Talk:Megabat

I just followed a link for "fruit bat" and found myself on a page called "megabat," which I'd never heard of. I Googled "megabat" and got 219,000 results versus "fruit bat," which yields 52.4 million. So why is this article called "megabat" and not "fruit bat"? I think it should be called the latter. DBlomgren (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

"Fruit bat" refers to any bat that eats fruit. There are many frugivorous bats that aren't "megabats," particularly in Phyllostomidae. This article is about a taxonomic group, Megachiroptera. While most Megachiropterans are frugivorous, some are nectarivorous. Referring to Pteropodidae/megabats as "fruit bats" is imprecise and could create confusion regarding New World frugivorous bats. Enwebb (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

As an aside. The Australian flora provides large amount of pollen, and possibly forms a significant component in their diet, and there is a word I can't find again that describes that type of food consumption. cygnis insignis 07:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cygnis insignis, the world you're looking for is Palynivore :) Enwebb (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

"We've always been very suspicious of bats," I would argue that is a cultural thing, but if it stops people eating them …? Anyway, the mention of ebola turns up in a few articles, and a little overstated in a couple of examples, eg Little_collared_fruit_bat#Connection_to_Ebola_virus I note where mention of ebola, that was wedged against an unrelated citation, has been removed, and agree obvi, but wonder what is left to say about correlation (and lack of causation?) in the articles. Any comments would be helpful if I hunt out the mentions of ebola to see if it matches what is known. cygnis insignis 07:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to put my dirty paws anywhere near this exceptionally good article, but putting forward a couple of ideas as an act of appreciation. Excuse where I overlooked something already covered in article. cygnis insignis 04:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Barb wire is a major anthropogenic hazard in Australia, a concern addressed in conservation actions.
• Maybe dates for illustrations?
• Some examples of species whose decline or extinction is well documented.
• In Australia (sigh) they have been listed as a 'declared species' in pest and vermin legislation, with the unusual situation of being delisted as a pest and relisted as vulnerable to extinction.

Hi Cygnis insignis, thanks for the suggestions. I plan on continuing to work on this article while awaiting the GA review (and I'm hoping to go straight for FA after that), so there's definitely still work to be done, including what you're pointing out above. Some of this might be better added to the Pteropus article, such as barbed wire entanglement and the whiplash over whether or not they're pests or vulnerable (or does any of that apply to megabats outside Pteropus?). Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 14:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Cheers, definitely GA already. I've noted that barbed wire stuff and pest stuff at species, but see what you mean and should read the taxonomy section before I mention which ones (checking they are currently classified as megabats). The historical bits I did on Pteropus natalis are like a synopsis of their vulnerability and decline, I should prepare a summary for the genus if you haven't already done that. I will get out of your way now, thanks again for the great reads, very helpful to me at the moment. cygnis insignis 15:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

P.S. And yes, the nose-flute bat in Australia, and probably anywhere else they use barbed wire (maybe Papua, Indonesia) cygnis insignis 15:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This review is transcluded from Talk:Megabat/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 11:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your work on the always neglegted bats! I read through the first half of the article for now:

