Talk:African Bush Elephant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mammals
Mammals Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Africa
Africa Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Africa, which collaborates on articles related to Africa in Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

The grassland is generally spelled "savanna" in English, Savannah, Georgia to the contrary notwithstanding. I have often made this error myself. Wetman 18:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Savanna is the proper spelling. --Andrew Phelps 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Move to Savanna elephant

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

The correct spelling is savanna, and elephant should not be capitalized.

Move done. --File Éireann 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • It appears the move was undone. Support, as per nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

None of the currently capitalized instances of the word "elephant" in the article should be capitalized, either. --75.58.54.17 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. See WP:BIRD for the rationale. Several mammalian WikiProjects also use this rationale, such as WP:PRIM. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spanish Page

The spanish wikipedia has an exellent article on savanna elephants at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefante_africano, anyone able to translate? I've done some, but my spanish skills are a bit limited Crucible Guardian 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not Dissected

The article that the 4-meter specimen's body is "dissected" in the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. The body is mounted, there, not dissected there. Saying that it is dissected is an outright factual error. I also corrected the name to be "National Museum of Natural History" and gave it a link. Freshyill 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ancient warfare

The Carthagians were not the only ancient nation to use African elephants. In fact, they were used by the Ptolemies (see enclosed sources), and later by the Seleucids as well. The Ptolemies did probably even use two species of African elephants: the extinct Libyan form and "Ethiopian" elephants. The latter species, certainly one of the two extant forms, were something they prided themselves on being the first to domesticate. Also, it could well be argued if Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. Before he had descended properly, all of them were dead. --Sponsianus 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 species?

I thought there's only 1 species! How come I didn't tknow there's 2 species before? --68.97.69.115 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

It was aruond 2000 that the split happened, although some scientists are now arguing that they are just subspecies. For now, they are distinct species. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Natural Predator

I've heard a good argument that humans are actually the elephant's natural predator since the two species evolved along side one another and humans are the only ones that can take down and adult (and as noted in the article, they have a reason to hunt them as the elephant supplies lots of meat, etc). Can we get a biologist's opinion on this? David Youngberg 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

First, a small clarification: Whether we like it or not, humans are part of the world, the natural world. Hence humans are natural predators of any species they prey on. That includes elephants, whales, rabbits, frogs and snails. Having said that, humans are indeed the only 'remaining' and significant predator of elephants, although lions do prey on elephant calves in some areas. I can't tell you whether the Miocece ancestors of elephants had large predators to take them on, but certainly in the Pleistocene humans seem to have been the principal predators of woolly mammoths and elephants. Pitix 11:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Colbertians

Just reference the colbert "population growth" in it's own section with a [pop cultural] subheading. Give the Colbertians what they want. You can't keep the page locked forever!

Just give the Colbertians what they want, let them have a population growth reference. You can even say it's a lie, as long as we get it on there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caboose127 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, yes, we can. Legitiate edits can be proposed here, while joke ones rebuffed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Events?

How is this article closely related to recent events? I vote for removal of the tag. Mzyxptlk 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I second that removal. Totnesmartin 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Photo showing wrong species???

I'm fairly sure that the photo under the North African elephant is infact an Asian. The caption says fairly certainly that it is not.

Here is why I believe it is:

  • The ears are the correct shape for an Asian elephant
  • The ears are not big enough for an African elephant
  • The colour is that of an Asian elephant.

The photo says it was taken at Paignton Zoo, their website says they have both species of elephant: African and Asian. The photo of the Asian elephant in these external links looks far more like the photo in the article than the African elephant.

I think that this photo should be moved to the Asian Elephant article. Any opinions? Mehmet Karatay 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to mention, if the picture does show an Asian elephant, then it is male not female as stated. Female Asian elephants do not have tusks. Mehmet Karatay 20:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. Compare all of the ear sizes in the various pics to the head size. African's ears are as big as their head if not bigger. Asian ears are about half the size. The picture you dispute has ears the size of its head. Clearly African. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feed back. I agree with you now. For some reason I missed the fact that the Asian elephants have ears which start lower down the head, whereas the African elephant ears join the back of the neck. Thank you for replying, Mehmet Karatay 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed North African elephant

I could not track that NA elephant was accepted subspecies or species, nor the name "Loxodonta pharaonensis" to any seroius zoological source.

