Talk:Guinea pig

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Guinea pig article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
This article is part of WikiProject Mammals, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use mammal resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Peer review Guinea pig has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Peer review A request has been made for this article to be peer reviewed to receive a broader perspective on how it may be improved. Please make any edits you see fit to improve the quality of this article.


  1. /Archive 1: Mar 2003 - Jul 2006
  2. /Archive 2: Jul 2006 - Nov 2006
  3. /Archive 3: Nov 2006 - Dec 2006

Contents

[edit] Main Pic changes

Ok, we need the pic changed

Here are some candidates (click ont he funyn named ones too, i jsu tlike to mess around with the names)

  • Image:peepeeparty.jpg
  • Image:Guinea_1.jpg
  • Image:August2006pigtures_118.jpg
  • Image:Coronets.jpg

Gerbilfyed4 02:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f6/cavycarepics/august2006pigtures118.jpg -Could we use that picture for the main pic? Since the one currently is of one of my pigs, Storm Cloud, but the quality is sucky in it, and this one (one of my pigs also) has the rich quality that is needed for main pictures. Darcy- Skcavies Skcavies 02:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

My vote is for Guinea_1, with two pigs. peepeeparty (God, more unconstructive edits by girbilfyed with that name) is not very good quality. 118's pig seems to blend in and is too small. Reywas92Talk 03:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the last one. I know she is on fabric, but it shows one of the obviously and distinct features of the cavies... their faces. I like the view angle, and the quality. Peepeeparty is a nice picture, but would need better quality, since it was too blurry. Guinea_1 has that angle that shows everything else (on a bed) and really isn't the crisp, none distraction quality needed. Skcavies Skcavies 03:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

As it is your pig, it may be somewhat of a bias. Guinea 1 also shows faces, but true, not as well as 118. Looking at the history, KarlBunker seems to vote for Guinea 1. If others can't help come to a conclusion, maybe I could take a picture of my pig tomorrow. Reywas92Talk 03:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually the admins didnt liek the file name of it (peepeeparty) so it was deleted thus he had to load that one on hence he had to vote that by default. Why not give his opinion. Lets seee his reply Gerbilfyed4 03:38, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually- I did say the cons of even my pictures.

Here is another picture to vote for....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Coronets.jpg

Skcavies Skcavies 03:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a photobucket album here, it has all and only my candidates for it that are mine. I just took many photos. [1]

I can have custom angled ones.

Gerbilfyed4 04:11, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

AGAIN...please do not change the picture, the quality is fine (its not my pig/s fyi.) We need to focus on improving content not messing with the pictures for no reason. this especially goes for you Gerbilfyed, you seem to be the one instigating all this nonsense...maybe because you want to see your pet up on the page like the common vandals? the only reason we needed to change the original pic was b/c it subtly promoted unhealthy living conditions. the current pic doesnt, and is good composition. lets move on for christ's sake! If I have to waste my time dealing with one more idiot who thinks its approppriate to post pics of their precious pet/s I'm going to scream, there are other forums for that on the internet. VanTucky 22:18, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Someone needs to find their spirit animal *snickers* Loosen up pal, and relax, you don't have to be so conservative acting. I mean come on, here you have a heart attack when there are just 7 pictures. I give up on helping the page if it's in such strict orders. Pictures make information sparkle, you know. Most people are visual, and like to see pictures. We don't even have a picture of a good cage, or hay, or gender pictures (to tell the gender of your pet cavy). Skcavies 24.2.61.209 13:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

the difference is not that anyone is adding any pictures to enhance the informativeness of the article, something which needs to be discussed beforehand because several of us just spent the last week working on deleting a whole load of useless pictures that were crowding the article, they are just changing the picture/s to suit their need to showcase their pets. this has been going on for far too long. VanTucky 20:49, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GRR!

Yeah, that attack on the guinea pig page with the first nations people cavies, its from Uncyclopedia

[2]

Gerbilfyed4 04:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

nice research Gerbilfyed. I dont understand why so many people hate wikipedia so much that they feel the need to try and destroy its operation. VanTucky 22:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the statement in the article about the experiments by Antoine Lavoisier? It appears to have nothing to do with guinea pigs. 142.103.106.14

[edit] FA?

