Talk:Guinea pig/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Are guinea pigs rodents?

When is anybody going to find more information on the other species of Guinea Pigs? Also, I have always heard that guinea pigs are rodents. Their teeth grow throughout their lives like rodents, and they also have tails, but they are very short and tucked in their butt, sort of. Where does it say they aren't rodents? Interesting. - Phlumpetta

Well, to my knowledge, guinea pigs are still considered rodents. Usedbook may confuse guinea pigs with rabbits. Most people think that rabbits are rodents where in fact they belong to the order of Lagomorpha (hares, rabbits, and pikas) Jurriaan 08:47, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I just got a guinea pig, and have been busy trying to find out more about these critters. I've seen some information where they're considered more closely related to rabbits than rodents, and that they belong in their own order. I don't know more than that, and am in the process of looking up more references.

The "Guinea" in their name could also refer to the South American country of Guyana.

Book regarding whether guinea pigs are rodents or not:
D’Erchia AM, Gissi C, Pesole G, Saccone C, Arnason U 1996 The guinea-pig is not a rodent. Nature 381:597–600 link

I'll try to see if I can't peruse the book at my local library and see what all it says on the subject. -- (Someone who didn't sign their name)

Muscovy Duck is misnamed in a similar way. The Europeans who picked these names seemed to be only guessing about the origin of the animals. -- (Someone who didn't sign their name)

The whole guinea pigs aren't rodents debate is based on one Nature paper that received a lot of press. It's been essentially disproven several times. The problem is that it did get a lot of press and some popular sources are mentioning it now, because the popular literature is always well behind the primary literature. The scientific rodent literature has completely moved on. Guinea pigs are rodents. I'd recommend dropping the section or explaining that it's been resolved. --Aranae 08:21, Dec 20, 2004 (UTC)

Please explain about the Nature paper, and that it's been resolved so this doesn't get put back in the future. --Zenyu 13:49, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

Guinea Pigs are rodents, as are mice, rats, rabbits, gerbils, and hamsters. Their teeth constantly grow so they must chew to keep their teeth short. They therefore must have a steady supply of calcium to support the growth of their teeth. The whole 'teeth-growing' thing is a major part of what classifies them as rodents.

Actually, rabbits aren't rodents. The most obvious morphological character uniting rodents is the 1/1 incisors (counted on each side). Rabbits and other lagomorphs have 2/1 incisors. -Aranae

They are not rodents, although they fall under the order of rodentia. They are considered cavies and are part of the same family as capybaras

The definition of rodent is a member of the order Rodentia so I'm not really sure what you're saying here. They are cavies, and molecular work does suggest that capybaras should be added to the family Caviidae, but many places haven't adopted that taxonomy yet. -Aranae
Despite questions I added Guinea Pigs to the Rodent category. Most people looking at them would think they are rodents. Since Wikipedia is done for everyone and not just molecular biologists it seems correct to add them to the rodent category and let people discover the rodent/not rodent debate for themselves. My guess is most won't care and continue to think of them as rodents.
Many people (including one person who commented earlier in this discussion) incorrectly believe that rabbits are rodents. However, you don't see them in the Rodent category. Shouldn't accuracy take precedence over popular belief in an encylopedic article? Just saying. Anyhow, maybe this should wait until the scientists make up their minds on the issue. -- Lurlock 20:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course it should, if and only if a general consensus is reached that they are not roents and at the moment the jury is out on that one because it is, as one person has correctly stated based upon one artical in nature that has been challenged several times.

WHO SAYS GUINEA PIGS ARE NOT RODENTS!? Of course they're rodents! Yes, rabbits aren't rodents, they're lagomorphs. And if an animal is under the order Rodentia, then it's a rodent, so I can't see why someone would say they're in the order Rodentia but not rodents! 211.72.108.19 07:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Renaming page to Cavy

May I make one suggestion: move all the content at Guinea pig to Cavy? I've also read that the cavy is not a rodent. Lets discuss. Usedbook 00:06 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

