Talk:Indian grey mongoose

Spelling of Indian Grey Mongoose from Indian Gray Mongoose

Section below copied from [[1]] to explain change of spelling

I think it is important that the spelling of gray/grey is consistent throughout the Indian Gray Mongoose article. Prior to your most recent edit, excepting the title, all of the spelling was grey. You have now changed that so that it is gray in the first part of the article and grey and in second. I had been putting off fixing this issue, but put it off no longer can I do. The sources aren't particularly helpful, each being parochial. The two most commonly authorative references used in Wikipedia also contradict. IUCN uses grey [1], Mammal Species of the World uses gray [2]. Further complicating matters is that the species exists in many countries, each with there own preference for spelling. The template for the article to be spelt using Indian English was put in on 22 June 2016, by Filpro, who is Indian, so naturally there is some bias. The title was gray from the point of creation in 2006 and doesn't seem to have been changed. That all of the spellings other than the title have become grey may be an indication of general editor preference, but I haven't been through all of the edits to check this hypothesis. If it is assumed that Indian English is the appropriate spelling format then the next question is which spelling is correct. From my own knowledge grey (being English) was the original preferred spelling, but that there has been an increase in the use of gray, with no official preference for either. I could not find any official Indian English spelling guide on line, so I chose The Times of India as a guide to what might be the spelling considered most appropriate. Searching the online articles both gray and grey are used, but grey is used in the more articles and gray in the more popular, mass appeal formats. Searching on mongoose, there is a definite preference for grey over gray - compare 'grey mongoose site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/' with 'gray mongoose site:timesofindia.indiatimes.com/'. Added to this the original spelling in India and elsewhere in Asia and as spelled by the English was grey. On the balance of evidence my recommendation is that the entire article have the spelling changed to 'grey', and that should be enforced until evidence is forthcoming at some future stage that the alternate spelling is more appropriate.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 12:53, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Fully agree that spelling should be consistent. Since the spelling in title is gray, this should either be used throughout, or change the spelling in title. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:31, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Checked a few historical sources : Sterndale used 'grey', so did Ellerman and Morrison-Scott; Pocock used neither (smart). Since also Red List assessors use 'grey', and several other contemporary sources, I opt for changing the title. Which one journalists use, does not matter here at all. --BhagyaMani (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your conclusion, but not your line of reasoning. As I mentioned, the sources (and I did go through quite a number) are, from what I could find, are entirely parochial. For example Sterndale is 19th C English, thus it would be unimaginable if the spelling were anything other than 'grey'. I don't know your other sources, but the species is also known as the common indian mongoose, and this is not so that the spelling conflict is avoided, so that may be why Pocock did not use grey or gray. Scientific sources only require that the binomial nomenclature have official spelling for international use, whereas the common names are intended for local usage, thus common names should, in Wikipedia, reflect the local usage of the name, more so than how the common name is spelled in scientific literature. The scientific literature can be used as an indication of local spelling. Spelling by journalists is in my opinion, a much more valid method of determining the local spelling of a creature, and thus does matter. In any case I will change all spellings to grey. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 11:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Characteristics

The general description of the Indian grey mongoose varies from source to source. From the historical context, it appears that it has been difficult to distinguish the various mongooses, with a great deal of confusion in identifying species and identifying what are species. The description given is a combination of 3 sources. The Sterndale reference is old, which has the disadvantage of not giving a description which would necessarily distinguish it from other species as recognised today, but has the advantage of providing a description that is more in line with the average reader. The Menom reference is modern and detailed, but perhaps too certain of its comments. The Hussain reference is from a journal and compares with the small indian mongoose. It is vague, but perhaps suitably so.

Changes made -

1) All sources indicate the tail tip is lighter, not darker, and that it is not a distinguishing characteristic.

2) Both H edwardsii and H javanicus have a reddish head, it is not a distinguishing characteristic

3) Dark feet are not seen as a distinguishing characteristic

4) Size is the only consistent visibly anatomal feature distinguishing H edwardsii and H javanicus in all sources and geographical areas see for example http://www.science.smith.edu/departments/Biology/VHAYSSEN/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-342-01-0001.pdf

5) Small changes to the Sterndale reference - spelling of mungoose

Changes and recommendations welcome, but they're going to have to be sourced.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 15:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Distribution and Habitat

A recent edit increased the range of the Indian grey mongoose, but which was then incongruous with the distribution map in the article. The distribution map, like all such maps in Wikipedia, is derived from the distribution map on the IUCN website. The IUCN website had also increased the range in words, but not the distribution map. Given that the Wikipedia map is reliant on the IUCN map, and that the increased distribution was only from one paper (Veron - for which the species was not the main subject of the paper) and that nothing has been confirmed as yet, I decided the best way was to split the ranges into those traditionally assigned (based on a range of sources), and the new ranges. Nevertheless some problems still existed

• Bangladesh was not mentioned in the distribution given for the species in the Veron paper, yet it mentions in the table using specimens from Bangladesh. Adding to confusion is the lack of consistency with Bangladesh in other sources. I gave Bangladesh as an accepted country in the distribution
• Bhutan was mentioned in the IUCN source, but not included in the map. A reference was given to support the claim of existence in Bhutan, but the source did not mention the mongoose. Another source claimed Bhutan as part of the distribution, but this was likely sourced from IUCN. I decided not to include Bhutan in the distribution

The habitat mentioned in recent edit quotes a source (Shekar 2003), but that source does not support the claim of those habitats and only discusses jungle and human habitation. Updated the section with multiple sources. As the IUCN source states - this is not a well studied species. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 14:45, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Behaviour

I reverted the changes by BhagyaMani.

• changed mongoose back to species, because 1) I wanted to indicate that this next text had technical support 2) felt mongoose was overused in the article. 3) attempt to separate this species of mongoose from others more clearly, rather than it be just any mongoose. Kept the change of the to this
• the aim of the paragraph on the fighting of the snakes by this mongoose was to make it clear that the main way that it protects itself against a fatal bite was not to get bitten at all. The other adaptations mentioned are secondary backups. Completely unclear why BhagyaMani separated immunity from the venom from the other secondary defence adaptations.
• completely reverted the section on eating eggs. The source supplied (Ewer) quite clearly supports the statements in the manner given - in fact the paragraph is a virtual paraphrasing of the Ewer text. BhagyaMani gave no reason for his edits.Jameel the Saluki (talk) 03:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)