• as the fossil record for this family is the worst of all bats – I suggest "the fossil record is very fragmentary" or "more fragmentary than that of microbats" or something similar, to use more encyclopedic language.
  • thanks for the suggestion
• Ma (million years ago). – Best use mya, but better spell it out directly without this abbreviation, because its the lead section of the article.
  • done
• they are also of interest to public health as the natural reservoirs of several viruses than can affect humans – Is this sentence grammatically sound?
  • I thought so, but I broke it up with a semicolon. Hope that sounds better
• If they don't use echolocation, are they diurnal? Worth adding that to lead.
  • most are not, no. added that information to new section #Behavior and social systems
• and was subsequently changed to "Pteropididae" – misspelled
  • gah, good catch
• In the taxonomy, you write a lot about etymology but do not mention what Pteropus actually means. I also would clearly state that the family name is derived from that of a genus.
  • added etymology; made relationship clearer
• You give two different systematics as lists and a cladogram. Remember that this is an overview article. Why two systematics? Do they reflect current disagreement? If so, this should be stated. If not, the older one could be mentioned, but not sure if a list form is warranted.
  • removed older list (also what can I say, I do love taxonomy)
• The second list seems redundant to the provided phylogeny.
  • justifying the inclusion of (1) list in addition to cladogram as the cladogram is from a study that only looked at African megabat taxa, as specified in the caption
• As of 2011, there were 186 species of megabat. – living species?
  • described species; clarified
• et al. – say "and colleagues" instead, which is much more comprehensible. But not mentioning author names at all may be appropriate for this overview article.
  • removed
• their evolutionary lineages – write "their relationships" instead?
  • done
• Rousettinae:Myonycterini – this should be put in a sentence, as this notation-like style may be difficult to comprehend.
  • rephrased
• A 2001 study by Springer – What is the situation now? Are these 2001 results still under debate, or is there a consensus?
  • very much so consensus; added a bit to make that explicit
• a kind of lemur – not sure if we need "kind of" here?
  • removed
• body and its head facing forward – where is "its" referring to? "the" instead?
  • removed this
• The tendency while resting amongst this group – this means that this tendency is different in Microbats? If so, how do they differ?
  • removed this
• juices and pollen, the small seeds – suggest to use ";" instead of "," as you are basically starting a new sentence there.
  • thanks
• dispersal of the tree species. – would insert "respective"
  • removed this part for now--will add new section for seed dispersal under ecology
• a defining characteristic of megabat – does this mean a synapomorphy? What are the other defining features? I think this is worth mentioning.
  • restructured this part and added more features that distinguish megabats/microbats
• Megabats as a whole are often represented by the flying foxes of Pteropus and Acerodon – what does this mean?
  • when people think of a megabat, they conflate the family with those two genera. I rephrased this part to make the point clearer.
• these species are outliers in their body size, – you listed genera, not species
  • rephrased
• overestimate the size of megabats. – maybe write "overestimate the body size of the group as a whole"?
  • rephrased
• with a range of 24-34 teeth possible – possible seems superfluous and misleading
  • removed
• cheek teeth are simplified – why use yet another term here? You already used premolar and molar. Too many terms for the same things is confusing.
  • removed
• Megabats are diphyodont – but most mammals are.
  • clarified
• The deciduous set does not include molars. – again, not specific for the group
  • clarified and added additional citation
• Giannini and Simmons 2007 – I would write "in 2007" to make it a sentence, or just write "a 2007 study".
  • done
• section "Skull and dentition" only has dentition, nothing on the skull.
  • I'm just going to remove the word "skull" for right now. I'm finding it difficult to locate a source that describes pteropodid skull morphology as a whole--most are focused on individual genera.
• You have a lot on teeth. I would make the long table collabsable, and try to get some balance to other parts of the body.
  • removed table
• Within Pteropus, the scapula is narrow and has a large supraspinatous fossa. – What is the relevance of a feature that only occurs in a single genus?
  • Yes, it's one of many genera within the family, but it's a third of all the species.
    • went ahead and removed this--found a better source with more detail
• called the calcar – I would add the function of this structure. Also, this occurs in microbats as well? Mention that also.
  • added function & occurrence in microbats
• anything about wings apart from the humerus?
  • added more about shoulder joint
• The shaft of the humerus is curved. – Does that mean it is straight in microbats (especially because you were comparing to those previously)?
  • removed

I see a couple of issues:

• My main concern is on balance, comprehensiveness and redundance:
  • You give a lot of information that is true for all bats, or even for all mammals. But the reader might think that all of this information is specific for megabats. I would only keep the most important (for the general understanding) of this general information, and always indicate when you do so (e.g., "as in most other mammals" …)
    • I've taken some steps to address this, hopefully that is sufficient
  • It does not become clear how to distinguish a megabat from a microbat (apart from size).
    • Added some more distinguishing features. now have:

1. larger on average
2. claw on 2nd digit for most members (noting the exceptions)
3. longer thumbs
4. cannot echolocate
5. lacking uropatagium

