Talk:List of capromyids

Not at family-level

The capromyines are nested well within the Echimyidae. They have been treated as a subfamily of Echimyidae for almost two decades now. We're more up to date on the main articles of this group, though still always behind. I bring this up because it seems troublesome to have this ranked as a featured list even though a foundational premise is badly outdated. Aranae (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@Aranae: The reason is that the IUCN continues to treat it as a family, and so did MSW3. So, as long as the guidelines at WP:MAMMAL that govern the taxonomy of the mammal lists say "use MSW3, unless the IUCN and MDD agree on a change", then this list treats the clade as a family, not a subfamily. Please join in the ongoing discussion there regarding changing those guidelines to be "just do whatever MDD says", which would make this a subfamily. --PresN 18:42, 27 July 2026 (UTC)

@PresN

• If “IUCN classification” refers to the taxonomy used in the Red List (SIS), then why is the coypu included on the “List of Echimyids” page? The Red List itself still places the coypu in Myocastoridae. Moreover, why is the broad, catch-all subfamily Eumysopinae used in MSW3 no longer recognized, while subfamilies established as recently as 2019, such as Caterodontinae, are included?

More importantly, the sources cited in the explanatory text extend only to a 2017 paper that regarded the relevant phylogenetic relationships as unresolved. The 2019 study that subsequently established the sister-group relationship between Caterodon and hutias and revealed that the former Echimyidae were paraphyletic is not cited. By citing only the earlier literature, the text gives the misleading impression that this question remains unresolved, even though subsequent research has largely settled it.

Furthermore, since 2022 the IUCN SSC Small Mammal Specialist Group, which is responsible for rodents, has used the Mammal Diversity Database as its taxonomic standard rather than maintaining an independent taxonomy. The Specialist Group’s own website places the hutias within Echimyidae. Taken together, this strongly suggests that the Red List’s continued treatment of hutias as Capromyidae simply reflects a delay in updating its taxonomy. I therefore see no reason to retain a separate List of capromyids, and believe that it can/should be merged into the List of echimyids now. コロネン (talk) 09:18, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

In short:

• It is inconsistent to retain Capromyidae on the basis of the IUCN Red List while placing the coypu in Echimyidae despite the Red List(SIS) itself still recognizing Myocastoridae.
• Describing the matter as “not yet universally accepted” while citing only a 2017 study and omitting the 2019 study that substantially resolved the relevant phylogenetic question gives readers a misleading impression of the current state of the evidence.
• For Rodentia, Scandentia, and Eulipotyphla, the relevant IUCN SSC Specialist Groups use the Mammal Diversity Database as their taxonomic standard rather than acting as independent taxonomic authorities.

コロネン (talk) 09:29, 22 August 2026 (UTC)