Talk:Tree squirrel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tree squirrel article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Squirrel was copied or moved into Tree squirrel with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Marmot subfamily?
I'd like to see the specific reference that lists the tribe and genus "Marmot" as Tree Squirrels. I don't buy it, I'm afraid. But if there's a reference that includes it, I'm willing to go along. --Saukkomies talk 07:21, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- The point of the list was to list all tribes and only the genera that are called tree squirrels, but evidently I had not made that clear. I have made an edit to improve that now. Ucucha 12:41, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm still confused about this. Since the taxonomy of Sciuridae is given elsewhere, why replicate it in this article, which I thought was only supposed to be focused on tree squirrels? --Saukkomies talk 14:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I supposed it was helpful to also list the few tribes that don't include tree squirrels, to emphasize that tree squirrels belong to several different natural groups within Sciuridae. But if it's unclear, we should change it. Ucucha 14:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
- I was editing the article this morning, and found myself running out of time, so forgive me for just proceeding to delete the non-tree squirrel tribes from the article's taxonomical list without acknowledging your proposal of compromise, Ucucha. But now I have time, and so I wish to thank you for the spirit of working together that you showed in this regard. I do hope to continue to work on this article, and leave the rest of the squirrel-related articles to you and others to edit, as this is where my main interest in the subject lies. Indeed, I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this without feeling that I am intruding upon the vision that someone else might have of what the proper scope of the article ought to be. And so I thank you for the work you put in to finding a way to both merge and keep separate these articles; it is a brilliant bit of editorship, I must say. --Saukkomies talk 03:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
