[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Pteropus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I'm new. How am I doing? I have to fly but I'll be back later. I'm batty about bats but no expert.

general info on order and suborder

[edit]

The first paragraph of this article has a lot of info on megabats in general. I'm moving it here, and also copying to Talk:Megabat.

Easily discernible from their smaller relatives, the Microchiroptera, they are clearly recognizable by their long muzzle and are often described as having a dog-like face. Most megachiroptera species are harmless, feeding on fruit and pollen. Despite their dog or mouse like facial appearance they are more closely related to humans than rodents or canines. Their wings in particular have many similarities to the human hand. In fact the word bat comes from the Greek term for 'hand wing'. By contrast the smaller Chiroptera sub-order typically has a flatter face.

--Allen 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bat but a primate?

[edit]

http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/consensus.htm this is the proposer of the theories responce to the dna evidence and I think its should be noted in the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.60.62 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be quite some evidence to suggest that this creature is not at all related to bats, eventhough it looks exactly like a bat, but is actually a primate and shares a common ancestor with lemurs.

It is true that all bats and all primates share a common ancestor that no other type of mammal shares with them. So bats and primates are already very close. Seems that the flying fox may be a mammal that made the jump to the 'bat niche' way later than the 'real bats' and thus making it a primate from cladistic taxonomical point of view.

I think this should definitely be part of the article. --80.56.36.253 14:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bats aren't actually close to primates, they aren't even in the same superorder: primates are euarchontoglires while bats are laurasiatherians. Recent genome mapping has discredited this hypothesis entirely while strengthening the monophyletic relationship between microchiroptera and megachiroptera, the latter of which includes pteropus. I suggest we remove this particular section, or at least reword to clearly note that it is discredited. 193.132.145.151 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Flying Fox capitalized?

[edit]

Can anyone say why all the "XXX Flying Fox" articles are capitalized? Why not "XXX flying fox"? Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When the pages for flying fox species were started several years ago by Polbot, it followed IUCN and they use caps. That's the only reason. It's the same in almost all bat articles. It will take a long time to move them all. RN1970 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. And sorry about the redlinks I accidentally left; thanks for fixing those. I started a query elsewhere (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Mammals_help_needed) to see if someone could make a semi-automatic way to fix the Polbot articles, but didn't notice that these were among those. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bats

[edit]

The flying foxes are soo cute!!! - Vera 02/04/13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.21.189.5 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great..., that's really going to contribute to this article… 80.2.83.81 (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As long as they can cite a reliable source where an expert says they are "cute," I don't see a reason why that can't be included. But otherwise it's a violation of WP:OR. 75.71.194.124 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think article is wrong

[edit]

Quoting from article, "Characteristically, all species of flying foxes only feed on nectar, blossom, pollen, and fruit, which explains their limited tropical distribution. They do not possess echolocation, a feature which helps the other suborder of bats, the microbats, locate and catch prey such as insects in mid-air.[3] Instead, smell and eyesight are very well-developed in flying foxes."

I am in Pattaya, Thailand, on a high floor in a condo, and I just witnessed a very large *something* execute a maneuver typical of a bat when it encounters a bug that it wants to eat. It was 10PM at night. This thing easily had a wingspan of 3 feet if not 4 and I could hear its wings flap and it was maybe 20 feet away from me when it did this. The only bird I know of that hunts at night are owls, and they go after stuff on the ground like mice and snakes, yes?

So I'm going to propose that, sure, these big bats are primarily about eating fruit, but that they nevertheless possess echolocation and will use it when they have to. Pattaya is an urban area. Not a lot of fruit to be had unless it wants to cough up 40 baht to one of the sidewalk vendors here. So maybe it got lost and had to resort to "old" instincts in order to fuel up for the trip home. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.7.106 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pteropus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Pteropus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I'll take on this excellent article. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 08:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

[edit]

The article is essentially ready for GA but I just wanted to check one or two small points.

  • One or two citations may be needed: I've marked up these in the text.
    • fixed
  • The list of species is redundant with the phylogenetic tree, with the List of fruit bats#Subfamily Pteropodinae, and with Category:Pteropus.
    • fixed
  • Perhaps the type of molecular data used should be mentioned.
    • fixed
  • The 'Legal status' section has many short subsections, which are frankly somewhat repetitive (perhaps WP:NOTCAT applies). I'd suggest that a single paragraph summarizing the legal position across countries might be more appropriate. For instance, you could group the countries into a list of places where the bats are protected (refs), and a list where they aren't (other refs). Then you could briefly mention protections in countries where they aren't native.
    • fixed
  • "No decisions have been made as of 2018" cited to a 2014 document smells very much like WP:OR.
    • fixed
  • "lost 100–120 t (220,000–260,000 lb)" - units need to be spelled out (and arguably also wikilinked) at first instance.
    • fixed
  • Longevity is a very brief section. Perhaps you might rearrange this into a traditional 'Largest and smallest' (Diversity) section, along with most of the first paragraph of 'External characteristics', fastest flight, and longest migration.
    • not sure precisely what you mean here--could you provide an article that exemplifies what you mean?