Just wondering if anyone else out there is interested in trying to bring this article up to FA-status. I've been doing some sourcing work on this article, but I've never tried to get an article to FA or main-page status... Chubbles 02:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

While I do appreciate the work you've done in the last few days to improve the sourcing of this article, to reach FA status, several of those sources will need to be replaced with more reliable sources; simply citing a web site that makes unsourced recommendations of how to care for an animal is not terribly reliable (if they make a sourced statement, than we should use their source when possible). In my opintion the article also carries a bit of a "pro-piggie" bent, that I think should really be addressed before it is nominated for FA status. To get detailed help, check in at the Featured Article Help Desk and they should be able to provide guidence. --Ahc 05:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More talk archival

Just a reminder to other editors, this isn't meant as a discussion forum for raising guinea pigs in general. Random conversation should be moved into its own sections or it messes up the archives. Chris Cunningham 14:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro too short

It doesn't present a complete enough summary of the article. Some commentary on their use as household pets etc should be added. Chris Cunningham 08:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh man, I was totally editing that very problem away as you wrote that...Does it need more? Chubbles 09:01, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Great :) Thanks! Chris Cunningham 10:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Note #31

Hi everyone, I have just noticed that the link for note 31, http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-61200-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html, is no longer valid. I am still not sure how to correctly edit notes, so if an experiences editor would do it for me, that would be nice. Thanks. Denial land 02:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm...There doesn't seem to be a link to this site in the Internet Wayback Machine, and I searched the idrc.ca site and got nothing worthwhile. I've been working on getting paper sources for this article; I'll see if I can't come up with a replacement source in the next few weeks. Chubbles 03:13, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Popular culture section

I've split this to Guinea pigs in popular culture. I'm not a big fan of sections like this, and we're getting a little long to be adding large and indiscriminate lists. Chris Cunningham 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Health section

I've argued for this before, but I really think the list of ailments should be removed. It's a fairly common list of "things which go wrong with rodents" and generally appears to be there for prescriptive value. We shouldn't be encouraging people to use Wikipedia as a first aid manual. This could be put to far better use as a "caring for your Guinea pig" article on Wikibooks. Chris Cunningham 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, most of that section is aimed at helping people care for their animal. I've removed some of the text already (see changes mentioned below) but that list should probably go as well. --Ahc 05:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
List removed. Chris Cunningham 14:14, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I remember reading somewhere that people in chile sometimes contract Bubonic Plague from guinea pigs, anyone heard of this?

I suppose it's possible, although guinea pigs don't bite very often...but I haven't read anything that confirms that. Chubbles 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
the plague is contracted from the infected fleas, so biting is not the issue. however, i have been bitten twice, and i thank god it is rare, because it really hurts! the_undertow talk 00:43, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits and cropping March 2007

I took some time to review this article from start to finish again, and while lots of work is still needed, I think I've managed to remove the worst of the advice and other blatant POV issues. If you'd like to review all the changes I've made just now see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guinea_pig&diff=114237286&oldid=114123569 . I think there are a couple sections that could still be removed, either because they are redudent, or because they are badly pro-piggie at the moment. As I've said in the past, let me be clear that some of the advice I've removed I agree with, but I don't think it has a place in Wikipedia. --Ahc 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The one real deletion that I wondered about was the section on penicillin. It's rather detailed, but it still seems to me to be worthy of inclusion. As for the rest, thanks! Chubbles 05:26, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm normally the last one to be saying things like this, but I think some of the removals there were a bit arbitrary. That said, they're always going to be in the article history, so if it helps spur the article onto FA I have no problem with this. Thanks muchly. Chris Cunningham 14:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Obviously I think I was about right, but I'm happy to be corrected. My sense about the penicillin is that it was too small a detail to be included in an encyclopedia, not that there was a problem in how it was presented (heck it was probably the best sourced content I cut). The other major section that has reappeared is the part of about housing males and females together; my major problem with that is that I find it poorly worded if we're going to keep. I'll try to rephrase it instead of removing again. --Ahc 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure that you want to remove the line on sexing? I don't think that the encyclopedia is sticking its neck out too far by saying that it is possible to distinguish male from female by looking at the genitals. Was there something wrong with including a link to some pictures? Haber 14:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what was removed was a sentence that said, "The sex of a guinea pig may be determined by looking at the genitals." That's too general - it's true of humans and most other animals. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to add a more detailed description. Chubbles 15:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Chubbles is quite right about why I pulled it. I don't think there is a problem with the information, I just didn't think that expression of it wasn't helpful. I would favor a description over an image (since it would be hard to get a good one) if people want to try again. --Ahc 15:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's too general. With many mammals it's difficult to distinguish the sexes, especially in young animals. Many rodents come home from the pet store and the owners are surprised to find out the sex later on. I think that a description of the genitalia, without photos or line drawings, would be useless to anyone but a trained biologist. This was my second attempt to get the information included and I would appreciate your help rephrasing it rather than a blanket rejection. Basically, if the article is to mention husbandry at all, it has to say two things: give Vitamin C, and don't breed females after 6-9 months. The only way to avoid breeding GP's is to know whether you have males or females, which isn't as easy as it sounds. Haber 21:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I just added a few comments on sexing in the Breeding section. Chubbles 08:59, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

