Talk:Sumatran Rhinoceros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Sumatran Rhinoceros is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
January 7, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted

	Sumatran Rhinoceros is part of WikiProject Indonesia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. Please do not substitute this template. How you can help: Discussion board
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Indonesian WikiProject • Indonesian notice board • Indonesian WikiPortal

	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.
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

[edit] Merge proposal

As with Javan Rhinoceros, I'd like to propose a merge of the three subspecies articles, Western Sumatran Rhinoceros, Eastern Sumatran Rhinoceros and Northern Sumatran Rhinoceros. In addition to these names being slightly dubious (these geographical names are not common in the literature), the subspecies are not, in my opinion, different enough to warrant their own articles. Their sizes are slightly different, as is their geography, but otherwise they are the same. Or, in other words, if the articles were comprehensive they would be 95 percent redundant. Just as Javan Rhinoceros has dealt comprehensively with three subspecies, I believe we can do the same here. --JayHenry 08:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense, especially if these subspecies hardly differ except in their distribution. Shyamal 01:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree, my research in connection with the documentary, The Littlest Rhino did not find any conclusive evidence that there are any significant differences. the specimen of harrisoni we saw in Sabah was significantly more hairier, but this is explained by a natural response to environmental factors and is reportedly common in all 'sub species'. comment added by Asiageographic 06:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Refs at end

These need to be cleaned up. I find it better to make the footnotes short, Harvard citation-like, and list the references proper in a separate section, not as footnotes. This will help keep the maintext code concise and avoid that inexperienced editors mess up the referencing, such as here (all the references will have to be retraced because it's impossible to say now where they actually belong). Dysmorodrepanis 12:38, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I moved those sources to the bottom while I worked on other bits, to see if they were even worth retrieving. I don't think most of them are. As far as I can tell, they weren't actually used in writing the original article. Somebody just dumped lots of sources at the bottom at some point. As for Harvard citations, I'd be a little reluctant to do this. There's a one-to-one ratio of sources to footnotes. If we split it up into a references and footnotes section they will be one-hundred percent redundant. --JayHenry 21:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] primitive basal

I changed primitive to "less derived." The reference article uses primitive, but it discusses primitive traits, not the most primitive species. This section in this article is unclear as someone commented. The reference article on 5 extant species shows two strong clades, the Dicerotina and Rhinocerotina, with Dicerorhinus not in either clade. The authors place Dicerorhinus as sister to the Rhinocerotina but admit support for it as sister to the African rhino clade is an equally likely topology and the clade Dicerorhinus-Rhinocerotina (their choice) is not as strongly supported as the other two clades (Dicerotina and Rhinocerotina). Other molecular studies have placed Dicerorhinus in a sister group with the Dicerotina, not with the Rhinocerotina. The discussion on primitive traits does not say it most resembles its Miocene ancestors. Can someone quote the reference article on this? --Amaltheus (talk) 22:39, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

My reference for it resembling the Miocene ancestors was:

• Dinerstein, Eric (2003). The Return of the Unicorns; The Natural History and Conservation of the Greater One-Horned Rhinoceros. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-08450-1.

Dinerstein has a chapter on evolution. He says that his synopsis of rhinoceros evolution draws heavily on:

• Prothero, D.R., C. Guerin, and E. Manning. 1989. The history of Rhinocerotidae. In D.R. Prothero and R.M. Schochs, eds, The Evolution of Perissodactyls., pp. 322-40. New York:Oxford University Press.

Regrettably, I was unable to obtain a copy of The Evolution of Perissodactyls -- the library I use doesn't it stock it and I'm ineligible for interlibrary loan. --JayHenry (talk) 04:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A derivative source is okay for an encyclopedia I think? Even better for a general encyclopedia, than the technical work. But can you tell me what the first book says about most "resembling its Miocene ancestors" so to make clear what is meant by this? It seems Dicerorhinus has a lot of basal traits that may be derived according to the one paper, making it necessary to find a source to make this clear. --Amaltheus (talk) 06:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Direct quote is "Of the living Asian rhinoceros, the Sumatran rhinoceros has changed little from its Miocene ancestors." Also from the Mammalian Species account ([1]) we have "...it closely resembles certain Miocene species, the Sumatran rhino may be regarded as a living fossil." Thanks for your diligence in making sure I've interpreted this correctly (and if I haven't do set me straight!) --JayHenry (talk) 06:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I like this article. You interpreted and used the statement correctly from the sources. But the Sumatran rhino has a few million to tens of millions of years of evolution in its genes not found in its ancestors' bones that make comments like this pointless. Maybe "The Sumatran Rhinoceros is considered the least derived of the extant species as it shares more traits with Miocene ancestors from the fossil record than other rhinos.[4]"?

Can this image be added with someone putting the Sumatran rhino in black, leaving the others in color, or put the others in shades of gray or just outlines? Size is important in large land mammals, particularly a rhino, and this comparison has meaning to the story of the rhinos.

Rhino size chart.

--Amaltheus (talk) 06:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the nice comments! I agree that your wording for that sentence would be better. I could change the color on the image easily, but I hadn't added it for a different reason. I wasn't sure how accurate it was. Seems to show Indian rhinos significantly bigger than White rhinos, but that doesn't seem to be supported by anything I've read. I'm about to head off for the evening, but will follow up tomorrow. Thanks again for the help! --JayHenry (talk) 06:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Rhinoceros... They smell good... I also like eggs... They smell good too... Not as good as Rhinoceros's though... but they still smell good... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hidden from site (talk • contribs) 14:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Chinese Medicine

I didn't get it clearly from the article - Does (or doesn't) the chinese medicine use the horns of the sumatran rhinos? At the first place it is mentioned that they are highly valued, and in the "conservation" chapter it is mentioned that some belief about this use was found wrong. If the answer is yes (the chinese does use ...), what use exactly is it then? Yours, User:Yaron (he) 17:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

It is used very much in Traditional Chinese Medicine and is very highly valued. The later section says it was never used as an aphrodisiac. It's used for many purposes such as a painkiller, for fevers, for delirium, etc. Just not any sort of sexual use. --JayHenry (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)