) 18:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC) The article is still a work in progress. I'm not a great copy editor & actually haven't done anything since putting the userbox on my page! I may have asked for a GA review sooner in the process than would be ideal, but your feedback has been extremely helpful. —Gaff ταλκ 21:26, 28 November 2014 (UTC) What do you think, to break up the taxonomy section a bit?: There is a specimen of a quadruped in the Hudson's Bay Museum, which Mr David Douglas informs me is the animal known on the banks of the Columbia by the name of the Camas-rat, because the bulbous root of the Quamash or Camas plant (Scilla esculenta) forms its favourite food. The scull is wanting, and the animal, therefore, cannot be with certainty referred to a genus, but the form of its exterior cheek-pouches leads me to think that it may belong to the diplostoma of M Rafinesque-Smaltz. — John Richardson, Fauna boreali-americana, 1829 Alright, seems everything has been fixed appropriately. Now there is one last thing: a number of words are wikilinked twice in the article, they should only be so at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC) I fixed them all except a few intentional exceptions. Where important names of people, or taxonomic classes are linked in the infobox, I left them linked on first mention in the text. Additionally, in a very few instances, important concepts linked in the lead or early sections were also linked linked once more if they occurred at the very end of the article. I think there is Manual of Style precedent for doing it this way. I'm totally open to changing it if you think best. —Gaff ταλκ 14:17, 2 December 2014 (UTC) Yeah, of course, I only meant in the article itself. Intro and taxobox are exempt. FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 2 December 2014 (UTC) "posteriorly and dorsally" Most readers won't understand this, it would probably be better to just say "behind and above, or some such. done. Alright, can't really think of anything more, so well, for FAC, I guess it would be ready after a copy edit, for clarity. Passed! FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

other languages

In German is is known as "Camas-Taschenratte," in French, "Gaufre bulbivore," and in Italian, "Gopher gigante." Wrobel, compiled by Murray (2007). Elsevier's dictionary of mammals in Latin, English, German, French and Italian (1st ed. ed.). Amsterdam: Elsevier. p. 533. ISBN 008048882X. Retrieved 15 November 2014. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

Some info on the Diplostoma bulbivorum affair

Abstract of Results of a Study of the Genera Geomys and Thomomys: With ... By Elliott Coues p.246 Some info on the Diplostoma bulbivorum affair

Find

A Synopsis of the Mammals of North America and Adjacent Seas by Daniel Giraud Elliot (1901) http://books.google.com/books?id=XdPRAAAAMAAJ&dq=megascapheus+elliot+bulbivorus&source=gbs_navlinks_s

Nomination of picture to be featured

too good for Wikipedia's featured pictures

The main picture in this article was nominated to WP:Featured pictures at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Camas pocket gopher (3).JPG. It failed in the assessment because of poor lighting. I still think the picture is awesome. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:07, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

He (or she) seems unpleased with the result. —Gaff ^ταλκ 19:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, definitely still a great photo. That thing surely doesn't want to sit still for the camera. Jsayre64 (talk) 05:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead overdetailed

I feel that there is an excessive level of detail in the lead, making it hard to read and unfocused. Perhaps confining the lead to the most often mentioned facts from more than one secondary source would help. For example, it seems to me that saying, "The females have four mammary glands" in the lead is overdoing it, unless the other members of the genus have a different number of teats. Many of the other sentences are equally random-seeming. Abductive (reasoning) 17:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article.

It is really satisfying to see this article up on the Main Page today! It took a lot of work to make it happen. Thank you to everyone who helped out. --Gaff (talk) 18:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Nice to see it up after all this time! FunkMonk (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

looks

These animals are crazy looking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzbucketluvr (talk • contribs) 19:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2017

Please unlock article as Wikipedia should be edited by all people not just experts. 198.52.13.15 (talk) 23:30, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. The protection will expire at 16:51, 6 April 2017. Gulumeemee (talk) 00:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Camas pocket gopher. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141112190409/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-273-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-273-01-0001.pdf

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) 15:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020

There are some "as of" date issues throughout the article that might be addressed (or replaced by newer sources if available). There was considerable MOS:SANDWICH, which I resolved. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)