Talk:Pregnancy (mammals)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

	This article is supported by WikiProject Veterinary medicine. This project provides a central approach to Veterinary medicine-related subjects on Wikipedia. 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.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

A complete hysterectomy? What about tubal ligation? zadcat 21:02 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

[edit] contraception

[edit] abstinence

"women who decide to adopt abstinence as their preferred method of birth control have been known to become pregnant." -- how? Am I missing something here? -- Tarquin 23:18 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

In the same way that those who adopt condoms as their method of birth control sometimes screw up (as it were), those who adopt abstinence also occasionally go awry. Thus, while the IDEAL failure rate (that is, the rate if practiced perfectly) of abstinence is 0%, the ACTUAL failure rate is not. Someone else 23:31 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I was wondering if it referred to virgin births, or (in the words of Victoria Wood) swimming breaststroke in the same lane as a boy doing butterfly... ;-) How does one "fail" at abstinence? Surely if a couple have sex when meaning to abstain, they've not "failed", they've ceased to abstain. -- Tarquin

One fails at abstinence by... well, you clearly know <G>. The pregnant couple may have failed in their determination to abstain, or have ceased to abstain, as you will, but either way their committment to abstention has failed to protect them from pregnancy. Someone else 23:42 Sep 10, 2002 (UTC)

That's just a truism which provides no useful information. News flash! Failing to utilize a protective method does not provide protection! --Brion

I'll give it a mild rewrite tomorrow. It's perfectly true that abstaining couples slip and yield to temptation (hmmm... temptation...), but the logic of the current wording strikes me as odd. -- Tarquin

• Would something like this work? "Abstinence is largely a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy." -- April

That sounds good to me. Or "Abstinence, if perfectly adhered to, would be a fail-safe method of protection. However, some who habitually rely on it as their primary protection may cease to abstain and thereby incur the risk of pregnancy." Someone else 00:10 Sep 11, 2002 (UTC)

Just for your information, I have moved all the talk about contraception to another article. I wanted to write more about pregnancy and foetal development in detail. I have a few questions that I wonder if the experts could correct me on if I am wrong.

• Im slightly confused on ectopic pregnancies, I know they occur of the baby is positioned abnormally. Does this include the further growth of the feotus in the fallopian tube?

Jedi Dan 15:08 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Great! but I've put back the bit about mammals - we could make a page human pregnancy for the specific stuff -- Tarquin 20:35 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

too much of this article sounds like embryology rather than pregnancy. arghh.... Alex.tan 17:06, 5 Aug 2003 (UTC)

This article appears to be destined to be the battleground of yet anothe edit war. For now, all remains quiet on the western front. -BuddhaInside

Fairly extensive rewrite. "Post-implantation" needs work from someone who understands the details better than I do. Please fact-check the part about the red blood cells. Changed some stuff to present tense; other stuff may need to be present tense too, but I'm not sure. Audoderm?? Some sections still unwritten. Moved "Pregnancy in SF" into its own article, it's pretty off-topic.

- 12.233.149.168 02:43, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

After Googling for "audoderm" and finding only 7 links of which 5 were copies of this wiki page, I decided to change it to "endoderm" until I hit my embryology textbooks again (if I can still find them). Btw, it's interesting to note how many times this article has been copied, often without credit due. Alex.tan 08:25, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"mammalian female" - some non-mammals bear live young too - some snakes, for example. Is it not called pregancy for them? Tualha 06:05, Nov 12, 2003 (UTC)

Why "mammalian female", because it was not known for a long time that some snakes bear their young living. It was considered that only female mammals became pregnant, by having developing child in their body, growing it. They knew some snakes kept their eggs inside their body, untill they were ready to hatch. However recent studies have shown that some snakes are actually fully livebearing, "nourishing their young with a placenta as well as a yolk sac" according to snakes. Magraggae 17:38, Aug 05, 2004 (GMT+1)

Over in Oral contraceptive, it states "The medical community generally does not consider this to be an abortion at this early stage, as an abortion is defined as the termination of a pregnancy, beginning with the implantation of a zygote in the wall of the uterus." Pregnancy, states "Pregnancy is the process by which a mammalian female carries a live offspring from conception until it develops to the point where the offspring is capable of living outside the womb." This implies, to me, that conception is the point at which "pregnancy" begins.

I think the two articles should really be in agreement, or at least have a similar note about the differing opinions of what constitutes "pregnancy." If conception begins pregnancy, then the "morning after pill" could be considered (depending on whether the egg is fertilized) to induce an abortion, thus making it an abortifacient/contraceptive.

