Talk:Viverridae

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization: "Palm-civets: The cute new face of SARS". The National Business Review. January 6, 2004.

historical usage of civet? method of production of perfume from the musk?

was written by somebody in the main article. I've put it here, since it's rather unprofessional, no? john 08:39 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

FYI: This article was cited in this National Business Review story. --mav

This article appears to be about the Viverridae family and notes that "civet, genet and linsang make up the family Viverridae." Yet Viverridae is redirected to Civet, which seems to be only one kind of Viverridae. Is this ambiguity a reflection of common usage? A-giau 20:35, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fossas also belong to this family, and yet they aren't mentioned in the opening sentence. The taxonomic decision made by redirecting Viverridae to here seems strange and unwarranted. --Bansp 00:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • no, it is just that the opening sentence is incomplete. Or rather, it counts them, as well as the binturong, palm civets, otter civets and falanouc as civets, rather than mentioning them all separately. They all get mentioned below, this is the page for the family. Perhaps the sentence can be ammended, or another one added to include all the different civets. Sabine's Sunbird 15:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're related, but they're not strictly "civets".61.230.79.242 04:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

== I found an article that claims exclusion of lansangs from viverridae, so I figured I'd include such by this short note:

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3592224

Exhaustive sample set among Viverridae reveals the sister-group of felids: the linsangs as a case of extreme morphological convergence within Feliformia. ^{[1] [Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammifères et Oiseaux 1]} Although molecular studies have helped to clarify the phylogeny of the problematic family Viverridae, a recent phylogenetic investigation based on cytochrome b (cyt b) has excluded the Asiatic linsangs (genus Prionodon) from the family. To assess the phylogenetic position of the Asiatic linsangs within the Feliformia, we analysed an exhaustive taxonomic sample set with cyt b and newly produced transthyretin intron I sequences (TR-I-I). TR-I-I alone and cyt b +TR-I-I combined (maximum-likelihood analysis) highly support the position of Asiatic linsangs as sister-group of the Felidae. The estimation of minimum divergence dates from molecular data suggests a splitting event ca. 33.3 million years (Myr) ago, which lends support to historical assertions that the Asiatic linsangs are "living fossils" that share a plesiomorphic morphotype with the Oligocene feliform Paleoprionodon. The African linsang is estimated to appear more than 20 Myr later and represents the sister-group of the genus Genetta. Our phylogenetic results illustrate numerous morphological convergences of "diagnostic" characters among Feliformia that might be problematic for the identification of fossil taxa. The morphotype reappearance from the Asiatic to the African linsangs suggests that the genome of the Feliformia conserved its potential ability of expression for a peculiar adaptive phenotype throughout evolution, in this case arboreality and hypercarnivory in tropical forest.

It has been suggested that the practice of eating them may have resulted in the SARS virus outbreak of 2003. In January 2004, Guangdong province in China banned sales of civet cats and ordered the slaughter of all captive civets. In January 2004 the United States announced an embargo on the importation of civets into the country.

But at the start, the article lists civets as being endemic to African countries and Iberia, no mention of Asia.

Also anyone know why the US was importing civets to start with??--ZZ 09:00, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Old World tropics" includes the tropics of Asia, Africa. But the term is so POV, like so many words :) A-giau 20:36, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In January 2004 the United States announced an embargo on the importation of civets."

Is 'importation' even a word? Mullet 16:23, 5 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it's a word, what else would you say instead of importation? Suppafly 19:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Where could I try a cup of "foxdung coffee"? Bastie 01:07, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can order it online, it's about $100/pound. Suppafly 19:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The main picture is not a great representation of civets IMO. At least on this screen, it is rather difficult to make out features. So, I am going to put up a request for picture. Rlax 09:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civet

Link for racoon in 2nd paragraph (prior to this post) did not go to the animal, but instead to a 'Dutch rock band' - considering the context of the animal 'Civet', racoon should link to the compared animal 'racoon'.

Aka Paguma larvata [1] -- see also de:Larvenroller, ja:ハクビシン, ms:Musang Lamri, among others. I don't see it in the classification. Has it been renamed or perhaps subsumed under another? Or is it merely omitted by accident? A-giau 00:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image Image:Palm civet0001.JPG is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --04:19, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the entry as Feliformia, viverridae includes hyenas, but they aren't mentioned here. Is this controversial? at least address this please.

I have been trying to work out a simple taxonomy of the mammals. I can see the whole thing is currently a mess, but at least let readers know what the status of viverridae is is if possible Thanks!

I believe you may have misread Feliformia; Viverridae does not include hyenas. Is there something in the article that gave you that impression? Perhaps we can find a way to make it clearer in that article. Anaxial (talk) 22:29, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's true. These articles directly contradict eash other. Look here: Feliformia#Phylogenetic_Tree. Either this article or that article is correct, they cannot both be correct because Feliformia says the hyenas belong to the Viverridae and this article says that they do not. Expert advice needed! Something's got to give! Chrisrus (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That cladogram plainly does not say that hyenas are viverrids; it shows them on separate branches. (What it does show is that hyenas are nested among families that were considered to be viverrids until fairly recently. But that is simply the reason why those families are no longer considered to be part of Viverridae.) Ucucha (talk) 04:14, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hyenas are not viverrids, though they were once thought to be. The cladogram should reflect the hyaenidae's distinctiveness.Mariomassone (talk) 10:13, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See; Look, I'll copy the section from that article and paste it below:

I, too, am not clear what the problem is with the cladogram above. To my mind, it quite clearly shows that hyenas are not considered viverrids (just as mongooses and euplerids are not viverrids). If you have any suggestions for making it clearer, that would be great, but I can't think of any off hand. It does, on the other hand, contradict the chronogram above it when it comes to the placement of the African palm civet. Anaxial (talk) 20:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be better discussion of the fact that the Madagascan species are now placed in Eupleridae but were formerly included in Viverridae. The introduction still refers to their presence on Madagascar but I haven't removed it yet. The fossa is mentioned at the end of the species list but not the other genera.

There is also no mention of the hypothesis that Asiatic linsangs belong to a monotypic family as the sister taxon to the Felidae, although it is mentioned on their own page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prionodon

I could give it a go but it'd take me a while to work out how to format all the links and everything properly.

I've replaced the link to Aeluroidea because as far as I can tell, the literature doesn't seem to support such a link. The said article doesn't mention viverrids and in any case is currently merely a stub. I've replaced it with Feliformia, a more comprehensive and useful article (if anybody has greater knowledge of this subject I would be glad if they could clarify further).Darorcilmir (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Our situation would be helped better if Aeluroidea were a little more specific about which families it contains, rather than having a random handful of genera.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani I don't think the sentence I added, which are subdivided into 33 species commonly known as civets and genets is "misleading" as you claim. It is obviously true that all viverids are called either "civets" or "genets" (we can mention oyan as well, but I found it undue because of its rarity). Nowhere does it say that the reverse is true, i.e. that all civets are viverrids (although all except African palm civet are). I stumbled upon this article, and was stunned to find out that the article civet, the best-known moniker of this family, was not even linked from the lead or anywhere in the article, and I had to read the entire table to find out that simple fact.
For comparison,

• Britannica's article starts with viverrid, (family Viverridae), any of 35 species of small Old World mammals including civets, genets, and linsangs.
• Animal Diversity Web has Viverridae: civets, genets, linsangs, and relatives in the title.
• Natural History Collection starts with General features and members of the family Viverridae. The civets and genets belong to one of the four families of terrestrial cat-like mammals etc.

No such user (talk) 13:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page on civets ought to be merged into the page on the Viverridae, at least partly. I removed this from my watchlist loooong ago, so didn't notice that it is still alive. Imo, it is a poor collection of random, mostly web-based anonymous sources. @Jts1882 and Serols: please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello BhagyaMani, why should I comment? I haven't made any edits to this article yet. --Serols (talk) 16:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I saw your name in the history of one of the pages in question here. – BhagyaMani (talk) 23:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I think the sentence added was slightly misleading in that implied they were all civets or genets. However I agree that some of the more common names should be mentioned, a short list with and relatives. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the article could do with some work. The sentence "Viverrids are the most primitive of all the families of feliform Carnivora" caught my eye. But I think the family should have its own article. Civets are only part of it. A general description of the common properties, a brief history of the classification, an account or list of the contents, and the phylogenetic relationships seems appropriate. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:47, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Re general description of the common properties, a brief history of the classification ... would just duplicate content ALREADY provided at the pages on resp. subfamilies and genera of the viverrids. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Because of imperfect overlap between common species names and scientific taxonomy, we often have content duplication. For example, Corvus is a scientific overview of the genus while Crow and Raven are WP:Set index articles, a kind of list or disambiguation pages. I do not like the practice either, but sometimes it is inavoidable. Here, civet is about the polyphyletic group of species commonly known as such, and sharing some common characteristics (musk glands). I'm not sure whether to merge and how to shuffle contents between the two articles. No such user (talk) 14:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Some duplication is inevitable. It seems to me the viverrid page should describe features common to the family, while subfamily and genus articles describe properties particular to those taxa.

