This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The Bali cattle are bred for meat, maybe they should be introduced to the USA and the UK as livestock. Dennis the mennis 12:52 31 March 2017 (UTC)
"Light" Sources
"Heavy" Sources
Tangential Sources
The Amazing Matt ( talk) 18:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
In trying to sort some of this mess out, I've consulted Wilson & Reeder's definitive work, "Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, Volume 1" (see pp. 691-692). There are several authorities that have published the species (or subspecies) epithet domesticus and it was either originally placed in the genus Bos or moved there later. The oldest such citation I can find listed is Erxleben, 1777 (there is also domesticus Fitzinger, 1860 as well). The point is this: Bos domesticus Wilckens, 1905 cannot be a valid name under the ICZN because the name would be a junior homonym of Bos domesticus Erxleben, 1777. This is an entirely different question from whether or not it is a species or a subspecies. Regardless of its taxonomic status, it cannot be named "domesticus", unless the genus it was placed in formerly, Bibos, is restored as a valid genus. Evidently, that is why no one had recognized or addressed this problem; it didn't become a problem until Bibos was placed as a subgenus of Bos, which means that Wilckens' name requires a replacement. Since this is original research, it can't be added to the text of the article, but do bear in mind that I am an acting Commissioner of the ICZN, and as far as I can see, this is a serious and apparently unresolved problem in dire need of attention from some mammalian taxonomists. Dyanega ( talk) 18:33, 14 October 2021 (UTC)