I think it's time we think a little about starting to find good sources for some of the material in this article. We need to stop referencing the websites of rescue groups, and start finding sources that meet that Wikipedia's standards. Several of them are from highly biased sources like rescue groups, which can be great sources of information, but often don't check their details with a vet, let alone more extensive research. Since much of those references are around behavior and details of care, it should be possible to track down either published sources, or acedemic journals to replace the online sources with. --Ahc 05:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that should be a pretty good start...Chubbles 06:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
That should be a little better...I want to expand on their role in South America (if you notice, the Spanish Wiki entry for Cavia Porcellus says very little about their being pets or subjects, and much more about meat and folk medicine). Other than that, what needs further sourcing, expanding, cropping? Chubbles 07:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
That is a great improvement, thank you for taking the time to do all that. I like the idea of having more about how people outside the US and Western Europe view Guinea Pigs, but I lack the skills to do the translation from the Spanish article (short of using the fish). --Ahc 13:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Uh, does anyone speak Dutch? I just noticed that this is a featured article on their Wiki. Chubbles 18:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I speak a little bit of Dutch, so I checked out the article[3]. I like their organization, though having the Biology section separate from Husbandry means that there is a repro section and then a breeding section at another place in the article. Is there a particular section you're interested in? Haber 20:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Not really, just in general if there's any areas of coverage for which this entry is comparatively weak. What do they say about pigs in South America? Chubbles 20:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I couldn't quite make sense of how the GP was supposed to diagnose disease, but here is my translation (with help from babelfish)
History of the guinea-pig as a housepet
Guinea Pigs were first domesticated by the Incas in what is now Peru. From genetic research this is estimated to be 3000 years ago. Guinea pigs are still an important food animal in Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, and they are frequently kept in the house. The animals are fed with leftovers from the family, similar to how pigs and chickens used to be fed in Europe. Under the name Cuy (pronounced Cooee) they are still roasted and sold at markets. Guinea Pigs are the main course at some wedding feasts in Peru and fulfill a role during traditional scarring rituals and to ward off evil spirits. The traditional medicine man uses the Guinea Pig over the body to find out what is wrong with the patient. Following that he examines the internal organs of the slaughtered Guinea Pig to diagnose the disease.
Dutch and English traders introduced the Guinea Pig to Europe, where it became a popular exotic pet. For example, Queen Elizabeth I had a Guinea Pig. Haber 01:12, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Would anyone like to vet this? I think I'm about done with the work I'd planned, and so if someone wants to just go through and sprinkle {{fact}} tags around, it'd help to see what still needs to be sourced. There are two pieces of information I haven't been able to confirm; if anyone wants to take a crack at them, you're welcome to do so. Chubbles 00:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
As we all know, I love to look for places to add fact tags. I'll try to go through again in the next day or two. BTW, thanks for the great work finding good sources! --Ahc 13:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Have to be careful with a lot of the published sources out there if you are dealing with cavy care. There is a lot of misinformation out there. Don't knock some of the rescue group sources. Some of those people know more about caring for guinea pigs than a lot of vets out there. Too bad one of them doesn't get their act together and put together a nice published source of information. 75.72.14.246 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
    • The sources I've included regarding care and diseases are all published by reputable science houses (Blackwell, CRC Press, etc.). They should be commensurate with the best advice that's out there. Chubbles 02:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Food