The article for something should be under the most common term used for it. One measure of how common a term is, is how often it is used on the internet. A "Google" search for "cavy" gives 26,300 hits, while a similar search for "guinea pig" gives 286,000. So the article should stay here. I'll put the necessary redirect at Cavy. As for rodent, if its disputed, by all means add the dispute in! -- Someone else 00:29 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Humor

"It is doubtful that such honors are at all appreciated by these animals" - should there be sarcasm in Wikipedia? - fagan

When it's humorous there may be. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:37, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Commercial links

Wikipedia does not generally provide links to commercial websites unless they contain information available nowhere else. This is because we do not wish to endorse any particular business and is an implication of our Neutral Point of View policy. At least two of the links currently added to this article break this guideline and should be removed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:37, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Yeah - this can be a tough one. I've taken out a few external links, but even a couple of the remaining ones (Guinea Pigs World and Peter Gurney) have commercial aspects - they try to sell stuff to people who come to the site. I think that these are sufficiently informative and non-commercial to stay included, but it's a judgement call. - DavidWBrooks 15:16, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I added today links to my friend's project, Petsyclopedia. It defenitely provides information and this is its first goal. I really hope you will not remove these links considering them commercial. Our pages are very popular now. Also... Is it ok to add russian language header when there is no such russian page yet? [please delete if not] (I can translate english, I just should read more guidelines about wiki usage.....)... Hope it's not bad start of my editings... -- Akaabc 3:58 AM, 12 Apr 2005 (EDT)

I added a link to Cavy Cages. I can't remember if it's commercial or not, but it has C&C cage instructions. DuctapeDaredevil 00:30, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
There are already link to cavvy cages. One should be removed I think. -- Akaabc 2:13 AM, 21 Apr 2005 (EDT)


Would it be appropriate to add links to several official Cavy clubs, such as the American Cavy Breeders Association, the Ontario Cavy Club and the Dominion Rabbit and cavy club? I thought I'd check before adding them. Jenica 16:31, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

This would be okay as long as it doesn't get out of hand. We don't want links to five hundred clubs because Wikipedia is not a link farm. A few of the major clubs would be okay. On the other hand if they are major clubs, they should really have their own Wikipedia article which could be linked from the "See also" section -- Derek Ross | Talk 18:58, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

GP as Pets

Since there seems to be some concern about how hard it is to care for GP's as pets in the article, I thought I'd put a few thoughts incase it's an ongoing concern. As of this writting the article reads:

Guinea pigs are widely considered to be wonderful pets for children (when helped by an adult), and for adults. They are generally easy to care for, while they do require frequent cage cleaning and companionship, with a little diligence all their needs can easily be met.

The previous version stated that GP's are hard to care for as pets, and that they are often harder to care for then dogs and cats. Since I have 3 piggies, 1 rabbit, and a greyhound I feel I can safely say the GP's are the easist to care for (individually and as a group). I did try to keep a sense the pet ownership of any kind requires attention to the animal, but since this shouldn't become an article advocating for better care of GP's I think we should stay away from a debate about how hard they are to care for comparied to other pets. --Ahc 16:49, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. I have had quite a few over the years and have never found them difficult to care for. I would say that indoor GP's need slightly more time and effort than an outdoor cat and about the same amount of effort as an indoor cat but they certainly need less time and effort than any dog. In particular if you keep several GP's they will keep each other company. But outdoor GP's can actually be less trouble to look after than no pets at all. How ? Well, when I lived in Scotland I kept a few of them outdoors in an enclosed garden for most of the year and found them to be particularly entertaining to watch (although they became rather shy of people). They also kept the lawn short, so the time spent in cleaning the hutch was more than repaid in time not spent mowing the lawn. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:27, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)
You do need to be wary of cats if you let them run free in a garden, even an enclosed one. A neighbour of mine had her guinea pigs eaten by cats. Deadlock 10:31, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
That's a good point. Larger guinea pigs are usually fairly safe but smaller ones can fall victim to cats. Baby guinea pigs should definitely not be allowed to run free. They are just too tempting -- not just for cats but even for small hawks or large gulls. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I had two pet GPs, and they were so sweet. I think GPs are great pets for anyone. -- (Someone who didn't sign their name)

We have had a total of 12 guinea pigs, 2 that died at birth, 1 that died older (age 4), three still in our house, and the rest were sold. They were all sweet and loving pets. -Alex

Guinea Pigs are great as introductions for pets, as they are soft and sweet and don't mind children. Whoever says that they are hard to care for obviously has never taken care of a guinea pig unless it is a show guinea pig. However, please don't buy pet store guinea pigs as they are most likely to have a disease, and there are many in shelters.

"Guinea Pigs World"

I removed the external link to the above site, since it includes a prominent "products for sale" area and is full of ads. Wikipedia tries to limit links to commercial sites unless they're the only source of information - and we've got forums and information on non-commercial sites, so going to this sales-oriented site wasn't necessary. - DavidWBrooks 11:41, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Minimum Area

Two... square... feet... (1 ft by 2 ft). Surely it can be smaller than that. A guinea pig will fit in a shoebox and that's only 4 inches by 12 inches (a third of a square foot). So if you're looking for a minimum, you're being way too generous. On the other hand if you want to treat the guinea pig properly, even 7.5 square feet (2.5 ft by 3ft) is none too generous. They like to run about and there's no way that they can do that in 2 square feet. If you've only got 2 square feet to spare, get a gerbil, not a guinea pig. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:23, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Minimum should be the minimum humane area (which I consider at least 3/4 of a square metre). Otherwise we can just put down the average guinea pig dimensions! zoney ♣ talk 00:43, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, exactly. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:52, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Someone keeps changing this to 7.5 square feet, which is just completely insane. I cannot find a single page that says the MINIMUM area should be more than 4 feet, and almost all of them say 2. I will continue to change it back to 2. My guinea pig lives very comfortably in 2 foot cage, and to prove it, I leave the side hatch open all the time. He does not attempt to leave. I treat my pig very well, take him out for over an hour each day, feed him fresh food, clean the cage religiously, and who are you to tell me that this is "inhumane" because of his cage dimensions? You have to keep in mind that a large cage is VERY VERY expensive. I am giving my guinea pig the best care I can afford, and he is very happy with it. If you want to compromise, we can add something about the necessity of lap/floor/yard time if he is housed in a smaller cage. -- argyrios

A guinea pig is likely to adjust to the space or environment it is put in. That does not suggest they should be kept in a small space in which they cannot exercise. I have seen indoor pigs in small boxes, and they are as far removed from the outdoor roaming pigs (about metre square for two pigs) we have at home as anything.
We made our pigs' "run" out of palette wood and chicken-wire. Hutch out of palette wood also. Cost was negligible.
For a summertime outside fence to run around on lawn, we used probably less than 10 euro worth of wood batons (for frame sections) and chicken wire. zoney ♣ talk 20:57, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I suppose I am not going to win this one, but I just want to point out that even the SPCA mentions 4 square feet as a perfectly acceptable pig cage -- and you are suggesting that nearly double that is a bare minimum for humane care. This seems extreme to me. I could live with the current revision though. -- a

Argyrios, if the side hatch is open so that your guinea pig could leave if he wanted to, I don't see a problem with his accommodation, even at 2 square feet. The point is that it should have more room to move about if it wants to use it. Of course guinea pigs are as much individuals as any other mammals are, and your pig sounds like a stay-at-home. Nothing wrong with that. It's just that other pigs will need the extra space, so I think that our article is better to be wrong by quoting too large a size than too small a size.

I agree that the cost of larger cages in North America is extortionate. I recently took over a middle-aged GP from someone who no longer wanted her. It came in a 2 sq ft cage and so I fairly quickly started looking for something a bit bigger. It's quite easy to get a fair sized cage or hutch at a reasonable price ready-made in the UK or Ireland. but I was amazed at how much a decent sized cage cost in Canada and I couldn't find a ready made hutch at all. The bigger cage has made a difference though. Whereas the GP was very lethargic when we first got her, she's become more active although, like yours, she's not used to leaving the cage. During the summer when I put her out in our enclosed garden to eat the grass, she was extremely easy to catch as she didn't realise that she could run away, no doubt as a result of having spent her life to date in a small cage.

