Talk:Fossa (animal)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
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
|
|||
Contents |
[edit] Pronunciation
The page recently read that "FOO-sa" was NOT correct pronunciation. I saw several websites that said this IS correct, and so I changed it and included links to those websites. I don't know much of anything about biology or animals so I'm leaving a note here, that I'm not positive this pronunciation is correct. TheMaster42 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Merriam-Webster,[1] Dictionary.com,[2] American-Heritage,[3] and MSN Encarta[4] all disagree with the website links you provided and use the Latin pronounciation... maybe we can find someone from Madagascar to clear it up. -Dawson 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- I would note that of the links you give, American-Heritage has only the "ditch" meaning, Merriam-Webster has pronunciation only for the "ditch" meaning, Encarta uses the same wav file for both without evidence of actually knowing what they're talking about, and dictionary.com pretty much just copies everyone else. OED[5] to the rescue. The common name for Cryptoprocta ferox is from the Malagasy, through French, and has variously been spelt (and presumably pronounced) foussa, fosa, fossane and fanaloka. So this is where it gets complicated: Fossa fossa is the Latin name for an entirely different Malagasy civet, and is pronounced as the Latin normally would be: fos-sa or foh-suh, per your continent. I suspect that despite warnings from writers, the similarity of names and creatures has led to a confusion of nomenclature, and consequently the names have bled together. Hence, the OED has only one entry for the two creatures, giving both spellings and both pronunciations as valid (for either species). FWIW, in general speech, I think for clarity and etymological fidelity, Cryptoprocta should be foussa and Fossa should be fossa,- but as far as the article goes, leave both as valid pronunciations.
Yeah, I thought "Foo-sa" was the wrong way to pronounce it.61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please use IPA for pronunciation so that it is clear for all readers. — 193.203.81.129 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Check
"The fossa is extremely cat-like in appearance and behaviour. It is also more closely related to cats then other members of the Viverrid family are, but it is, however, not an ancester of cats, nor is it extremely closely related to the ancestor of cats."
English is not my native language, so can please someone check these sentences and correct them if necesarry.
- It doesn't make any sense, it reads as though the fossa is a cat, and yet, still is a mongoose, too.--Mr Fink 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
No, it means the fossa is related to cats more than other mongooses/civets, but it's still part of the mongoose/civet family.61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, that's rubbish. If it's a member of the civet family, then it's exactly as closely related to the cats as any other civet is. It might be (arguably) more morphologically similar to the last common ancestor of cats and civets than any other civet, but that is an entirely different thing. 131.111.200.200 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Then let me ask you: are you more related to a chimpanzee or a gorilla? They're from the same family, yet one is more related to humans, the other isn't. Dora Nichov 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
But the analagous point here would be that humans and chimpanzees are equally closely related to gorillas. Cats and civets are two distinct families which diverged, and so all civets are evolutionarily equidistant from that divergence. ImmortalWombat 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmmm... Guess you have a point! Dora Nichov 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Natural Predators
"Fossae have no natural predators" Nile Crocodiles and Ground Boas are both capable of hunting and eating fossas. I think this statement should be changed.
- The phrasing 'natural predators' I take to mean something that would typically, and normally hunt them down for food. I'm sure they are not part of the usual diet of either boas or crocs. Opportunistically perhaps, but fossae are not a part of the normal diet of either species. The Gray Reef Shark is also found in Madagascar, it would probably also eat a fossa, but they're not considered a natural predator of them. :) -Dawson 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about the predators of the fossa...61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
"[Fossa] and the boa constrictor are the only predators of all the lemur species." That's not true. Boa constrictor is not native to Madagascar at all - it's a taxon from South America. Presumably this should refer to Madagascar Ground Boa (Acrantophis madagascariensis).
- Or more likely the tree boa (Sanzinia madagascariensis [= Boa manditra])
[edit] Classification
Why does the article's text say the Fossa is a member of the Viverridae family, yet the infobox claims it's Eupleridae? I was going to change it, but I wasn't really sure which was right, though i'd go with the infobox by default--overall, i think the article is very ambivalently worded when it comes to the classification. Conflicting information is a big no-no, so can someone please change it to its correct taxonomy? --Wikiwøw 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Never heard of "Eupleridae", I'd go for Viverridae... Dora Nichov 13:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
Well if you haven't heard of it, why not try to find out what it is before giving an opinion? The Wiki page for Euplerinae is quite thorough, except it lacks a reference. The derivation of this taxonomy comes from Wozencraft (in the 2005 edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference), according to a number of sources, not least of which is the IUCN [6]. Anyway, the Taxonomy section should certainly be re-written in light of that paper, as it seems the rest of wikipedia has been. ImmortalWombat 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
"Well if you haven't heard of it, why not try to find out what it is before giving an opinion?", how rude. Anyways, that was what I thought, and you have no right to stop me. It's not like I said anything rude. I think "Eupleridae" is a rather controversal family, and I'd still put the fossa in the civet/mongoose family. In fact, I find Wikipedia uses a lot of families/orders that aren't accepted as much as their traditional classifications. (Eg: The "tenrec order") Dora Nichov 09:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
My apologies, I should have said "before giving a recommendation". Regardless, if further studies show Eupleridae to be spurious, then the whole lot can be reverted. Personally I would rather leave it consistant if controvertial than to change everything. I rewrote the phylogeny section of the article, but if you feel that qualification is needed, please do add it. ImmortalWombat 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh well. Even if I don't agree with this classification, I can't say it's wrong... Dora Nichov 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I rewrote the phyogeny section. See what you think. IDora Nichov 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Size
I've found numerous websites claiming that the fossa is Madagascar's largest carnivore (http://www.earthwatch.org/site/pp.asp?c=cdKLIPNpEoG&b=1340387, http://www.waza.org/conservation/projects/projects.php?id=67, etc), yet, as wiki states, the Nile Crocodile would seem to be much larger. can anyone shed some light on this? SamuraiY 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
- There are two likely explanations. Firstly, it could be that people simply forget that the crocodile lives on Madagascar, or forget that carnivory is not limited to the mammals. The crocodile is unusual, being the only large reptile on Madagascar, it's semi-aquatic, so gets overlooked by terrestrial and marine biologists, etc. Secondly, perhaps more likely, especially in scientific contexts, is that "carnivore" often refers specifically to mammals of the Order Carnivora, which obviously the crocodile is not. The fossa is of course the largest mammalian carnivore in Madagascar. ImmortalWombat 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