Mentioned as a taxon in doi:10.1556/AAnt.46.2006.1-2.17, which doubts the validity at least at species level. Adjusted text and add "citaton needed"/"verification needed". Also adjusted section title to more neutral orthography "elephants". Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
MSW3 lists it as a synonym, which means it is not a valid subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weight is wildly exaggerated

No other source I've seen says the African bush elephant weighs 7,000 to 10,000 kg - the numbers are right, but they should be in pounds, not kilograms. Eight tons, or 16,000 pounds, or 7,200 kg is the usual maximum weight. The 7-10,000-kg weight given here is double the weight 3,000-5,000 kg given for the Asian elephant - and the African elephant most certainly does not weigh twice as much as an Asian elephant.Wlegro (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that would be consistent with other elephant articles and comparisons to elephant size in articles on mammoths.68.94.88.100 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Population?

I was bored, and was searching random things from the colbert report, and recalled the African elephent population thing, and this artical actually states that the population of African elephents has tripled over the last 6 months. Is this true, or was it just snuck in there discreetly by a fan of the colbert report? Passerby25 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

It was vandalism. I've fixed it. Again. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong year for record specimen, etc.

The record specimen of 27,000 lb (12,200 kg) was shot on November 7, 1974 (not in 1955) near Mucusso, Angola. Lying on its side this elephant measured 13 ft 8 in (4.17 m) in a projected line from the highest point of the shoulder to the base of the forefoot, indicating a standing shoulder height of 13 ft (3.96 m). It measured 35 ft (10.7 m) long from trunk to tail, and it had a forefoot circumference of 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m). The figure of 12,274 kg in the article is also incorrect (27,000 × 0.45359237 ≈ 12,247), as is the conversion accuracy of 1 kg unjustified (not to mention amusing with the misconversion!), when the original accuracy appears to be 1,000 lb or ½ sh t.

The mistaken year is no doubt based on the previous record of 24,000 lb (10,900 kg), that was shot by J.J. Fenykovi on November 13, 1955 (Whoopi Goldberg's birthday, by the way), also in Angola. It was measured 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m) tall lying down, and probably stood at 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) when alive. It's mounted skin can be found at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. FROM THE COLLECTION : Washington's Prize Possessions. The fact that the 1955 specimen is 12 short tons, whereas the 1974 specimen is close to 12 metric tonnes, no noubt has further added the confusion.

Neither of these was the tallest specimen: a male of a more slender type, shot in Damaraland, Namibia on April 4, 1978, was measured 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) lying down, and likely 13 ft 10 in (4.22 m) standing. It's weight was estimated at 8,000 kg (17,600 lb).

Wlergo (above) is right on the range of 7,000–10,000 kg: this is far above normal weight, only achieved by few extraordinary individuals. Earlier editions of Guinness had the male average at 12,500 lb (5,700 kg) with a shoulder height of 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m); later editions (1996 onward) replaced this with a range of 4,000–7,000 kg (8,800–15,400 lb) in weight and 3.0–3.7 m (9 ft 10 in–12 ft 2 in) in height. Based on what I've read, I'd say anything over 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) and 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in) is very large.

And I can't help but notice that applying the height/weight ratio of the Guinness average to the record specimens' "lying down" shoulder heights yields in results very close to their estimated weights – especially if the figures were rounded down to full thousands: 12,500 lb × (164 in / 126 in)³ ≈ 27,563 lb for the 1974 specimen, and 12,500 lb × (158 in / 126 in)³ ≈ 24,647 lb for the 1955 specimen. If this indeed was the method used, and the Guinness average is for standing height, their respective weight estimates should be downgraded to cirka 23,700 lb (10,800 kg) and 21,100 lb (9,600 kg).

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)