I'm Peruvian and a great admirer of guinea pig cuisine (Cuyes). I'm surprised that this listing is so sparse on that subject. I'd like to contribute some information and photos, but apparently I'm not allow to edit.

you just made an edit ;) please remember to sign your posts. also remember, this article is about an animal. the fact that it is a food source is only a minor part of its existence. you could start guinea pig (food) if you feel it is notable. read chicken and notice how the article focus more on the biological existence of the animal, and less on the ways it can be deep fried :] the_undertow talk 00:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
True, there isn't really much about preparation of the meat or anything...I'll see what my Morales book says about that. Check back in a few days. Chubbles 00:10, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Update: I just added a few sentences... Chubbles 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
i think that going into preparation would really belong on its own food page. after all, the food section of the chicken article is smaller than the guinea pig article. lobster really conjures the image of food to me, but there are but 2 sentences about it as a food source. the fact that something 'can' be digested is really deserving of a footnote on the page about the species. however, as cuyes is notable, i think that it should be found in a page on peruvian culture. just food for thought. <--- bad pun. the_undertow talk 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diet edits

"alfalfa is also a popular food choice but as a legume rather than true grass hay is too vitamin-rich for any but pregnant and young guinea pigs. Hay provides long-strand fiber essential to good digestive function, and a constant supply of hay is a good way to occupy a guinea pig's natural inclination to almost constantly forage."

I want this backed up with a reputable paper source. The only references I can find for this statement are rescue sites; none of the books I have on biology of guinea pigs have anything negative to say about consumption of alfalfa products. Furthermore, many commercial pellets are alfalfa-based. Certainly this appears to be conventional wisdom among pet owners, but out of six resources on biology, diseases, and care of rodents, none of them cautions against alfalfa use. (One of the edit summaries says, "I don't know what books you've been consulting..." - but you do. They're all cited in the references section.) This source recommends it as part of a diet for "growth, reproduction, and longevity" (p.106). Chubbles 02:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

cited - Alfalfa hay should only be given to pregnant mothers and growing babies. Alfalfa hay has too much calcium and other nutrients which can cause bladder stones in guinea pigs. the_undertow talk 03:11, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I believe that the source I cited above - published by the National Academies Press - is a more reliable source than that website. Guinea pigs have been studied extensively; if alfalfa is bad for them, there will be published studies about it. Please find at least one to support this statement. Chubbles 03:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
i see a few problems here. IF something is bad, there WOULD be published studies? that is highly speculative. im sure there are many toxins that have not been researched. second, i see a dichotomy here. if my source (#20, as of now) is the same source as #11, why did it arbitrarily become unreliable? its either a good source, or its not. the_undertow talk 03:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been trying to find a source to eliminate ref #11 for some time now. I agree with Ahc that rescue websites are not reliable enough for inclusion here. As for "there are many toxins that have not been researched" - well, if they haven't been researched and identified as toxins, then they can't be called toxins on Wikipedia. Encyclopedic content must be attributable to a reliable source - it says so every time you edit. Chubbles 03:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
yes, im quite familiar with the sources hyperlink. since you seem insist of 'a reputable paper source,' i think i will have to insist on which part of this page makes cavy spirit unreliable. and it seems that there is quite a consensus among vets and cavy owners that alfalfa can cause health problems, so im inclined to believe that you are correct, there is a study somewhere, out there, that has been published. until we can find it, i think cavy spirit is reliable the_undertow talk 03:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Please find it. Lizabeth Terril's The Laboratory Guinea Pig (CRC Press, 1998) states: "Guinea pigs have a high requirement of various amino acids...Alfalfa is a common source of this protein. An adequate amount of fiber is necessary for digestive tract function in guinea pigs. This requirement is also frequently met with dietary alfalfa" (p. 39). I have now provided three sources in favor of alfalfa consumption by scientific publications. This leads me to believe that the online sources are providing unreliable information - that is to say, their statements are false, so far as I can tell. Chubbles 03:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the real dispute here is whether scientific experimentors using guinea pigs as research subjects or the average pet owner is a better source when it comes to nutrition. It seems to me that pet owners, who pay close attention to one or two animals and care about their welfare and the exorbitant cost of vet treatment (say for gall stone surgery from feeding alfafa) would be better to cite. Not only that, but rescues such as Cavy Spirit deal with dozens of guinea pigs not just a few personal pets. Just as it is often the common farmer and not the agribusiness scientist that knows the needs of his herd best, Cavy Spirit and others intimately concerened with the proper diet and welfare of guinea pigs should be acceptable sources. That said, I think Chubbles current wording works bc it follows NPOV, since this is obviously a controversial subject here. VanTucky 04:06, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