Edited oral contraceptive section to be congruent with definitions in abortion and pregnancy. Alex.tan 08:23, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Is "knocked up" really a euphemism? I think it connotes a hint of vulgarity, but if others are happy calling it a euphemism it can stay that way. Livajo 06:57, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the article "Trimesters" should be merged with this topic since it is revelant to post implatation period events during pregnancy. Also I think "Fertilization" should be marked up as a seperate topic. I'n new here and I don't know how to (and don't feel like) making these major changes. Anyway, edited "Euphemisms for pregnancy", its in the family way. Also added "expecting" to list of eupheisms, and added "Pica (disorder)" as an pregnancy disorder. Also added short commentary on childbirth.

I wonder.. Is it time to finally get a human pregnancy link going on? Tarek 20:45, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Does anyone know anything about this Chinese male artist who was supposed to get pregnant? What happened to him? Was it fake?

[edit] totipotent

"At this point, there exists a single totipotent cell which is an entire, unique, single cell human being." The usage of the word 'human being' here is curious. What sense of human being is intended (biological or spiritual)? Should it be removed or have its context clearly indicated so that it does not confuse readers?

Since this sounded rather pro-lifey and value laden, I removed that phrase.

prior to my edit totipotent cells were "potential human life" for some extended period of time. I replaced "potential" with complete, new, unique individual, or some such descriptive terms to be applied to the organism in question. I stand by the edit as factually accurate. Let's face it, we are not talking about the origins of life here as in the primordial soup but rather the beginning of the existence of a specific organism. A new unique individual organism exists at fertilization, not before. Potential is what exists before fertilization. Gametes have potential to become an organism. An organism IS an organism. Change the previously existing "human being" to "organism" if you are so offended by a mention of specific mammilian reproduction. Do not abandon accurate descriptive terminology in response to PC pressure.

[edit] separate 'Human pregnancy' article?

I second the suggestion by Tarek and Tarquin for a specific article on human pregnancy, where most of the information can go. The article really ought to discuss aspects of pregnancy common to all mammals (or any other animal for which pregnancy applies), and have just one section at the end summarizing the specifics of pregnancy in our own species. (with a Main article: Human pregnancy header, no doubt). Phoenix-forgotten 22:41, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Totally agreed. See human pregnancy. violet/riga (t) 23:12, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Priority of articles

The question we now face is which article should have the priority. The two options are:

1. The current layout of pregnancy and human pregnancy
2. Having human pregnancy at pregnancy and this article at mammalian pregnancy

Ideas? violet/riga (t) 23:26, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please, let's keep human pregnancy here and mammalian pregnancy elsewhere. Wikipedia is written for humans, who at the term "pregnancy" will expect information about human pregnancy. JFW | T@lk 01:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hear, hear. Wikipedia is necessarily anthropocentric. We are, after all, humans. Any references to pregnancies other than human can be from this page, not the other way around. I would imagine most people searching for "pregnancy" would want to read about humans. Alex.tan 05:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was bad to have the Americocentric bias, but humanocentric bias? Pfft! ;) I'm leaning towards this being the human pregnancy article, but because that is itself an offshoot of the main pregnancy article I can see both sides. It's easy enough to do whichever way we decide, so perhaps it's best to leave it as it is for a few days until we have some more views expressed here. That would also mean not changing the redirects. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What if we had "pregnancy" redirect to "human pregnancy" (just a thought), and had the generic, non-species-specific information on pregnancy at gestation? I'm actually undecided as to which page organization makes sense to me, though. Phoenix-forgotten 18:37, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

It now stands with pregnancy going to human pregnancy and gestation going to mammalian pregnancy. One or both of these might be better switched, but at least for now they're linked between each other. violet/riga (t) 22:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Gestation vs. Pregnancy

"Mammalian pregnancy" makes 470 non-wikipedia hits on Google, while "Mammalian gestation" gets only 147 hits. Many of the pregnancy articles are from scientific sources. Clearly pregnancy is the more common term, and is certainly more readily understood. James 22:48, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

My explanation to the "gestation"-"pregnancy" difference is that the connotations of the two words are totally different. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:04, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Even the definitions are different. The trouble is, 500 hits is way too low for such a common phenomenon; the phrase is just an unusual one. Pregnancy (mammals) would be more appropriate. Then Pregnancy (humans) can redirect to Pregnancy. +sj + 10:27, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

And for the record, Gestation shouldn't redirect to something specific to mammals. +sj +

[edit] "Gestation" versus "pregnancy"

