Posted under Tag Alias and Implication Suggestions
Implicating gopher → rodent
Link to implication
Gophers are a species of burrowing rodent, yet have not been implied to rodent.
Updated by Ratte
facelessmess said:
Implications:
Aliases:
Unaliases:
+1. Pretty accurate.
facelessmess said:
Implications:
Better aliasing it to 'kangaroo_rat' instead. I know those aren't the same, but is externally difficult to tell the difference between those groups in practice, especially regarding artwork and anthropomorphization.
facelessmess said:
Implications:
-1, either Imply it to 'rodent' or create a new umbrella tag ('sciurid'empty). Explanation below:
Marmot isn't a type of squirrel, they just are members of the same family (sciuridae).
1st) The first squirrel species was cataloged, then was created the genus Sciurus (latin for 'squirrel').
2nd) Since the genus didn't fitted in any current family, the sciuridae family was created (according zoo-taxonomy: first genus + suffix 'idae').
3rd) Posteriorly new species (some squirrels, some not) were added as well, due to their ancestry.
4th) Since the english word 'squirrel' derives from 'sciurus', there is some confusion regarding 'squirrel' and sciuridae (squirrels, chipmunks, prairie dogs, marmots).
5th) Wikipedia arrived and caused even more confusion about what already was confusing.
Note: This is one of the reasons for me to don't exactly like Wikipedia, if you don't have enough knowledge about how taxonomy works, it may give you some inaccurate information; example: if you search for 'sea urchin' wikipedia will say it is a synonym of the class echinoidea, however it encompasses sea urchins and sand dollars.
Updated by anonymous
Marmots are rodents. Rodents are of the order Rodentia and has nothing to do with family, which is a lower classification to order.
Updated by anonymous
O16 said:
Better aliasing it to 'kangaroo_rat' instead. I know those aren't the same, but is externally difficult to tell the difference between those groups in practice, especially regarding artwork and anthropomorphization.
Not entirely sure about this. This could be applied to many species that we keep separate as well anyways.
O16 said:
Marmot isn't a type of squirrel, they just are members of the same family (sciuridae).
Ah I see... my mistake.
Updated by anonymous
O16 said:
Every species belongs to a family, therefore to an order, since every family is encompassed by an order (like this)
My point is that an order is not the same as a family. One is contained in the other, hence being a higher or lower level of classification depending on which one you're describing...which I clearly said:
>Marmots are rodents. Rodents are of the order Rodentia and has nothing to do with family, which is a lower classification to order.
Meaning, simply, that Rodentia is not a family To explain:
Rodentia isn't the name of a family, but sciuridae is. Sciuridae is contained within Rodentia. All sciurids are, by definition, rodents. As such, the call for removing the implication of rodent from marmot makes no sense given that marmots are sciurids and are therefore also rodents.
However, now that I'm actually awake and marginally more capable of properly reading, I see what this bit was actually about and thus removed the alias and added the implication instead. It was likely just misread from the beginning.
Updated by anonymous
Ratte said:
My point is that an order is not the same as a family. One is contained in the other, hence being a higher or lower level of classification depending on which one you're describing...which I clearly said:>Marmots are rodents. Rodents are of the order Rodentia and has nothing to do with family, which is a lower classification to order.
Meaning, simply, that Rodentia is not a family To explain:
Rodentia isn't the name of a family, but sciuridae is. Sciuridae is contained within Rodentia. All sciurids are, by definition, rodents. As such, the call for removing the implication of rodent from marmot makes no sense given that marmots are sciurids and are therefore also rodents.
However, now that I'm actually awake and marginally more capable of properly reading, I see what this bit was actually about and thus removed the alias and added the implication instead. It was likely just misread from the beginning.
Cool! Thanks for the fix
I'd still also recommend aliasing naked mole rat to naked mole-rat (or vice versa) as both seem to be well used and that hasn't been done yet.
Updated by anonymous
facelessmess said:
Cool! Thanks for the fixI'd still also recommend aliasing naked mole rat to naked mole-rat (or vice versa) as both seem to be well used and that hasn't been done yet.
Sure.
Updated by anonymous
Ratte said:
Sure.
Thanks!
Updated by anonymous
Ratte said:
However, now that I'm actually awake and marginally more capable of properly reading, I see what this bit was actually about and thus removed the alias and added the implication instead. It was likely just misread from the beginning.
And regarding the the previous suggestion of aliasing 'kangaroo_mouse → kangaroo_rat'?
Better aliasing it to 'kangaroo_rat' instead. I know those aren't the same, but is externally difficult to tell the difference between those groups in practice, especially regarding artwork and anthropomorphization.
Note: if it is refused I would like to know why, please.
Updated by anonymous
O16 said:
And regarding the the previous suggestion of aliasing 'kangaroo_mouse → kangaroo_rat'?This one:
Better aliasing it to 'kangaroo_rat' instead. I know those aren't the same, but is externally difficult to tell the difference between those groups in practice, especially regarding artwork and anthropomorphization.
Note: if it is refused I would like to know why, please.
Because I'd like to see what people think about doing that before I do that.
Updated by anonymous