(unindenting) as far as it being 'false,' this is a tough one. almost every veterinary site (and some of these vets are published), says something contrary. the problem is where did this originate? btw, here is a cite from an expert saying that guinea pigs chew constantly - i think that was tagged in the article. i think that finding that source from a book about chewing would be easier than the alfalfa dilemma. the_undertow talk 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll restore the bit about constant foraging. it includes all hays and feed, so its a separate issue. Also, it seems from looking at the science sources, that they are mostly outdated considering that labs use low-quality pellets often not based on timothy. Anyone feeding a primary diet that doesnt adequately provide nutrients would of course find benfit in compensating by feeding a vitamin-rich hay. VanTucky 04:16, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Constant foraging is already mentioned in the Diet section. Chubbles 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
i like the idea of the controversy. it is a good resolve, and quite frankly, one i hadnt thought of. however, 'routinely' following 'published scientific' is pushing it a bit as far as POV goes. the_undertow talk 04:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the removal of "routinely". Chubbles 04:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
you have to be. i already removed it. <----ribs Chubbles in an effort to lighten the mood ;) the_undertow talk 04:22, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

sorry I didnt check for a mention of foraging/chewing later on in the article. thanks for catching it Chubbles. and to everyone, thank you for discussing this like civilized wikipedians on the talk page. I cant tell you how many new disruptive users I've been having to get either warned or blocked by admins for breaking the three revert rule without even discussing changes lately. VanTucky 04:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

i really look forward to seeing this article on the main page. ive had this on my watchlist for awhile and have seen the amazing work, especially by chubbles, that has been done. the_undertow talk 04:39, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rescues in EL section

I think for the benefit of guinea pigs and potential pet owners, we should add a section in external links for state/national guinea pig-specific rescues. any objections? VanTucky 05:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Under "Pet Resources", Cavy Spirit (a rescue/adoption site) is listed. Did you have another site in mind? Chubbles 05:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] wheeking

i added an audio 'wheek,' which seems visually subtle, to the vocalization section. cool? the_undertow talk 05:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

That sound file is awesome! are there any others available? I ran a search in Wikimedia but didn't come up with anything, not even that file, so I don't know how you found it. Chubbles 05:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thanks. i was given access to a small collection of files. i cleaned this one up, and converted it to .ogg. if you notice the file permissions, its original work. i can convert others, and stick them next to the appropriate 'sound' if you would like. the_undertow talk 05:58, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
The audio file listed under "Chutting and Whining" sounds to me like teeth chattering, followed by chutting/whining in the background...would it be possible to get separate files for the two sounds? Chubbles 08:49, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
i dont have a separate chattering yet, so i am going to have to find one with permission. for now, we can either leave it in the whining section, or you can move it to the chattering, until i get a sep chattering file. either way its cool. the_undertow talk

[edit] Comment on edit about rabbits

I cleaned this paragraph up and added a number of citation tags. A few questions:

  1. How do we know guinea pigs and rabbits don't get along? Scientific sources, of course, tell you not to mix species in the laboratory. As for pets, a short book by Barron's about gp raising (1991) says dwarf rabbits and guinea pigs get along fine, except for occasional biting.
  2. The Biology of the Guinea Pig states that Pasteurella is not particularly common in guinea pigs, and that it is usually brought on by bad sanitation practices.
  3. Guinea pigs do not generally participate in social grooming, but if rabbits do, why is this a problem? Do the rabbits attempt to groom the guinea pigs? What source are we relying on for this information?

I have a feeling that much of the information from this paragraph is adapted from this website. For what it's worth, this website disagrees.

I would prefer to have some sort of paragraph about mixing species in general; it appears that, aside from trained dogs, guinea pigs do not get along with other species well, especially smaller rodents. Thoughts? Chubbles 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)


Okay, here's a fundamental problem we have with citing the guinea pig (and many other pet) articles. even more modern pet books and scientific experimentors have outdated and often plainly false claims about whats good for guinea pigs. but thats a separate arguement.

