Talk:Megabat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article merged: See old talk-page here —Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualSteve (talk • contribs) 10:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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

Someone just added some images...I feel someone else should place them. :p

¦ Reisio 01:30, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Merging with Fruit bat

"It has been suggested that this article or section be merged with fruit bat. (Discuss)"

I would make two suggestions. First a merge with [fruit bat] would tidy up a bit of a mess, where two pages have shared subject matter.

Secondly, microbats are listed under [microbats] and redirected from [Microchiroptera]. There is no entry for Megachiroptera and this should be rationalised. The preference for a reference work like Wikipedia should be to use the scientific names for the articles and redirect from the common names like fruit bat and [Megabat]. The various common names should be discussed on the merged page.

While the articles are being merged, can we improve on the paragraph:

"Because of their large size and somewhat "spectral" appearance, megabats are sometimes used in horror movies to represent vampires or to lend an aura of spookiness. In reality, as noted, the bats of this group are frugivorous and not dangerous to human beings."

This suggests that Microchiroptera are dangerous to human beings. Bats have a bad press and it should be emphasised that all but perhaps vampire bats represent no direct threat to humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keoka (talk • contribs) 13:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the merge has introduced duplicate material - a duplicated paragraph on classification, and two different lists of genera - in addition to the section I've just deleted. Also, is it appropriate to have a paragraph on a newly discovered species in this article? Lavateraguy (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that is appropriate. Species should get their own articles, not sections in this one. There is definitely a lot of duplication now! Helikophis (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] info from Pteropus page

I've moved the following text from Pteropus to Talk:Pteropus because it seems to apply to megabats in general rather than to that species. I'm copying it here as well, in case this page's editors want to incorporate it.

Easily discernible from their smaller relatives, the Microchiroptera, they are clearly recognizable by their long muzzle and are often described as having a dog-like face. Most megachiroptera species are harmless, feeding on fruit and pollen. Despite their dog or mouse like facial appearance they are more closely related to humans than rodents or canines. Their wings in particular have many similarities to the human hand. In fact the word bat comes from the Greek term for 'hand wing'. By contrast the smaller Chiroptera sub-order typically has a flatter face.

--Allen 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Just a note that the bit about relationships is based on an older notion of mammal relationships. Genetic results have failed to support the idea that primates and bats are related. Instead, bats are part of the Laurasiatheria. Out of this list of humans, rodents, and dogs, their closest relative would be dogs. --Aranae 12:40, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ebola

With the recent connections between fruit bats and the Ebola virus, is this statement still accurate?
"the bats of this group are herbivorous and not at all dangerous to human beings." Alvis 07:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to above:

Please refer to new information regarding bats and the Ebola virus: http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/04/26/news/snbats.php. I think the statement remains accurate.

comment. I see it like this: the bats are not at all dangerous to human beings but the Ebola virus is dangerous to human beings. It is as if we said that dogs are deadly to humans because of rabies. --Francisco Valverde 17:13, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bad Link

The link for the genus Nyctimene links to a page of the same name, but totally different meaning. It offers redirection for the bat, but just brings you back to the first page. 71.226.90.37 23:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)william

[edit] Do not merge

"Fruit bat" is a misleading term, and is not exclusively applied to pteropodids. Many phyllostomid bats are also frugivores, and could properly be called "fruit bats." Tomwithanh 22:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Resolve contradiction

Can someone knowledgeable about bats please take a look at the first two paragraphs and resolve a contradiction?

The first paragraph states: "Megabats is the term formerly used to refer to fruit bats of the family Pteropodidae. It was thought that they constituted a suborder (Megachiroptera) within the order Chiroptera (bats)."
The second paragraph contradicts this by asserting: "Fruit bats constitute a single suborder, the Megachiroptera, within the order Chiroptera (i.e., bats)."

Which is correct? —CKA3KA (Skazka) (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] identical images

there are two identical images on the page so i am removing the smaller one.Leif edling (talk) 17:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] for the goodness sake of the eye balls of all!

for the sake of assisting humans' normal eyesights, i hope the author of the pictures could find a way to alter the picture to be upside-down, again, to give good pictures of the bats. it's quite ok to laptop users but not to those with classic CRT or big size LCD monitors users to turn upside-down on them. you know what i mean.
Xmlv (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)