• • Some topics are covered in great detail (e.g., teeth), others not at all (e.g., wings). This seems to be a balance issue.
    • I'm considering removing the teeth table, as it seems responsible for some of the balance issues pointed out. However, I disagree that wings are not covered at all, as a paragraph of Megabat#Postcrania is dedicated to describing the forelimbs
      • Followup: did indeed remove teeth table. Bat dentition can probably be its own article at some point, so saving that in my sandbox for the time being.
  • The Biology and Ecology is extremely short. Some topics (e.g., "Predators, parasites, and diseases", "Social behavior") appear to be missing completely. Compare with the "bat" article.
    • expanded

All in all, I think that the article is currently not yet up to the GA criteria "well written" and "Broad in its coverage" (see examples above). But I also think that it is close to GA otherwise. I would appreciate if you could have a general go-over with the above points in mind. I would then be happy to take a second look. If you need more time, we could also fail it for now, so that you can renominate once ready, depends on you! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hi Jens Lallensack, thanks for looking this over. "Bat" is a really great article (I'm sad to say I had nothing to do with it), but I hope it is not too emblematic in this circumstance, as it is FA. I work quickly and have time on my hands, so I don't think we need to fail for now. I will see what I can do to add content in more areas so that the article is more balanced. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 15:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great! Sure, I'm fully aware that this is GA only, although some of the comments may go beyond the basic GA criteria. I prefer to provide a full review, but in case of doubt I do not require that you address those in order to reach GA. And please take your time – I didn't want to sound as if we would be in a hurry or something. Looking forward to reading again, and let me know if there are any questions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• There is some useful general info in "Grzimek’s Animal Life Encyclopedia, Second Edition". A very good source I would say, as it has encyclopedic review articles written by scientists. I have it and can send it to you if you are interested. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • Jens Lallensack that would be great! I'll be checking my email for it. I think I've made a lot of progress over the past few days and should be ready for another round of feedback by this weekend. Enwebb (talk) 23:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • You should have gotten a wiki mail now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:04, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hey Jens Lallensack would you mind giving this another read-through? Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

• they are the natural reservoirs of several viruses than can affect humans. – "that" can affect humans?
  • fixed
• Three of Bergmans's subfamilies received support: – The guy was not mentioned before, so no idea to which study this is referring to.
  • I had removed the name when mentioned earlier. Made clearer I was referring to 1997 classification based on morphology
• In reality, these species are outliers, creating a misconception of the true size of most megabats – I still think this needs to be reformulated. If these species comprise one third of all megabats, they cannot be "outliers" per definition I would say. Perhaps say "these genera are outliers"? Also, with "most megabats", is this rererring to species count, or individual count? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • clarified
• to the lack tragi – "of" missing?
  • thank you
• ear appearance – perhaps better "appearance of the ear"? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • changed

You were going to add more feedback, Jens Lallensack? Enwebb (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Yes, sorry for the delay, got busy in real life.