The major duplication is with List of viverrids. Perhaps the table in this article should be reduced to subfamilies and lists of genera, omitting the species. Most are shown in the cladogram so don't need to given twice.—  Jts1882 | talk  14:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

For my part, I agree. No such user (talk) 14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be acceptable to add a sentence along the lines of Most viverid species are known as civets, genets and linsangs in the lead? No such user (talk) 13:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand and to compare : nobody ever attempted to reduce other mammal families to just 2 common names, e.g. Felidae to wild cats or wildcats or pumas. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've just quoted three sources above that do. Walker's Carnivores of the World, targeting popular audience, does just that in chapter headings. I don't see why we should suppress the information. No such user (talk) 14:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your comparison with two cat species isn't fair. The common names civet and genet cover half the family. Moreover, as soon as we mention cat family, most people know the well known members, whereas most people will be clueless about viverrids. I see no reason why the listing can't be longer, adding say African and Asian palm civets. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:29, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

BhagyaMani, you are editing against consensus. Everyone else here agrees that we need to mention the name "civet" in this article. You reverted my edit, claiming that there is no source for the statement that "Most viverrids (except for the subfamily Genettinae) are commonly called "civets", but not all civets are viverrids." This is well-supported by the list of viverridae species in this article. --Macrakis (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@No such user, Jts1882, Darorcilmir, FrancisF23, Sillyfolkboy, Loginnigol, and BhagyaMani: Multiple editors (I count at least 7, including myself) believe that the common name "civet" should be mentioned somewhere in the lead using careful language (which I think my wording is). As far as I can tell, only BhagyaMani objects to this, and has been systematically removing language about this from the lead over a period of years. I don't like reverting (see WP:0RR), so I ask that someone else revert BhagyaMani's last edit. --Macrakis (talk) 18:27, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While Viverridae is a family, the civets do not even form a taxonomic group. Therefore, I don't think it important to provide a link to that ambiguous word in the lead of this page. — BhagyaMani (talk) 18:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have made your point before, and apparently no other editor has been convinced. As I say, you are editing against consensus. Everyone else seems to agree that "civet" needs to be mentioned in the lead. Since it is an ambiguous word, it needs to be qualified by something like the language I proposed: "Most viverrids (except for the subfamily Genettinae) are commonly called "civets", but not all civets are viverrids." I believe that that is a complete and correct statement. --Macrakis (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It’s essential in my view to include the names “civet” and “genet” in this article. These are names which are widely familiar. Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, aimed at everybody.

I would favour a clause such as “including the civets and genets”. Darorcilmir (talk) 20:47, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, something along the lines of “including the civets and genets” or “comprising civets, genets and relatives” should be prominent in the lede. As they are not names for the whole family, the names shouldn't be in bold. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem very strange not to include mention of civets and genets in the lede; the great majority are included, although I agree with Jts that, since they have their own pages, they shouldn't be bolded here - they aren't synonyms for the full subject of this page. Some qualification that not all animals commonly referred to as "civets" are viverrids is needed, but that's no reason not to mention the most common name in the intro to the article. That's what a lede is for, and it isn't such a complicated issue that it can only be properly addressed in the body. Anaxial (talk) 15:24, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to bring to the table a place for us to discuss why some see a need to remove this characteristic that all Viverrids possess. WIllQuinnLUC (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits for 2 reasons:

1. The article you referenced is about behaviour of captive genets, but does NOT provide any description of scent glands common to all viverrid species.
2. Your referencing is poor! So I recommend you read and follow WP:CITEHOW or use your sandbox for test edits. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:46, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed 2601:249:8281:9660:3C0C:869C:BDC3:FE77 (talk) 22:57, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the referencing and used an article that refers to all Vivverids explicitly why is this removed? I am unable to find a source stating that this is not true or not an overarching characteristic of the family. WIllQuinnLUC (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also if the problem is with coding and how the information is posted and not that the information is not true (it is true) can you please help me work out the issues so it can be posted as this information is vital to the anatomy of Viverrids. WIllQuinnLUC (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cite error: There are <ref group=Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammifères et Oiseaux> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=Laboratoire de Zoologie: Mammifères et Oiseaux}} template (see the help page).