Thanks for your answer Yes the species Steadman et al refer to is the same  as Rays O hypenemus see Wing et al  Carib J Sci  They write hes 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 cant 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 dont 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 she 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 PS Ray is a he