understandable, no worries

• laterally diplaced – typo? Also, I would link/explain "laterally".
  • typo fixed; link and explanation added
• flexing in opposition – maybe explain what this means, as most readers might not know.
  • added explanation
• cardiovascular system – link?
  • done
• in some species of the following genera: Desmalopex, Mirimiri, Pteralopex, and some Pteropus. – Perhaps better and simpler "In some species of Desmalopex …". Currently the "some" appears twice, and it is unclear why.
  • resolved
• possess a tapetum lucidum – link and gloss explanation?
  • done
• retinae – link?
  • done
• 350,000 – 800,000 per – This needs to be "350,00–800,000", without spaces.
  • done
• equivalent to or exceeding animals such as the house mouse, domestic cat, and domestic rabbit. – Why these three species? Do they have acute size in common? Or are they just placeholders for the "average" mammal? I mean, are they average or above average regarding rod cell density?
  • added in clarifying statement that megabat rod densities match or exceed other nocturnal/crepuscular animals
• It is estimated that more than 98% of the pteropodid fossil record is missing – The fossil record are the totality of fossils in existence, so this needs tweaking. I suggest "of the pteropodid evolutionary history is missing".
  • rephrased using terminology of original publication: "Pteropodid bats, long known to have a poorly sampled record, were missing upwards of98% of their fossil history"
• were able to colonize – better, and simpler, just write "colonized"?
  • changed
• laryngeal – link?
  • done
• Although echolocation was later lost in family Pteropodidae, – add "the"?
  • done
• The nature of the flight and echolocation mechanism of bats allows for creation of echolocation pulses with minimal energy use. Energetic coupling of these two processes – This is somehow vague, what is this "nature of the mechanisms", I have no idea how flight could help with echolocation.
  • rewrote this part
• zygote, uterine – link?
  • done
• The Fischer's pygmy fruit bat has the adaptation of post-implantation – You discuss this at two different places within the paragraph. Why not group both sentences on this species together?
  • rephrased
• any information on newborns (how large/how developed)?
  • added a paragraph
• will vocalize – what kind of vocalization? Screaming?
  • added sentence
• Maybe add something on roosting, and on cave roosters vs tree roosters, in "Behavior and social systems", as it becomes important later but is not well introduced.
  • added paragraph
• One reason humans kill megabats is for food. – I think you could delete this sentence without loosing anything.
  • removed
• In Mauritius, over 40,000 Mauritian flying foxes were culled in a two-year period, – give date for this period? Did it happen recently, or 100 years ago?
  • very recently--dates added
• In Australia the rabies virus is not naturally present; – Don't understand this; why this information? Was the virus introduced by humans, and infected the flying foxes subsequently?
  • the disease rabies is caused by lyssaviruses, including but not limited to the rabies virus. I was trying to convey that the only lyssavirus is Australian bat lyssavirus. I feel this could be helpful (and perhaps surprising) to readers in areas where rabies is only caused by the rabies virus.
• it also rarely occurs humans. – "affects" or "occurs in"?
  • fixed
• 40-75%. – this needs a proper dash (40–75%).
  • fixed
• They can carry filoviruses, including the Ebola virus (EBOV) and Marburgvirus. – Anything about casualties or impact here? That information was given for the other viruses at least.
  • added a paragraph on each virus. the relationship of ebola, bats, and people is still very unclear, though.
• While other bat species have been suspected or implicated as the reservoir of diseases such as SARS and Ebola, flying foxes are not suspected as hosts for either causative virus. – But it is stated above they are hosts for the Ebola virus?
  • not flying foxes (Pteropus)
    • on second thought I removed this final mention of ebola virus and generalized it to say that other bats are suspected to host the SARS virus, but not megabats
• Thats all! A very good read overall. The above is a full review that goes beyond mere GAN requirements; I don't request that everything gets improved right now for reaching GA (especially the suggested additional information are optional). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Phew! Alright, Jens Lallensack, any other thoughts? I believe I have addressed all your listed concerns and comments. Enwebb (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Great, thank you, looks very good! Promoting now, congratulations! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:16, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your very thorough review! The article is much improved because of it. Enwebb (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

This article looks in pretty good shape actually....a couple of things...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• The list of genera should not be at the bottom but in the classification/taxonomy section.
  • will move
    • moved Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Don't use bold in body of text
  • Actually, those terms redirect here as "article title terms" per MOS:BOLD

• Megabat eyes are usually brown, though they can be red or orange as seen in species of the following genera - you mean irises, right?
  • yes, which is the usual meaning there, but can change for precision Enwebb (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

