Talk:Lutra

According to Wikispecies (http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Lutra) there is a third species of Lutra, Lutra maculicollis, but this page only mention two species. What is correct? Vidarfe 05:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Lutra

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Lutra's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "World":

• From Japanese badger: Wilson, Don E.; Reeder, DeeAnn M., eds. (2005), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, retrieved 17 August 2009
• From Asian Badger: Wilson, Don E.; Reeder, DeeAnn M., eds. (2005), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, retrieved 16 August 2009
• From King Genet: Wilson, Don E.; Reeder, DeeAnn M., eds. (2005), Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed), Johns Hopkins University Press, retrieved 17 August 2009

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:49, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Mustelidae (family) Lutra (genus) Annocterus (species) - Common names: Nutria, Perro de Agua

What about the nicaraguan Lutra? had it been misclassified on no one bothered including it in their charts for Wikipedia?

These guys included it in their study of nicaraguan species in Rivas, Cocibolca Lake: https://antharky.ucalgary.ca/mccafferty/sites/antharky.ucalgary.ca.mccafferty/files/Lopez_Forment_2008_0.pdf

Also someone took a picture of one in Lago Cocibolca Lake: https://www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=533765488963305&set=pcb.533765562296631&__cft__[0]=AZXgilsWOJh0op9E83BypGqqBOvFNh5XHb_oa2Hb_cr6BkdMN0u8GnqsSkq9ZSfJIn1vbPWk6OrYJ71PgXJcKuX72uMg_ywcjNYZI02QwPTWZ6TTDx_NzAVRY6Ib09R7ymyJfael3fAxZQ-e1o5quX3wPhrl8qGEhb2CcVrUtSI0gHXRBIb-qU652RVoEk-9xHJ075259Haop79L8C9xwhAZ&__tn__=*bH-y-R Iltstudent (talk) 23:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Should Aonyx, Amblonyx, and Lutrogale be considered subgenera of Lutra?

The current problem is that Aonyx is clearly a paraphyletic group that includes Lutrogale. Several solutions have been proposed regarding this. There is a propopal that Aonyx and Lutrogale be merged to Lutra as subgenus. Ferran et al. (2022)↓ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222009952 MDD has already adopted this. For example↓ https://www.mammaldiversity.org/taxon/1005840/ (treated as "Lutra cinerea") Looking at the talk pages for other articles, there seem to be some dissenting opinions, but several years have already passed. (Please also refer to the discussions from several years ago on the talk pages of Lutrinae, Aonyx, Lutrogale, Asian small-clawed otter, etc.) Do you think editing should be done according to this? コロネン (talk) 01:47, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Requested move 1 July 2026

• Lutra → Lutra (Lutra)
• Aonyx → Lutra (Aonyx)
• Lutrogale → Lutra (Lutrogale)

– Under the classification currently adopted by Wikipedia, Aonyx is a paraphyletic group that includes Lutrogale. Ferran et al. (2022) supports the inclusion of the subgenera Lutra, Aonyx, Amblonyx, and Lutrogale within an expanded Lutra. Mammal Diversity Database adopts this classification. I plan to convert the three existing articles into articles on subgenera, while repurposing the Lutra entry into an article covering the expanded genus. As this change in classification has previously been mentioned on the article's talk page and could be controversial, I am submitting this "Requested Move" proposal. コロネン (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. 1isall (talk | contribs) 04:52, 8 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. –Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley$\lor$investigateᛅ} 05:21, 15 July 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. BilledMammal (talk) 05:44, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

This proposal looks incredibly awkward. All these articles can stay at their names if Wikipedia adopts the new taxonomy. The article Lutra can cover both the genus and subgenus. Joe vom Titan (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joe vom Titan Since Aonyx and Lutrogale are treated as subgeneric names—at the very least—they must be revised to the formal notation indicating that they are subgenera of Lutra. Please ensure that, on Wikipedia, the names of animal subgenera are standardized to follow that naming convention for articles. Regarding Lutra, the scope of the genus has changed significantly from the traditional definition, and the former genus now corresponds to a subgenus; therefore, this proposal to rename it aims to maintain continuity in the classification. コロネン (talk) 10:35, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Do we always put the genus in brackets on articles about subgenera? Can you point to examples where Wikipedia does that? I couldn't find pertinent guidance at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). MOS:ORGANISMS says Note that it is generally not conventional to include interpolated names (The suggested move targets are interpolated names, right?) – hence it might make more sense to merge all three articles at Lutra and mention the subgenera there. See Papilio for an example how this can be done. Joe vom Titan (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

@Joe vom Titan It seems that "interpolated names" should be avoided, for instance, when using a scientific name like *Lutra (Aonyx) capensis* as the article title. There are many examples like Mus (Mus) and Mus (Coelomys). I believe it is best to retain the definition of Lutra s.s. as it has traditionally been used within Lutra (Lutra), thereby distinguishing it from Lutra in the broad sense(as is already being done at Mus). コロネン (talk) 12:31, 11 July 2026 (UTC)

Support as this moves us into alignment with MDD. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2026 (UTC)

I do not support this move for the moment. The proposal comes from one single article, solely based on genetic data. Morphological data should be taken into account, as well as the fossil (extinct species) data. Before Wikipedia can make such a move, there needs to be a formal revision of the whole subfamily Lutrinae, based on all available knowledge on all species. For one thing, the formal diagnosis of the genus Lutra would have to amended for it to include Aonyx and others. It may well come to the point that such changes are formally proposed, but we need to wait for that and see how such a proposal is received in the wider community. Laplandgerard (talk) 13:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Just want to add that Catalogue of Life so far not has followed the proposal but has retained Aonyx and Lutrogale. Laplandgerard (talk) 13:40, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Oppose: Does not follow normal article naming conventions. The disambiguation is supposed to be in the brackets, not the actual name of the subject. Wikipedia is not only for experts and general readers are absolutely going to be confused by such titles. Looking at the moves at Mus and other genera, there was no RM and they should be reverted and discussed. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:30, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

If you would look at Category:Animal subgenera, you will see that this is indeed the standard format. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

A lot of the members are redirects, and a lot of the others have been moved to this format without RMs this year. So there is no formal consensus for this format. Arnav Bhate (talk • contribs) 14:39, 20 July 2026 (UTC)

• Comment, I don't like the look of this disambiguation. I took a peek at the animal subgenera and there's a lot of redirects that go on to other COMMONNAMES. Maybe something to take a look at.--Ortizesp (talk) 13:58, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  If there were common names specifically for any of these subgenera, I would expect the articles would already be at those titles. - In solidarity, UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2026 (UTC)

  Just because Wikipedia uses parentheses for disambiguation doesn't mean everything in parentheses is for disambiguation: Iron(II) oxide, Iron(III) oxide and I'd Do Anything for Love (But I Won't Do That) are just how those things are named. Subgenera in parentheses is how they are named.

  It's the End of the World as We Know It (And I Feel Fine) is the name, not a disambiguation, while It's the End of the World as We Know It (EP) is disambiguation. Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex* (*But Were Afraid to Ask) is a disambiguation page for a book and a film loosely inspired by the book. Plantdrew (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2026 (UTC)