Well, that's all done, and it's a fine article. Happy to award it GA status. Hope you'll pick one or two articles from the GAN list to review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:37, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time! I will look over some of the natural science articles and see if there are any I feel qualified to review. Enwebb (talk) 19:51, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Name

[edit]

Is there any reason why the article's not called "Flying fox" or should I just go ahead and request a technical move per WP:Common names?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Acerodon and Desmalopex spp. are also known as flying foxes. This article is only about the Pteropus species. Enwebb (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Largest wingspan statement is misleading

[edit]

The first paragraph of Description; External characteristics currently states: "The large flying fox has the longest forearm length and reported wingspan of any species". I assume this means any bat species, as many birds are bigger, but does it include known extinct bat species? If someone knows, could you please change the sentence to say "of any living bat species" or whatever is appropriate? Cultist O (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cultist O in context, I don't think there is much confusion about what this sentence refers to. The whole article is about flying foxes only, not bats as a whole or flying animals. In context of the preceding sentences, Flying fox species vary in body weight, ranging from 120–1,600 g (0.26–3.53 lb). Across all species, males are usually larger than females. The large flying fox has the longest forearm length and reported wingspan of any species,... I think it's implied that it's the longest forearm length and wingspan of any species of flying fox, giving the subject up until this point has been "flying fox species". As far as extinct species, there are very few fossil Pteropus, and none of the recently extinct species are as large. I just put what was in the RS. Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are semantic concerns arising from terms that overlap, and the common name as taxon is muddying the sentence by appearing to be descriptive, especially as lower case is enforced and one has to remember 'large' is part of a name in one man's classification. Using the actual names of the taxa would resolve this instantly. However, within context, this all reads okay, once you know wikipedias own rules about folk taxonomy. cygnis insignis 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

virus vector, colony sizes

[edit]
  • An uncited addition refers to some matters in Australia, I'm guessing, justifiably removed There is no rabies in country, but there are rabies-like diseases that have been attributed to a couple of deaths. Being a carrier of several viruses, Pteropus is identified as a possible vector for disease, but I think it is only microbats that have a demonstrated causal link. If this is worth noting more here, I can gather up the references where I noticed it elsewhere, but I hadn't noticed a problem with this better than good article. cygnis insignis 03:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title of article

[edit]

Hi. I'm not sure if others have already had this discussion, but I'm wondering if it would be better to give the article a name people are more familiar with. Outside of bat experts, bat lovers, or taxonomy experts, the general public would not know to search for Pteropus when they are looking to read about the flying foxes. I know the search for 'flying foxes' redirects here, but I just feel it would be better to use that as the "title" and then have "Pteropus" in the lead. Do others have an opinion in favor or against? Battykin (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the thread #Name above? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did read that, but it did not contain enough responses, or had a valid reason for keeping this name. There are always exceptions when dealing with taxonomy. It still does not change the fact that wikipedia is not a taxonomy/latin encycopedia. It uses titles that are well known as opposed to latin names that are mostly only familiar to those who study it. The majority of the audience would not search for this name. If the article will always redirect here. Why not just use the popular and accepted term by bat experts, if the majority are going to use "flying fox" to search for those species, regardless. Battykin (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Battykin, Hi, we have naming conventions for articles about fauna that you can find here. It states, in part, "Do not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers (see WP:Article titles#Precision)" In the interest of having a precise title that cannot be confused with other genera of bat, this article is titled at Pteropus. One of the best known "flying foxes", for example is the Giant golden-crowned flying fox, which is in Acerodon, not Pteropus. Hope that helps explain the current article title. Enwebb (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Enwebb Okay, I understand. It is not a problem for me, as I am familiar with bat species and taxonomy, but I just felt that the majority of people who will search for these type of fruit bats will do so with the search - Flying Fox. Thank you for the reply! Battykin (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Distribution sketch

[edit]

The distribution sketch of the genera embedded in the page is— per the distributions cited in specific articles— incorrect. E.g. It does not cover the range of the grey-headed flying fox. The sketch cites a paper "Emerging and Reemerging Diseasess (2002)", and I am now curious what citation requirements are for sketches like these. What are the guidelines for changing such sketch? Shrikelet (talk) 01:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maps should follow the same sourcing standards as the rest of the article. You appear to be right that the map in the taxobox has some problems:
  • Pteropus conspicillatus occurs further south in Australia, as you say
  • Pteropus dasymallus occurs further north, to the Ryukyu Islands
  • The line along the coast of Somalia and Oman would suggest that Pteropus occurs on offshore islands there (e.g., Socotra), but to my knowledge it does not.
Ucucha (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a source but as a 52 year resident of Melbourne Australia, I can say that we have large populations of flying foxes. The damage caused to the Royal Botanic Gardens necessitated the relocation to a suburban location of one very large colony. At least I try (talk) 21:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Pteropus&oldid=1193710998"