• "threatened with endangerment" - the usual term is simply "threatened". To avoid a repeat in the next sentence, maybe change "are substantially threatened by" to "are under substantial threat from" or something similar. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:09, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • done Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Formatting of authors in references: FAC insists on tidiness here (and on the whole, GA doesn't). Article currently has names as "Doe JC", "Doe, J. C.", "Doe, John C.", and "Doe, John C" (with no final "."). Please choose whichever you prefer (though the last one does seem a bit strange) and format all the refs alike. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • went through and made consistent, though it's possible I missed one or two because there are hundreds of author names. Enwebb (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
    • Well it certainly looks really neat and tidy now. Of course there's bound to be someone who'll find the missing comma in reference 653. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Upright images: when an image is in portrait format (taller than wide), it's nice to use "|upright" in the image tag to make the image area the same as landscape format images. e.g. Mariana fruit bat, spotted-winged fruit bat, Wahlberg's epauletted fruit bat. On the other hand the anatomy diagram and the Melanesia map seem good a little bigger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • images formatted Enwebb (talk) 18:34, 8 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• Suggest you wikilink "parasite" and "predator" in the P&P section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:21, 4 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • linked predator at first occurrence (behavior section) and parasite in P&P section Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
• You should remove citations from the lead paragraphs. The lead paragraphs should summarize the already cited body. Also "list of genera" has nothing to do with relations with humans. LittleJerry (talk) 04:24, 5 July 2019 (UTC)Reply
  • done Enwebb (talk) 03:32, 7 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

A very fine, well-written and comprehensive article. There were a few too many "however"s and "though"s and I hope you'll agree it reads better with them trimmed back.

A couple of things that struck me:

Japan, as an island chain, doesn't have a mainland. There are five main islands; is this what's meant? Or Honshu, the largest one? As it stands, it is very unclear.

Also, how did this article end up in American English? It's about animals which only live in countries that use the other spelling, as far as I can see.

Otherwise, a very fine read. Well done. --The Huhsz (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Huhsz, the article is written in American English because I have written >90% of it and that is the English variant I use. Given that this family is found in many countries, if it were to be rewritten (if it is found that MOS:TIES outweighs MOS:RETAIN), I'm not sure how it could be decided which English variant is the "right one" (Pakistani English, Indian English, Australian English, Nigerian English, Philippine English, South African English...). I have started a discussion question here about whether it's been discussed before. Enwebb (talk) 17:32, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. I wonder if a note at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling is also worth doing? Any thoughts on the geography question? --The Huhsz (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Clarified; they aren't found on the five main islands, but rather some of the smaller archipelagos to the south. Thanks for the catch. Enwebb (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

If it doesn't have a clear tie to a specific country with a specific spelling, what counts is what the article was first written in, apparently. The original version[1] doesn't seem to have specifics of either, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Well played on the geographical correction, that's clearer. Of course it would be silly to be chauvinistic about these things, but it struck me that many readers would expect an article about an animal found in Australia, India and South Africa (which all use UK spelling) to be written in UK or "Commonwealth" spelling. If the original version is inconclusive, this may be the best way to go, if the main editor would be happy with that. AFAIK the Philippines is the only part of the megabat's range where US spelling is the norm. --The Huhsz (talk) 18:06, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Huhsz, my preference would be (given that it is unclear if this constitutes "strong regional ties") that you start an RfC to establish consensus to make the change. Enwebb (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I lack the motivation to do this, partly because it doesn't really matter as long as the spelling in the article is consistent (it wasn't for a recent TFA). I also wouldn't want to show disrespect to a writer of such a generally decent article. If there was such an RfC I would support changing it to Commonwealth English, just as an article on a bear which lived in Canada, the US and Mexico would automatically use American English. But it really isn't that big of a deal for me. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

The emerging body of thought over at the discussion post I started at the Tree of Life is that organisms aren't generally thought to have "strong ties", and MOS:RETAIN is broadly applicable to taxonomic groups. Enwebb (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

That's fine. It's likely others may raise this when the article is at TFA so I've notified Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Spelling to see what the folks there think. --The Huhsz (talk) 21:43, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

• Here's another:

  As of 2011, 186 species of megabat have been described.

  It feels awkward to talk about eight years ago in the present tense. Could we move to "By 2011, 186 species of megabat had been described."? Assuming no more have been discovered since? --The Huhsz (talk) 18:13, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Taxonomy is in a state of flux. Some species have been synonymized since then, while others have likely been newly described.Enwebb (talk) 18:30, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Then I'd suggest either updating the number with a more recent source (preferable) or else use the past tense as suggested. --The Huhsz (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply