Talk:Clethrionomys

Myodes vs. Clethrionomys

The correct name is Myodes Pallas, 1811 (Carleton et al., http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/doc/myodes03.pdf). Ucucha 18:44, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The above reference apparently comes from a paper presented at a conference held in 2003 in Russia. The paper itself states that "In summary, two generic names, Clethrionomys Tilesius, 1850, and Myodes Pallas, 1811, appear in the recent zoological literature on this vole roup, a situation that marks their nomenclature as unstable." To add to the confusion, the name Myodes lemmus is used by some sources to refer to the common Northern European lemming. --Big_Iron 21:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

I haven't seen the genus Myodes being used in any of the articles I've read regarding voles, including articles from 2005 and 2006. Even if Myodes, being the older name, theoretically should have precedence, it doesn't seem to be used at all in the scientific literature. ISI Web of Science, a large database of journal articles, gives one result using Myodes as a search topic (the russian article, which according to the database has not been cited once), twelve for evotomys, (as species name of a vole trypanosome parasite), and 1748 for Clethrionomys. Clearly, the phrase "In the past, the genus has been called Evotomys or Clethrionomys, but Myodes takes precedence", is not only misleading, but flat out wrong. It represents the opinion of one paper that seems to have then been ignored 129.177.44.152 15:35, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The name is also used in Musser and Carleton's 2005 chapter on muroid rodents in Mammal Species of the World, which is a very authoritative work. It is often the case that such changes are not taken up so quickly by the scientific community at large (remember that many of the articles on Clethrionomys published in 2005 or 2006 may already have been in press or review when the articles arguing for Myodes were published). Also, Carleton et al. (2003) was probably a pretty obscure publication (I believe it's from the proceedings of some Russian conference), which might have hindered its acceptance. Also, Myodes is just plainly the valid name under the ICZN (it can't be considered a nomen oblitum, as Carleton et al. argued), so I think there's no problem in using it. We might, however, add a statement that this change has not been accepted universally. Ucucha 16:23, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict - I thought I'd add my notes anyway: There are three sources that argue for precedence of Myodes. The Carleton et al. paper cited by Ucucha above, the Pavlinov paper noted by the anonymous editor (Title: Myodes pallas 1811 is a valid name for the genus of red-backed voles (Critecidae), Author(s): Pavlinov IY, Source: ZOOLOGICHESKY ZHURNAL 85 (5): 667-669 MAY 2006), and Mammal Species of the World Volume 3. As Ucucha says, it will take some time for this to be adopted. As he also mentions, the only way for Clethrionomys to be retained is in direct violation of the code. --Aranae 16:55, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

But the three sources are from different constellations of the same three people, namely Carleton, Musser and Pavlinov. The first source an article by all three from 2003, the second source from a chapter in a book by Carleton and Musser, and the third source from an article by Pavlinov. Jon 129.177.44.152 17:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I just think that it should take more than three publications from three scientists to change the name in an encyclopedia. As of now, this should be considered a proposal, it has not been discussed in the scientific community, it has not been scrutinied. When, or even if, the discussion comes, and Myodes seems to be gaining in acceptance, *then*, a name-change might be considered. It might be that according to the ICZN code Myodes is more correct, but that is a matter for the professionals to decide, not us. As of now, the name Clethrionomys should be reinstated, the name Myodes should be mentioned as part of a proposed name change. Jon 129.177.44.152 17:49, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

It is an error. Admittedly it's an error that has perpetuated for over a century and involves a common and well-known animal, but it's still a mistake. If we use Clethrionomys, we will simply be further perpetuating the error and slowing the rate at which everyone starts using the correct name. The ICZN has overturned issues of priority in the past, but due to the relatively late date of the first use of Myodes and to the (albeit limited) use since then, its rules do not allow for overturning Myodes and using Clethrionomys. It's also important to note that this is not a debate. There's no one in the literature arguing that Clethrionomys is valid. The people who are using the name simply aren't aware of the issue of priority in this case and the recent discussion of the older name. As for Carleton, Musser, and Pavlinov, they may be only three in number, but they are probably the two most well-known and trusted Americans regarding muroid rodent nomenclature and the most trusted Russian. --Aranae 07:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

interesting discussion regarding the use Clethrionomys or Myodes; both view points have merit but... ITIS considers Clethrionomys the valid name and since that is the standard established by "the professionals" for now anyway that should be adhered to, regardless of the quite valid and reasonable arguments to the contrary. The fact that this controversy exists can reasonably be pointed out and even discussed in the article but in order to retain accessibility Clethrionomys should replace Myodes for now. The Carleton Musser and Pavlinov paper can be quoted in support of the Myodes dsicussion and linked to: http://zmmu.msu.ru/personal/pavlinov/doc/myodes03.pdf 24.207.127.172 (talk) 06:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Myodes is accepted in the recent literature (most notably Mammal Species of the World) and there seem to be no arguments made against the name. Clethrionomys may still be used more, but that is out of sheer conservatism. ITIS is in this case, as in many others, outdated. Ucucha 15:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I wanted to second that. This is not a dispute about relationships. This is a nomenclatural action. These actions are guided by a set of rules and are overseen by the ICZN. There really aren't sides to this discussion. There are a group of people aware of the current state of the nomenclature and a group that are using an outdated name, because they are still unaware. --Aranae (talk) 17:03, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Back to Clethrionomys?

The Clethrionomys - Myodes distinction has been opened back up. See Tesakov et al. 2010 (Russian Journal of Theriology 9(2):83-86) who argue that Myodes is a junior synonym of Lemmus because Coues action desinating Mus lemmus as the type of Myodes in 1877 stands. --Aranae (talk) 15:57, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Clethrionomys

If the name of the genus was updated in this article (Myodes to Clethrionomys), then should not be also updated on the species articles? --NGC 54 (talk｜contribs) 14:08, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. But it's more complicated than that. Some species remain in Clethrionomys, while others are now in Craseomys. I didn't catch this at first when I updated this article and the templates. They will need a better looking over to update per IUCN's and ASM's entries. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:12, 1 May 2023 (UTC)