| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ia (genus) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that an image or photograph of Ia (genus) be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
Subgenus
editI looked for a source for the claim that Ia is a subgenus of Pipistrellus and could find none. I would love to see a reliable source for this. – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 08:53, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- "Ellerman and Morrison-Scott (1951) placed Ia as a subgenus of Pipistrellus, whereas Menu (1987) considered the genus to be synonymous with Eptesicus". Thabah et al. 2007, p. 728. I'll add Eptesicus as another suggested senior synonym. Ucucha 09:24, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is mentioned in Wikispecies. Pipistrellus has 8 synonyms, none of them are Ia. Ia has one syn., and it's not Pipistrellus. Eptesicus mentions 11 syns., and no mention of Ia. Neither of the Wikipedia articles mentions Ia at all. What makes these placements valid? And if valid and notable, why the huge oversight in both the Wikipedia articles, Eptesicus and Pipistrellus, and especially the Wikispecies pages, Ia, Eptesicus, and Pipistrellus? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a past placement that is no longer used in recent sources. And neither Wikispecies nor Wikipedia is a reliable source. Ucucha 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- No mention here, either. I did not refer to the wikis as reliable sources, but as wellsprings of knowledge that do not include any mention of this claim. Perhaps the lede needs to be a little clearer that these are no longer valid affiliations? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- PS. Never mind, I see you've cleared it up. It might be good to mention these past connections in the other two WP articles.
- ITIS shouldn't be considered a reliable source either, at least for mammals; as far as I can see, it uses a 20-year-old classification without any discussion of alternatives. Although also slightly out of date by now, MSW 3 remains the best general reference on mammalian taxonomy; as it happens, it also mentions the former classification of Ia under Pipistrellus (but not Eptesicus). Both Pipistrellus and Eptesicus have quite complicated taxonomic histories that are interwoven with those of myriads of other vespertilionid genera; it'll be better to cover those comprehensively than add a mere mention of Ia. Ucucha 10:12, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- No mention here, either. I did not refer to the wikis as reliable sources, but as wellsprings of knowledge that do not include any mention of this claim. Perhaps the lede needs to be a little clearer that these are no longer valid affiliations? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- This is a past placement that is no longer used in recent sources. And neither Wikispecies nor Wikipedia is a reliable source. Ucucha 09:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
- None of this is mentioned in Wikispecies. Pipistrellus has 8 synonyms, none of them are Ia. Ia has one syn., and it's not Pipistrellus. Eptesicus mentions 11 syns., and no mention of Ia. Neither of the Wikipedia articles mentions Ia at all. What makes these placements valid? And if valid and notable, why the huge oversight in both the Wikipedia articles, Eptesicus and Pipistrellus, and especially the Wikispecies pages, Ia, Eptesicus, and Pipistrellus? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX ) 09:44, 20 May 2011 (UTC)