Jump to content

Talk:European bison

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Intro

[edit]

I do not like the phrase "not counting a tail of 30 to 60 cm (12 to 24 in) long"; suggest changing it to "length" instead of "long". --99.6.237.51 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.6.237.51 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Range

[edit]

I changed Siberia to Russia since siberia isn't a part of Europe and Russia is the most Eastern nation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.176.190 (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are 50 wisents in Romania as well but the survival is difficult.

- The historic range should be moved to west, because there were paintings and bones of European bison in some caves in Spain from the ice age (as the Altamira caves, showed in the article)

Diet

[edit]

"... and vast herds may gather around this diet supplement." Should this sentence be in the present tense, or does it describe a past habit? I understand the article to report that there are only a few wild animals now, certainly no remaining 'vast herds'. Dawright12 (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

The cite #1 doesn't seem to lead anywhere, and none of the references cited at the bottom seem to discuss Chernobyl.

Pronunciation

[edit]

Pronunciation taken from Webster's Third. --Cam 16:40, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Y chromosomes

[edit]

I looked at the scientific literature and comprehensive sites like Ultimate Ungulate and could see nothing about there being only 2 Y-chromosome variants, although it is believable ... please cite a source! Satyrium 16:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Wisent.jpg

[edit]

Isn't that a Bison, not a Wisent? ---Majestic- 10:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is photographed in Białowieża, Eastern Poland, it is most likely a true wisent. But don't be confused as wisents are also bisons! They are European Bison, a very close relative of the North American Bison! Peter Maas\talk 15:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Former Range

[edit]

From my memory, and then in turn from a German language handbook of mammal zoology (published in the 1990es): Wisent ranged in historical times from France to China (or ist border), but did not occur in the British Isles (as opposed to Auerochs) - range in prehistoric times or of palaeobiological ancestors may of course differ. The article contradicts that. Without sources given, it is hard to decide. Naturally, I trust more what I read (in a Zoological University Institute library) than what some anonymus typed on the Internet. Perhaps we could compare sources (taking into account their nature and assessed reliability!).147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

One link was supposed to lead to some article on that (alleged) German "re-introductory" program; but that did not work when I tried it today.147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural History

[edit]

One of my "pet" areas of study is the cultural history of animals (to supplement my equally strong interest in the natural history of them). Years ago I browsed the largest dictionary of German for early references. One difficulty is that many early authors confused Wisent and Aurochs/Urus. But some quotes as early as medieval literature are certain, among them in the Nibelungenlied. I don't know if that would be of interest to other readers also.

Regards, Sophophilos: 147.142.186.54 (talk) 14:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN: "Endangered" or "Critically Endangered"?

[edit]

Both the info box and the opening text say the wisent is classified as Critically Endangered by the IUCN. However, further down in the page, it says the IUCN classified it as Endangered in 1996. I have gone to the source and checked the IUCN website, and in fact it is the latter that is true; however, I would like to have someone else's approval before I go ahead and edit the text so that I can be sure I am not missing some IUCN update I am not privy to. Or if someone else with more knowledge on the subject wants to go ahead and change it in the meantime, I suppose that would be OK too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcgy (talk • contribs) 05:38, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just changed it. No one else has come forward with information, so I think we should just go with what the website says. 05:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the "critically endangered" designation was put there by an IP editor with a history of sloppy work: [1]. So I don't think there's anything to worry about. Zagalejo^^^ 05:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

[edit]

An external site has raised the concern that a portion of this article might be plagiarized from the WWF panda.org site, with large sections of text being taken verbatim. Duck of Luke (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like most of that content was added in this edit. I've reverted to the first edit before that point, but a lot of constructive changes have been lost. Unfortunately, I have to sign off right now, so I can't restore the good edits at this moment. Anyone want to help? Zagalejo^^^ 04:37, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm back. I think I fixed the problem, but someone should double-check, just to be sure. Zagalejo^^^ 05:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to Emperor at Wikipedia Review for pointing that out. (I'll probably incur someone's wrath for that, but I should give credit where credit is due.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually a user named "Meldrick Lewis" on Encyc.org who originally found the problem, but then the Emperor took it to Wikipedia Review. And of course I took it here. Thanks for getting to it so quickly. Duck of Luke (talk) 13:09, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I learned about the problem by browsing WR. But thanks to Meldrick, and you, as well. Zagalejo^^^ 15:06, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social Structure and Territorial Behaviors

[edit]

The article currently describes one sort of herd as: "Mixed groups consist of infants, young aged 2–3 years, calves and young adult bulls." There is no mention of the cows who -- I presume -- are the mothers of the other individuals mentioned. It's also not clear whether the "young adult bulls" are the older offspring of those mothers, or whether they are the fathers of present and future offspring of those mothers. I also see no mention of whether these mixed groups contain a herd bull -- a bull who mates with all the adult cows.

I suggest that a reasonable edit would be: "Mixed groups consist of several [related|unrelated|mostly unrelated] cows, [a herd bull,] and infants, young aged 2–3 years, calves and young adult bulls who are offspring of the herd cows." However, I suggest this from a generalized knowledge of herd animals and not any knowledge of wisents in particular, which is why I have not gone ahead and made the edit. It would be good if someone who knows wisents could decide whether the bracketed words are to be included or excluded.

VictoriaWordNerd (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has fixed your problem after two years, I have changed it to something that at least makes basic sense.Eregli bob (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Map update

[edit]

Reading the article alone leads to the impression that the map is awfully outdated (based on the one at the UICN site I guess). Shouldn't somebody make a new one, showing the areas where the species has been reintroduced (and in the case of Kirguizistan, introduced)? The Caucasian reserve should be shown at the very least, considering the reintroduction there took place "decades ago".--Menah the Great (talk) 10:37, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"with only scattered reports from the 19th century of wolf and bear predation" <-------- BS!!! There are some cases in Poland about killing zubr by wolves only in last 20 years. I have seen documentary film from about 2003 with "butchering place" of one zubr. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.23.42.50 (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stone age depictions

[edit]

Aren't these rather the Steppe Wisent? FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Minoan?

[edit]

They have wall paintings on the Minoan Palace showing Bull Jumping, any chance the animal shown painted is a relatitve of the European Bison/Auroch? 108.38.36.17 (talk) 02:04, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).jpg to appear as POTD soon

[edit]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Bison bonasus (Linnaeus 1758).jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on July 29, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-29. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 16:58, 27 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

European bison (wisent)
The European bison or wisent (Bison bonasus) is the heaviest of the surviving land animals in Europe, with males growing to around 1,000 kg (2,200 lb). European bison were hunted to extinction in the wild, but have since been reintroduced from captivity into several countries. This male is moulting, his winter coat coming off in clumps.Photo: Michael Gäbler
Archive – More featured pictures...

Adult females ?

[edit]

"The European bison is a herd animal, which lives in both mixed and solely male groups. Mixed groups consist of infants, young aged 2–3 years, calves and young adult bulls."

This makes no sense. Where are the adult females ? It is also inconsistent with every other species of herding herbivore. I suspect that "calves" may be a mistranslation of a word which actually means "cows" ( adult females ).Eregli bob (talk) 03:26, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wisent became extinct in the area of modern day Germany 200–400 years earlier than stated

[edit]

The article states, ″In April 2013, eight European bison (one male, five females and two calves) were released into the wild in the Bad Berleburg region of Germany, after 300 years of absence since the species became extinct in that region.″ This definitely is incorrect (even though quoted correctly, but unfortunately the source already got it wrong). Compare German WP: „Auf dem Gebiet des heutigen Deutschlands verschwand der Wisent zwischen dem 14. und 16. Jahrhundert.” (= ″On the territory of today's Germany, the wisent disappeared between the 14th and the 16th century.″)
(The confusion probably stems from the East Prussian wisent population, whose last member was killed in 1755 (~250 years ago). East Prussia definitely isn't a part of Germany today (the area is now divided between Poland and Russia) and, to make things even more complicated, it never was a part of Germany while wisent lived there even though it was a part of the state of Prussia, whose western half (Brandenburg, Pommerania) was a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Germany from 962 – 1806). Thus even German WP is a bit misleading, as it would be absolutely correct to leave out the ′today's′ in the quote mentioned above.)
--92.206.106.169 (talk) 15:53, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History

[edit]

The section has several issues:

  • the survival of the species in zoos and parks is not covered
  • the survival outside Białowieża is only mentioned passingly, but the survival of the Caucasian population with at least one bull is of importance
  • a freely roaming population seems to have survived on the island of Darß until the end of World War II
  • it is said that the Europen Bison was protected by Polish laws. This is a half truth because any hunt - not just that of the Bison - in the forest was a royal privilege. The legal situation during the Russian time needs at least one citation - and make it a historical source, not hearsay from WWF pages unless they mention their secondary sources
  • same for the claim that it were Germans (and Germans only) who killed 600 bisons at the end of WW I. See the point about sources from professional historians above.
  • the survival after WW II can be expanded. -- Zz (talk) 11:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either here or in the Miscellanea section, someone ought to mention Mikołaj Hussowczyk and his epic Latin poem about bisons, the De statura, feritate, et venatione bisontis. 98.180.54.181 (talk) 05:17, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology

[edit]

The etymology needs some work; see http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=bison for a better attempt. The modern word (and spelling) enters English via French from Latin, not directly from the German. The Latin bison" probably gave rise to the Greek βίσων, since there's no record of the word in Greek prior to Pliny's mention of it in Latin in the NH -- the Greeks borrowed it from the Romans too. 98.180.54.181 (talk) 05:11, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Herd size

[edit]

Article says herd size is small 20-30 animals. The American bison herds could be massive, 10s of thousands. Did the European bisen at one time also have huge herds, like in the open steepes of the east? If not, are small herds a survival mechanism from hominid predators whom they would have evolved with over millions of years, unlike the American bison which were hominid-free until the last 10 thousand years or so. -- GreenC 03:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on European bison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on European bison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on European bison. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of 'zubr'

[edit]

Wiktionary states that the older Polish form was zubr, while żubr arose through hypercorrection. Given that the English word is both spelt and pronounced with a /z/ sound and not with anything like Polish ż, this makes one suspect that it might have been borrowed from this older Polish form. Or simply from Russian. And, as Wiktionary also points out, the early Polish zubr must have originated from the Old East Slavic (what people used to call Old Russian) form, because the proper Polish reflex of Proto-Slavic *zǫbrъ was ząbr. 79.100.144.23 (talk) 00:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is interesting and could very well be true, but unless we have reliable sources saying this then we won't be able to put it in the article as that would be original research. --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

[edit]

