Red Gazelle review quires

[indohyus]

I have been considering reviewing the Red Gazelle, which was considered an extinct species, but is currently classified as "data deficient" as it's questioned if it really a Red-Fronted Gazelle. Should it be reviewed here, on the ATB or left until it is made certain of it's status?

[bmathison1972]

I have been considering reviewing the Red Gazelle, which was considered an extinct species, but is currently classified as "data deficient" as it's questioned if it really a Red-Fronted Gazelle. Should it be reviewed here, on the ATB or left until it is made certain of it's status?

Either way ATB makes the most sense; honestly several of your recent DTB reviews lately (passenger pigeon, paradise parrot, crested pigeon, Steller's sea cow) should probably be for ATB.

My personal thoughts:
DTB: prehistoric (extinct before written history)
ATB: extant of extinct because of, or at least during, modern human activity (roughly 5,000 year ago and later)

@animaltoyforum - thoughts?

[stargatedalek]

Personally I find it more interesting to see these animals on the DTB. They add a nice variety to the library.

Animals that might go overlooked on the ATB become "What? there's an extinct perch? that's weird!". And rather than a footnote among similar species, feel like fun and left field inclusions on an extinct animal roster composed primarily of dinosaurs.

[Halichoeres]

Written history is pretty squishy, but it's a reasonably common convention that things extinct since 1500 are considered 'recently' extinct, and things extinct before that are not-so-recent. There was obviously lots of written history before 1500 in lots of places, but that cutoff, while arbitrary in some respects, coincides with the start of a meaningfully different pattern of extinction associated with colonial empires and the like. All of which is a long way of saying I think things like the red gazelle make more sense on ATB. My reference list of prehistoric animal figures doesn't include anything that went extinct after 1500.

[bmathison1972]

Written history is pretty squishy, but it's a reasonably common convention that things extinct since 1500 are considered 'recently' extinct, and things extinct before that are not-so-recent. There was obviously lots of written history before 1500 in lots of places, but that cutoff, while arbitrary in some respects, coincides with the start of a meaningfully different pattern of extinction associated with colonial empires and the like. All of which is a long way of saying I think things like the red gazelle make more sense on ATB. My reference list of prehistoric animal figures doesn't include anything that went extinct after 1500.

thanks! I think I meant 1500 not 5000! I get numbers mixed up sometimes!

[indohyus]

The main issue I have here is that the red gazelle is possibly not a true species, but an odd form of another. It is listed as data deficient, so that's more my question as to whether it's worth reviewing right now.

[Halichoeres]

Oh, I see, that's a very different question. I don't think it matters, it represents a real animal from recent memory regardless of what its name is. You can just discuss in the review the uncertainty about its status as a species, but I think either way its most comfortable home is the ATB.