This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rodents, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
rodents on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RodentsWikipedia:WikiProject RodentsTemplate:WikiProject RodentsRodent articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Brazil and
related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil articles
"Its conservation status is unknown" Semantically, I would argue that its conservation status is known (i.e., "data deficient"). More accurate to say that its conservation status is assessed as [[data deficient] because yadda yadda...
DD means that the conservation status is unknown, see the IUCN definition "A taxon is Data Deficient when there is inadequate information to make a direct, or indirect, assessment of its risk of extinction based on its distribution and/or population status."
[1]. Regardless of that, your wording is probably superior anyway, so I used it.
link taxonomy
Done.
"For a group of 17 specimens from three locations in the state of Pará, Brazil, which had been previously identified as Oryzomys macconnelli (now Euryoryzomys macconnelli) and then as Oryzomys nitidus (now Euryoryzomys nitidus), they introduced the new specific name Oryzomys emmonsae." Sentence needs tweaking: i) was Para previously identified as Oryzomys macconnelli? ii) emmonsae is the specific name, not Oryzomys emmonsae
Even Brazilian states are rice rats. You are right, as usual, and I moved these sentences around a bit to remedy it.
"…including genetic data from the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene" genetic data->
sequence data more accurate?
Yes.
"Their analysis reaffirmed the distinctiveness… " -> distinctness
Yes.
about 12%, versus 14.7%: one looks approximate, the other exact... intentional?
It differs by 12.1% from southern E. macconelli, 12.5% from northern E. macconelli, and 12.3% from E. russatus. Introducing those numbers here would make it necessary to explain that there are two different clades within E. macconnelli (possibly separate species), but that's a different story which doesn't need to be told here. Therefore, I thought it was best to be a little more approximate to avoid that issue.
"In 2006, on an extensive"
Done.
"… O. macconnelli, O. lamia (placed under O. russatus by Musser and colleagues) and O. russatus clustered together" the last two words will probably be confusing to someone who doesn't know phylogenetics/cladistics
Expanded a little.
link/define tribe
Linked.
"The upperparts are tawny brown, a bit darker on the head because many hairs have black tips." missing word (but, and, although?)
Sounds best with "but", I think.
"It is similar to other members of the genus in the pattern of the arteries of the head." Is the artery pattern reflected as grooves in the skull, or was this determined from dissection of a fleshy specimen?
Grooves and some foramina, but I don't think it's necessary to say here. That's where data about this character usually come from, though I recall reading about the marsh rice rat that Musser and co were able to confirm that the arteries really followed the grooves in some skulls that were so poorly cleaned that they could see the arteries.
"The alisphenoid strut, an extension of the alisphenoid bone which separates two foramina (openings) in the skull, the masticatory-buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessorius, is rarely present;" when I first read this I though the final "is" should be "are", as I thought three bony parts were being listed, but looking closer I see what the sentence is actually saying. Maybe put (the masticatory-buccinator foramen and the foramen ovale accessories) in parentheses to reduce possible confusion
Used the parentheses.
(2n = 80; FN = 86) perhaps n could be linked to
ploidy. Fundamental number doesn't have a link that I can see, but maybe it's understandable enough from the context.
I have just modified one external link on
Euryoryzomys emmonsae. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
this tool.