Here I'm gonna post the discussion with User:Jamesmusik on my talk page. There I explained why the two things are not the same 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:17, July 31, 2005 (UTC):

[edit] Mammalian pregnancy

Why did you rename this article? It is called pregnancy in mammals other than humans. If you do a search for "mammalian pregnancy -wikipedia" there are 470 hits and if you search for "mammalian gestation" there are only 147. James 20:37, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I did it because that's the technical name, also for mammals. The frequencies of the terms on Wikipedia just reflect the popular term, which is "pregnancy". And yeah, it is popularly known as "pregnancy". 2004-12-29T22:45Z 20:41, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

First of all, those frequencies are for in google, sorry I didn't mention that. If you search for "mammalian pregnancy -wikipedia", it shows 470 hits, all for pages not from Wikipedia. Those pages come from a variety of sources, including scientific papers. Further, the popular term is the preferred term on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(common_names). James 21:45, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. But the thing is, even if it's outside Wikipedia that the term is more popular, I think we should use the term "gestation", because that's the term zoologists use technically. The way I interpret the article about naming conventions, it doesn't say necessarily that the most popular term should be used. The way I understand that article after reading it, the main idea is that the title should be simple. And the title "Mammalian gestation" is the most simple, because it reflects the technical viewpoint about gestation. And, as with other articles on Wikipedia, it's not always the most popular term that's used. For example, see whore, which redirects to prostitution. Then compare "whore" to its technical counterpart, which is "prostitute", or compare it to prostitution, and "whore" is still more popular. What I mean is, just because the term is more popular, that doesn't mean that we have to get less technical. Sometimes more technical is simpler, even if it doesn't look like that initially. Another thing I take into consideration when renaming the article is that with other animals, the term "gestation" is also more technical, and, this way, we have some more consistency among article titles. Well, that's just my point of view. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:12, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The article specifically says that the more common name is the best one, especially if the more common term is more likely to be readily understood by speakers of English as a second language. I'm convinced that a large number of people would not readily understand what gestation means. Also, technicality is not a good way to determine titles. For instance, William Jefferson Clinton would technically be Bill Clinton's name, but that's not the article title, because it's not the common name. James 22:21, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Also, I'd argue that whore is not more common when actually talking about prostitutes. It is a commonly used pejorative, which does not refer to actual prostitutes. James 22:24, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that Clinton example is right. As for the "whore" word, that one's also used for prostitutes. But take into account this: I'm sure many ESL or EFL speakers, if they don't know what "gestation" means, they are also not likely to know the word "mammalian". There are lots out there who know the noun "mammal", but not the corresponding adjective. Also, there are interlanguage links which help translate to some languages, so many of them will understand what the article is about. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:34, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

That's not the point... the Wikipedia guidline prefers the common name, especially if the name is no less accurate. Pregnancy is synonymous with gestation, and thus no less accurate, while being a more common word. James 22:40, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not convinced about that. You say it's "no less accurate", but the thing is it is less accurate. Synonymy depends on context, and so "pregnancy" is not always synonymous with "gestation". Take for example other vertebrates. I don't think it's the same to use "pregnancy" instead of "gestation". "Pregnancy" is more for humans and for closely related species at most, and people use it for mammals because they compare those animals with humans.

Also, when it comes to foreign speakers, you gotta see that in some Indo-European languages, the words derived from "gestatio" are also used in more technical contexts, and not much more infrequently. For example, if they called the Spanish article "embarazo", that's OK for humans, but if they use it for animals, they just use it non-technically and because they compare the animals to humans, which they're used to talk about. The same goes for German. In German, in biology textbooks and reference books, they use the word "Gestation" when referring to animals. Even in Portuguese they use the word "gestação". And in Spanish, the corresponding word that is similar to "pregnancy", "preñez", they don't use it formally.

Let alone translations, I also have the impression that in English the word "pregnancy" has a different connotation, because it's more human-centered. It's the same as with "sexual intercourse", which is not always the same as "copulation". "Gestation" is more suitable for animals. That's also why I created a separate article for "copulation", because just the small difference in connotations makes the two topics totally different. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 22:58, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

I've requested a move. We obviously need more input on the issue as we're not likely to ever agree. James 23:07, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Pregnancy is thought of as being human-centered, hence Mammalian in front of it. There is discussion above regarding the setup of the articles - they were once together and I separated them out. While gestation might be an appropriate title, I think it is ambiguous and could refer to humans. Mammalian gestation sounds wrong, and mammalian pregnancy works better, if not least to tie in with pregnancy. violet/riga (t) 23:22, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I really don't see why "mammalian gestation" sounds wrong. To me it's just the same case as with the articles "sexual intercourse" versus "copulation" or "category:human sexuality versus category:sexuality. Saying "mammalian gestation" is not wrong, first of all, and, secondly, I don't see why it's suitable "to tie in pregnancy", as you say, instead of gestation. Once again, to me this really reflects a systematic bias of Wikipedia, because it focuses too much on humans and not that much on nature and non-human beings. What I mean is, the problem is not just with this article.

And then, the thing you pointed out, that you separated the two articles "mammalian pregnancy" and "pregancy", just makes it clear that this article is the result of an article that was initially even more human-centered. My point is that there should be even more differentiation, because the word "pregnancy" just gives that impression that the article is way too human-centered, as it was initially. This bias sucks. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 23:31, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Mammalian pregnancy is not human-centered. The first hit for "mammalian pregnancy" when taking out Wikipedia hits is a scientific journal article titled "The Insulin-like Growth Factor System in Mammalian Pregnancy," which specifically addresses several species. The second hit is another scientific journal article from Reproduction: The Journal of the Society for Reproduction and Fertility" titled "Evolution of mammalian pregnancy in the presence of the maternal immune system," which doesn't even deal with humans at all. In fact, none of the first ten hits deal primarily with humans. Gestation may be more technical, but even those writing in technical fields use pregnancy. James 07:11, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

How can an article specifically called "mammalian pregnancy" be considered human-centric? Your comments about European uses of similar words is somewhat irrelevant, and you haven't really proven why you don't see the words synonymously. To me, pregnancy is by far the more common term – I can't remember hearing someone saying "Is your dog gestating?". violet/riga (t) 07:42, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

It's human-centered because "pregnancy" is not technical for mammals. For humans maybe, but not for mammals. That's the point. Hey, do you ever say your dogs are copulating? If not, then we can move the "copulation" article to "having sex", just because you use the word for your dogs. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:13, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that's simply not true. Pregnancy can mean any mammal. violet/riga (t) 18:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the point. It can. But it doesn't have to. And for an encyclopedia, "gestation" is more suitable. Also, the thing about international usage is not irrelevant, becuase people use Latin-origin words that have derivations in various languages to understand each other. I can also say "have sex" of mammals, but just because I can, that doesn't mean it's more relevant. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:21, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yet you have missed my point – I do not really object to gestation, just certainly believe that mammalian gestation is wrong. violet/riga (t) 18:26, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

"Mammalian gestation" is not wrong just because it's less frequently used. That's not true. I'm not saying that "mammalian pregnancy" is wrong either. I'm just saying "mammalian gesation" is more adequate for the encyclopedia. The point is not wrongness, but adequacy. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:31, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

To use your own example, copulation is a general view of the act, and sexual intercourse is specific to humans. We should have gestation (or mammalian pregnancy) as a general view of the process, and pregnancy as the one specific to humans. That was the intention of the split and that is how it is structure here (though not well enough, yet). violet/riga (t) 18:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

You did not read my post. Almost all hits for "Mammalian pregnancy" on google are from technical sources. It is technical for mammals. For example, the primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary is "The condition of being pregnant, or with child or young; gestation." There's no reference to humans here. The primary definition of pregnant is "That has conceived in the womb; with child or with young; gravid." Both of these definitions specifically mention that it is "with child or with young," meaning that it applies to species other than humans and neither singles out humans. James 18:38, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I see. Now take a look at the dictionary (Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition), and see how they define "copulation". They don't specifically define "copualtion", but put it under "copulate" as a derivation of "copulate". Now take a look at how they define "copulate": "have sexual intercourse". I mean, in practical usage, it's just not the same. It's somewhat similar, but just not the same. What I mean with this is, it's just a dictionary. In a dictionary you don't see the slight differences in meaning that end up being big when the words are used in certain sentences and in certain contexts. My point is, when it comes to mammals, "gestation" just seems more fitting when used in an encyclopedia. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 18:57, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

By that logic, gestation would be more appropriate for the Pregnancy article as well. Saying it does not make it so. Build a consensus if you feel so strongly about it. James 19:00, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

As I asked above: please state the differences between the terms "gestation" and "pregnancy". You keep saying that they are not the same thing, so please explain how you see them as different. violet/riga (t) 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

I see them as different because I have that feeling that "pregnancy" is more adequate for humans and "gestation" is more adequate for mammals. That's the impression I have. Now if you say "mammalian pregnancy", it gives the impression that you're looking at mammals from a Wikipedia-society/human-society point of view instead of a biological point of view. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:17, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Then please provide some sources that corroborate that. violet/riga (t) 19:22, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Despite your feeling, usage shows that pregnancy is adequate for both humans and other animals. James 20:22, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

from New Zealand English perspective gestation is the DURATION of any animals' pregnancy. It may be longer than pregnancy if it is measured from the period prior to conception. I'd expect gestation to refer to all animals and be a general farming term, not just technical or used for humans or mammals. Pregnant often relates to humans, but also to animals if you can't think of the specific term for that animal, eg gravid goldfish, in-calf heifers.

Does mammilian pregancy cover platypus, the non-placental mammals?

The whole issue here is just that a lot of people want to uphold the vacuous speciesist distinctions between humans and animals, using different words for the same things. Humans are mammals, the pregnancy of humans is a case of mammal pregnancy. And yes, human gestation is a case of mammalian gestation. So either "pregnancy" or "gestation" can be used, but in either case the same term must be used both for humans and for mammals generally. Since the former is clearer for most people, it is just the natural choice. David Olivier 13:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marsupials and platypi?

It seems that the article as it is written does not cover monotremes such as platypusses (or platipi?), and perhaps not marsupials either. This should be stated in the introduction (or better: the article should be extended to cover those animals as well). Could someone with more knowledge in the field than me do something about it? David Olivier 13:44, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Platypi would be the plural (looked it up on dictionary.com :-)) and because they're monotremes, surely they don't have pregnancy periods as such...seeing as they lay eggs...in other words they don't need to be included except in passing, stating the fact that although monotremes are mammallian they aren't covered here because they lay eggs rather than give birth to live young SmUX 12:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NSFW and Not Safe For School

The poster who loves the naked body ("The human form is something that should be celebrated, not hidden, that's something I like about Wikipedia") isn't apparently thinking about Jr. High and Elementary School users or if they are I question their judgement.

They post a great picture of naked woman here but apparently their desire is either to eliminate the use of wikipedia for schools or attempt to convince school administration that it is acceptable to show the naked body. Do we really want wikipedia to be the frontlines of a "nudism in public society" debate? Unfortunately, or fortunately, for the time I think it is much more effective to stick with even partially clothed individuals to illustate pregnancy. I don't think this picture of the bare-breasted woman belongs here, and regardless of my thinking, I expect many parents and school administrators, as well work-place administrators will agree.

Bull! The picture (at least the side-on one being used as I write this) is tasteful and shows the beauty of a pregnant woman...she'd not look right with clothes on IMO. If schools were to block wiki for this reason, they would show how narrow-minded they are. What I *DO* agree with is wiki designing a self-censorship system whereby certain servers could block stuff that is deemed inappropriate based on a blacklist or something similar SmUX 12:48, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

if you have something to say to my face, say it. If not, don't link to my userpage and accuse me of fiendish deeds. Wikipedia is well within it's right's to post anything it wants. It does have disclaimers.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn about those who are foolish enough to let their children roam free on the internet. I'm sorry, it's not my duty to police anyone's kids but my own. Nor am I responsible for the narrow-mindedness of others. I'm not eliminating anything for anyone, if you don't like it, don't use wikipedia, or, better yet, get over it. Pictures of clothed women would defeat the purpose of discussing pregnancy with pictures, the changes happen to a woman's body, not their clothing, anymore then having clothing breasts images for the Breasts article, or underwear wearing men for the article about the Penis. I wasn't even aware there was such a debate over public nudity, of course, here in Canada, Women can legally walk around topless, which you clearly see as pornography. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 01:59, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

But this article is primarily about non-human pregnancy. There's a separate, far more detailed article about human pregnancy. -- Gordon Ecker 06:13, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Which is why it's caption links to that article. But it's important to note that humans are mammals, and, while the article doesn't single out humans, much of the information still applies. --Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 22:14, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gestation periods

The one reason I came here today, among other things, was to find gestation periods for different classes of mammals. I *knew* that the elephant's gestation (looked it up for exact info...22 months) was the longest of all mammals but didn't know exactly what it was. Perhaps someone could (if others agree) add in a table of mammals and their gestation periods (in months or weeks...I think weeks might be better, with months in brackets afterwards). Most of the info seems to be available on wikipedia but needs to be collated from the sources, it shouldn't take more than half an hour to get the data for most mammals if the person knows what they're doing in wiki (I don't, much ;-)) SmUX 12:54, 14 May 2007 (UTC)