`  ::Thanks for your answer. Yes, the species Steadman et al. refer to is the same  as Ray's O. hypenemus (see Wing et al., 1968, Carib. J. Sci. 8(3-4):123-139). They write he's describing it ``elsewhere``, but I suppose he is taking his time for that. ::I understand your point about preferably not using ``Oryzomys hypenemus``, but I can't see any good alternative. Inventing a common name, such as the one you suggest, is not something we should like to do on Wikipedia (and in this case, it may be misleading, as there is another oryzomyine from Barbuda, Megalomys audreyae). Using one of the names later authors ascribed to it, such as ``Undescribed species B``, is also possible, but such titles are of course awkward and we are probably inappropriately synthesizing the sources, which don't really equate the two, even though the Wing et al. article comes pretty close. I think the best way to handle this might be to use the name ``Oryzomys hypenemus``, but put it between quotation marks throughout the article. Of course, the article should also explain that the name is not formally available. ::Your explanation for the vandal makes a lot of sense for Wikipedia vandals in general, but what is surprising about this one is his peristence: (s)he has been doing this for nearly a year now. He obviously knows how to edit Wikipedia and also how to add text to a talk page, although the intellectual level could use some improvement. He does do good faith edits, but his persistence in deleting extinct Texans seems done in less than good faith. I suppose we should see how this develops. ::P.S. Ray is a ``he``.  `