 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||
Johnnybirder (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC) I dispute the accuracy of this article. The taxonomic status of the species is far from settled (Plumptre and Wronski 2013; Moodley & Bruford 2007; Moodley et al. 2009; Hassanin et al. 2012). As such, this entry should refer to a subspecies or species group, rather than giving the impression that this is a accepted species.
There are other issues as well. For example, while some local people may call this taxon kéwel, this is not the accepted english name. I have now edited this article to "harnessed bushbuck" as the main name, to mitigate some of the confusion. Unfortunately I could not change the title of the page.
References
Plumptre and Wronski 2013. Tragelaphus scriptus BUSHBUCK; pp 163–172 in Kingdon, J. et al. (eds) 2013. Mammals of Africa. Bloomsbury Publishing, London.
Moodley, Y. & Bruford, M. W. 2007. Molecular biogeography: towards an integrated framework for conserving pan-African biodiversity. PLoS One 2 (5): e454.
Moodley, Y., Bruford, M. W., Bleidorn, C., Wronski, T., Apio, A. & Plath, M. 2009. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA data reveals non-monophyly in the bushbuck (Tragelapgus scriptus) complex. Mammalian Biology 74: 418–422.
Hassanin, A., Delsuc, F., Ropiquet, A., Hammer, C., Jansen van Vuuren, B., Matthee, C., Ruiz-Garcia, M., Catzeflis, F., Areskoug, V., Nguyen, T. T. & Couloux, A. 2012. Pattern and timing of diversification of Cetartiodactyla (Mammalia, Laurasiatheria), as revealed by a comprehensive analysis of mitochondrial genomes. Comptes Rendus Biologies 335: 32–50.
Johnnybirder (talk) 14:47, 30 October 2017 (UTC) This animal = Bushbuck. Dual article.--Хомелка (talk) 14:50, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Luke Beall (talk) 02:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
It's no secret that the taxonomy of the tragelaphines known as "bushbucks" is a muddled and contested topic (Grubbs and Groves (2011) recognized 8 species and a potential for more). But while a single page detailing a species complex is definitely a possible solution, I feel that recombining both of the existing pages is an unnecessary step, as T. scriptus and T. sylvaticus are already widely accepted as distinct species in most sources. The problem is that more species of bushbuck may exist apart from these two. I'm under the impression that a section noting this and other debated aspects of bushbuck taxonomy to both the "imbabala" and "kewel" pages would be sufficient to solve this for now, until more studies can be published and a broader consensus is reached on the subject.
I do agree that the pages should be renamed to their respective English names.
Johnnybirder, could you supply a source for the name "South Africa bushbuck"? A web search couldn't turn any recorded uses of the name. If you chose it just for clarity's sake, I understand, but I'd wager Cape bushbuck, a decently popular common name, would suffice for now? Feel free to discuss.