Talk:Pteropus pelagicus

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge the Chuuk flying fox and the Mortlock flying fox under the article title Pteropus pelagicus

---

I propose that the Chuuk flying fox is merged with the Mortlock flying fox on the basis of the study by Buden et al. 2013, "Taxonomy, distribution, and natural history of flying foxes (Chiroptera, Pteropodidae) in the Mortlock Islands and Chuuk State, Caroline Islands", which concluded that the two common names are descriptors of the same species, and they are geographically split into subspecies. The Chuuk flying fox is no longer evaluated by the IUCN, which used to list it as critically endangered. The fact that the IUCN is no longer evaluating it suggests that they accept its designation as a subspecies, as they do not evaluate subspecies. Enwebb (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm finding an IUCN article for Chuuk flying fox from 2010 but not for the Mortlovk flying fox, so I'm thinking that Mortlock flying fox should be merged into Chuuck flying fox   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Are they the same thing? They seem to be common names for bats with a specific location, which have previously been treated as monotypic species: Pteropus insularis for Chuuk flying fox and Pteropus phaeocephalus for Mortlock flying fox. Buden et al (2013) suggest they should be treated as the same species and that the name Pteropus pelagicus has precedence. I note that MSW3 treated the two as subspecies of Pteropus insularis (P. i. insularis and P. i. phaeocephalus).

A merger may be justified but the name of the article can't be either Chuuk or Mortlock flying fox as they refer to different bats (albeit closely related). The Pteropus article mentions the Chuuk flying fox but not the Mortlock flying fox. Is this an omission or has it been synonymised? Moreover the article lists the species in groups, with the Chuuk flying fox in the "P. pselaphon species group". While it is not clear what the source for this division is, it suggests there might be a broader taxonomic revision in the pipeline, which might mean any article merger should be delayed.   Jts1882 | talk  07:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

For the merger, I thought that the article could be titled Pteropus pelagicus, with redirect pages for both Chuuk flying fox and Mortlock flying fox. As for the omission of the Mortlock flying fox on the Pteropus page, I do not know if this is intentional or not. In Mammal Species of the World (2005), the Mortlock flying fox is not included at all. I think that the conclusions of Buden et al. of the two being subspecies of P. pelagicus have been generally accepted by bat taxonomists/biolgists who have published since 2013 (see Tsang 2015 and Almeida 2014). I think the WP:BOLD thing to do would be to forge ahead with the merger based on the best available science. Enwebb (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Pteropus pelagicus would be a good choice for the article title. Then it can be stated that Chuuk and Mortlock flying foxes both belong to this species. The American Society of Mammalogists, who oversee Mammal Species of the World, have a new database where they seem to have adopted Pteropus pelagicus as the species name with precedence. While the database is in beta and most entries have little information beyond the taxon name, it does suggest that the conclusions of Buden et al (2013) have been more widely accepted. I suspect that this also means it will also be used in MSW4, due later this year.   Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Incidentally, the species groups used in the Pteropus article and the Template:Pteropodidae template were added without any source. I cannot find any support for these groups, although searching with Google is handicapped by all the Wikipedia copy sites.   Jts1882 | talk  07:39, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.