Zoney's idea sounds quite good though, especially if you have access to a lawn. A simple cage could be built quite easily without spending anything like the cost of the ready made ones and it's not too difficult to do. Luckily for you, it doesn't sound as if you need to though. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:58, Feb 20, 2005 (UTC)

It's been a while, but I just thought I'd come back here and mention that the same pig now inhabits a 4ft x 2.5ft monster cage on my table. He's moving up in the world! Argyrios 21:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Hooray! That's great! Thanks for letting us know, Argyrios. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:19, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Taboo meat.

"This is a common occurrence in countries where the guinea pig is known mostly as a pet. It is similiar to the revulsion felt by Americans and Britons at the eating of horse meat in France, or the eating of dog in Korea. This disgust is a good example of cultural bias."

I have romoved this passage from the article twice. Please note that it is not about Guinea Pigs. All of this, and much more, is in Taboo meat, which is referenced in this article. It is a good and interesting remark. But it should not be repeated in all the articles about animals whose meat some people feel revulsion about. --Etxrge 06:36, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It is about Guniea pigs in a cultural context and therefore as relevant as any other comment on human cultures relation with the Guinea Pig, just because its treated with revulsion in the west doesn't mean its any less a valid cultural consensus than saying it's a delecacy in Peru.

In Peru, the guinea pig is a great delicacy (as described elsewhere in this article). In several of the old churches in Lima and Cusco, paintings of the Last Supper show a guinea pig at the center of the table.

I don't agree that there is great revulsion to it in the West anyway. It's a herbivore, so I'd just as happily eat GP as I'd eat rabbit. It's just that I've never seen it on the menu. I doubt that anyone who would eat snails or lobster would have any compunction about eating GP. Even if they did they shouldn't. Lobster in particular is a carrion-eater, so it's much more dubious than GP. -- Derek Ross | Talk 23:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

External links

This page is getting swamped with external links - I just removed a couple of redundant ones. Remember, wikipedia is not a link farm - we're not here to provide portals to every guinea pig-related site around, even if they're non-commercial and altruistic. After all, there are bazillions of pet link-farms on the Web already. - DavidWBrooks 21:12, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

The images situation on this page is getting ridiculous. A taxobox should contain only a single image. I think the first one currently on the page is most appropriate since this breed looks a bit more like wild cavies and the generic ancestor of all domesticated varieties. Overall I think the page has too many pictures; many of them are of poor quality and do not add much. I've tried moving or deleting before, but I get reverted no doubt because someone wants to keep his/her pet Snuggles on the page. --Aranae 20:47, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

The caption on the taxobox image appears to be broken. Cammy 23:47, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Why shoudn't this article have more pictures than one? If somebody wants to see a guinea pig more pictures won't destroy the article.

I have a better picture of a long haired cavy that I feel would be a good replacement for the one present, but I don't want to offend anyone. The photo pictured shows a baby silkie, whose coat has not yet developed. Silkies can have hair up to 24 inches long so I feel this picture does not do the breed justice. Does anyone object?

Also, I have a picture of a cavy with wry neck. Would it be appropriate to include it with the mention of a head tilt (same thing)? And could someone tell me how to post photos? Thanks. Jenica 18:07, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Your photo would need ot be presented here first for consensus building. I am interested in seeing it.Gator (talk) 18:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

How do I post it? Jenica 09:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

In the toolbox on the left side of this (or any other) page there is a link for "Upload file". Click there, and following the instructions. Once you're done you will be given a link to the image (and I think instructions on how to display it). At least let us know what it's name is, and someone can take a look. Also, with edits in general keep the be bold policy in mind. If you post it to the article before everyone reviews it that's fine. If it causes a problem, we can simply take it back down. --Ahc 14:19, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I added 3 photos. Let me know if any are a problem, or if there are any others that should be added. I have photos of almost every breed and colour of cavy. Jenica 04:43, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The pictures look good to me. The one of the piggie with wry neck is particullarly useful to the article, and well placed in my opinion. --Ahc 06:29, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Creation vs Evolution Debate on Guinea Pig page?