  1. If you look on the rabbit page, I think there's a cite for the claim. otherwise, its pretty common knowledge that rabbits, even smaller ones (sometimes especially dwarf ones bc they feel more threatened), can be very aggressive. not just biting, but kicking and scratching. ask any rabbit rescue, many rabbits can be territorial. for a cite and info about rabbit agression, you might try [http//:www.adoptarabbit.com] its the Oregon rabbit rescue.
  2. Thats the point, Pasteurella is less common in guinea pigs than rabbits. thus, it can be fatally transmitted to them by rabbits.
  3. The difference is about social compatibility. if two animals are kept together for the specific purpose of filling eachother's needs for companionship, then it should quite logically follow that you should place together animals that have similar needs and habits. Thus, it is a fallacy that rabbits and guinea pigs fill eachother's social needs better than another of their species.

that explain it? I understand the need for citations, but why are you busting my balls about a fact that every single well-informed breeder and pet owner knows? VanTucky 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I just want to make sure that the information presented here is commensurate with the best available research and experience. I had trouble coming up with reliable sources for this information; websites give contradictory information about the subject. Chubbles 00:42, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and feel free to create a whole broad mixing paragraph of course. VanTucky 00:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

hey guys, im thinking the entire paragraph should be removed. it says popular misconception, but where i live, ive never even heard such a thing. rabbits are kept in outdoor hutches or run free, and pigs are kept indoors. ive never even considered having the two together. also, it really seems arbitrary in relation to the subject and the article. it leads to guinea pigs and dogs, guinea pigs and sea lions, guinea pigs and wheat thins...i think you get my jab. its just that from afar, having raised guinea pigs, but never hearing of this 'common' misconception, paired with the fact that so many citations are lacking, it seems more than appropriate to remove the entire paragraph as arbitrary and original research. the_undertow talk 19:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Its only about guinea pigs and rabbits, which still is often advocated by the misinformed (troll some sites). besides, its patent nonsense to say that talking about keeping guinea pigs and rabbits together will lead to that crazyness about sea lions and crap. its not original research. there is alot of references about keeping the two species together, for or against. and believe it or not, not even most people agree about where to keep the two species. many shelters and rescues only allow rabbits to be adopted out to indoor homes, and some books still advocate keeping guinea pigs in hutches. VanTucky 19:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Keeping guinea pigs in outdoor hutches is only bad in cold climates; guinea pigs are kept outdoors in South America all the time.

I'm looking into changing that paragraph right now; I'll see if I can translate it into something less OR-sounding. Chubbles 19:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I changed it around a bit; how does it read now? The one major thing I got rid of is the social grooming sentence; I looked around and found several sources on both sides of this, some saying they get along well, some saying they don't. Unless someone can come up with a very reliable source for poor social compatibility, I think we should leave that out. Chubbles 20:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something Missing

It appears that about ten years ago, there was a big to-do about whether or not the guinea pig is actually a rodent. Here is a dopey-looking but very well-cited website detailing the controversy. Nothing in the article mentions this yet. We should probably add something about it, no? I'm thinking in the History section? Chubbles 20:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If it belongs anywhere, the subject of rodent polyphyly should be discussed at rodent or Hystricognathi. Admittedly, the paper that started it all was titled "Is the Guinea Pig a Rodent?" (Grauer et al., 1991), but the question concerned rodents as a whole and was not really more specific than hystricognaths (guinea pigs happened to be one of three rodent species sampled in that first paper). The website you refer to is working really hard to make this appear to be a balanced debate, especially regarding recent literature. Once evolutionary model selection, better taxon sampling, more appropriate genes, and multiple genes were brought into later analyses hystricognaths went back to being rodents just like before 1991. It's basically a brief historical blurb of how data can be misleading. Carleton and Musser (2005; pg. 745) give a very nice overview in Mammal Species of the World. Adding this to one of the rodent or hystricognath articles has been vaguely on my list of things to do, but I don't think that it belongs here. --Aranae 02:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. I'll leave it out for now. Chubbles 02:56, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Talk%7EGuinea_pig_888d.html"