A couple of editors have added and deleted language referring to creation vs evolutionary origins for guinea pigs. I took out both references and just left the "natural environment" langauge. I felt that it was less controversial and that we don't need to haivng this very old sdebate on this page. I have been reverted and evolutionary language was put back in (unnecessarilly in my OP). I reverted it back but want to put it out there for people's opinion. Do you think a reference is necessary and if so, which one. Me? I don't think we need to got here at all to get the exact same point across and will maintain that unless people tell me otherwise. let me know what oyu think here.Gator1 19:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm a staunch anti-creationist, but I agree with Gator1. We don't need to refer to either evolution or creation in this article; not doing so will attract less vandalism while leaving the same content. Bunchofgrapes 19:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
You did absolutely the right thing, Gator1. This page is about GPs not about the Evolutiuon/Creation debate. The reference was gratuitous. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, this doesn't belong here at all. — mendel ☎ 23:03, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

9/21/05: No sorry, editing out evolution does not get the same point across. The inclusion of and link to evolution has stood in ever this article since it was created. Then a few weeks ago some creationist minded censor decided they didn't like it. The inclusion of 'creation' is a POV bias. The restoring of the evolution link is a correction of that bias. Trying to appease the creationist is also bias, and a form of quiet censorship. Erik Glenn

You're correct. The point it gets across is one about guinea pigs, instead of one about origins. Since this article is about guinea pigs, and since that sentence is about guinea pigs not needing to jump, mentioning either evolution or creation does not help the encyclopedia reader who is trying to learn about guinea pigs. There are hundreds of places in Wikipedia where a discussion of origins is appropriate, but that section of this article is not about origins, it is about the athletic abilities of guinea pigs.
I agree that the inclusion of "creationism" is a POV bias, but both creationism and evolutionism are points of view. Changing the text to talk about how guinea pigs were brought forth from his noodly appendage would be a point of view as well. (Evolution is my point of view, for what it's worth — please don't confuse opinions about the article with opinions on natural origins.)
Lastly, please sign your edits with four tildes (~~~~); there is no account here named Erik Glenn. (You're welcome to create it, of course!) — mendel ☎ 23:25, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
The current compromise is a good one as the section is now just descriptive. However it would be nice to see some info on the evolution of Guinea Pigs. Saying that Evolutionary_theory is POV is a cop out (in my POV). It's like saying that Guinea Pigs have a furry coat is also POV. i.e. There's huge amounts of evidence that suggests that they are indeed furry but some people still may choose not to accept it, so we must pander to them. Majts 20:10, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. A section on the guinea pig's evolutionary lineage would be more than welcome here. Bunchofgrapes (talk) 20:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree as well. Please don't hesitate to include facts about guinea pig evolution. The creationists shouldn't feel free to come and censor every article remotely related to biology (like this one) Argyrios 21:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
You'll find that most, if not all Zoologists would consider evolution a crutial part of zoology and this artical is about an animal, therefore it is zoological, without evolutionary lineages we cannot even classify animals without having to go back 100 years +, so unless eveyone is willing to remove all taxonomic data then this page will always include scientific and evolutionary content as it should. Obviously we should make the language and content applicable to those who don't have zoology degrees but all animal based articals should draw upon any zoological data available on the animal(s) in qusetion. If the craetionists don't like it then I sudgest they don't read this or any other animal artical.

I'm super against creation, but it doesn't belong in this article, so good thing it's removed! 61.230.78.158 07:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Diet

"Vitamin C does not have a long shelf life; commercial pellets may not be a reliable source of this vitamin. Fresh fruits and vegetables high in vitamin C are a great source. Commercial vitamin C pills are also an excellent source." Doesn't the second half of the first sentence contradict the last sentence? I buy rabbit pellets, because they're much cheaper than GP pellets, and supplement with liquid vitamins in the water.

Guinea pigs vs. cavies

The article seems badly in neeed of consistency with regard to referring to them as guinea pigs or cavies. It interchanges constantly, sometimes in the same sentence - I know they mean the same thing, but we should choose one and stick to it. Guinea pig seems the more commonly used term so I'm inclined to change to this. Ethan (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../g/u/i/Talk%7EGuinea_pig_Archive_1_e639.html"