Keimzelle - less bluster, more good edits please. You are a) removing sourced, informative content; b) inserting less informative, less well sourced content; c) adding "references" to your own observations, which is absolutely not an option anywhere on this project; (d) screwing up existing formatting. So could you please state here what it is you are actually trying to achieve, and then maybe we can implement it without the drama and debris? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:25, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae:The only thing I'm trying to do is improving the article. I was adding more specific information (which parks and zoos keep animals) with more exact numbers of animals. I was literally shocked to see that according to our article, only the Suchy park kept bisons! What the actual fuck! I also added a reference to a zoo animal database which actually stated the number of animals per zoo/park (which was missing the numbers of animals in Suchy, which was an outdated number anyway, and also the number of animals at the park in Bern).
All right. So, zootierliste.de might a suitable source - it's user-generated but with editorial oversight. But you will need to link to an actual useful URL (I assume this one [2]?). As for this source [3] I can't even make out which of your claims it is supposed to source - it only deals with a single population so pasting it after a sentence listing multiple holdings is misleading. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"your own observations": It is a valid reference because you can visit the park any day (entrance: 10 CHF, open from 9 AM to 5 PM), and verify this data. There is no difference to citing an out-of-print book which is available at my library, but not at yours. (I've already cited a publicly accessible placard in an article. Other Wikipedians were not happy. But a source is a source. One can go there, and check it.)--Keimzelle (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's frankly a case of tough beans. If there is not a published, written source to back up a statement, that statement can not go on Wikipedia. We don't deal in "go and see for yourself" verifiability. But it doesn't look as if you even need that claim, if the statement is backed up by Zootierliste? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: Each and anything that allows you to check the veracity of a statement is a source, and I will continue to revert any unhelpful edits. Right now it makes the readers believe that the first bisons arrived in Switzerland only in 2019? What the actual fuck? Even the sourced crap is not true.--Keimzelle (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making this up, it's a policy. You have two options: a) continue with the opinion that original research is suitable for sourcing, in which case you cannot edit Wikipedia, and will likely end up blocked at some point; b) restrict yourself to statements backed by reliable, published sources. Since basically all you want to add appears to be sourceable as per the latter, I have no idea why you seem so hellbent on stringing yourself up on a). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:42, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: Awww cute, now you're going to conflate the issue with original research. So, stumbling upon a quote in a book is original research, too? And no, I would not have all these issues with your if you were not insisting on a section that has less and less correct information. I live in Switzerland, and I have personally seen many of the animals I am referring to. But, sheesh.--Keimzelle (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Your choice. Nothing based on "personal observation" is getting in, and the next person to tell you so is going to be an admin if you insist on trying that. Feel free to update the section on based on written material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:27, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Elmidae: If you see a quote in a written source, then it is your personal observation of that quote. In the end, I have to trust you that you have seen this quote. Therefore, there is no difference between walking into a publicly accessible park and entering a library. Both contain objectively observable facts. And now you are threatening me with administrative action because I flat out refuse accept a section that is both incomplete and untrue?--Keimzelle (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It feels a little pointless to keep up an argument against a policy- especially since you currently seem to be chilling for a week on account of sticking to I Am Right And Everyone Else Is Wrong. So let's leave it at this: there is no leeway here. I, everyone else, the administrators, and the written policy agree that there is a fundamental difference between "This is published in a written source" and "I have seen this". Take it (and edit) or leave it (and stay away from the page). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just gonna add here that I agree with Elmidae. Keimzelle, please be civil. --Pitsarotta (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not today.--Keimzelle (talk) 11:29, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Вторая мировая война прервала эту работу, часть животных погибла. Однако по окончании войны работа по спасению зубра возобновилась. В 1946 году зубров стали разводить на территории Беловежской пущи, принадлежащей Советскому Союзу (на польской территории к этому времени сохранилось 17 зубров, которые были собраны в специальный питомник).
В 2000 году количество зубров составляло около 3500 особей. У сегодняшних зубров можно выделить две формы: первая — беловежский подвид, и вторая — заводская линия. Кавказско-беловежские зубры содержат гены единственного выжившего в неволе кавказского экземпляра. С 1961 года в СССР началось расселение зубров в леса, в пределах их прежнего ареала (работы под руководством М. А. Заблоцкого).
Зубр в Беловежской пуще
На сегодняшний день выполнен первый этап работ по сохранению зубра: исчезновение в ближайшее время этому редкому виду не угрожает. Тем не менее, Красная Книга МСОП относит данный вид к категории уязвимый — «VU» («vulnerable») по критерию D1 (несмотря на уменьшение в 1990-х годах, популяция растёт с 2000 года). На территории России Красная книга РФ (1998) ставила зубра в категорию 1 «Находящиеся под угрозой исчезновения».
В результате целенаправленной деятельности многих специалистов на 31 декабря 1997 года в мире в условиях неволи (зоопарках, питомниках и прочих резерватах) находилось 1096 зубров, в вольных популяциях — 1829 особей. Но если в середине 1980-х годов в СССР было порядка 1100 зубров, в том числе около 300 в России, то к концу 1990-х годов вольные популяции чистокровных зубров на Кавказе несколько сократились (они живут в Кавказском заповеднике, Цейском заказнике в Северной Осетии и Архызском участке Тебердинского заповедника).Последний живущий на свободе зубр был убит в Беловежской пуще лесничим Казимиром Шпаковским в 1921 году, а на Кавказе последних трёх зубров убили в 1926 году в окрестностях горы Алоус. В зоопарках и частных владениях всего мира сохранились лишь 66 животных. По инициативе польского зоолога Яна Штольцмана во Франкфурте-на-Майне в 1923 году было создано Международное общество охраны зубра. Сегодня выселенные по специальным программам из зоопарков на природу популяции зубров обитают в Польше, Испании, Белоруссии, Литве, Латвии, Молдавии, Украине, Словакии, Германии.
Первый зубровый питомник в России был создан в 1948 году на территории Приокско-Террасного государственного природного биосферного заповедника Серпуховского района Московской области. К 2009 году в питомнике выращены и отправлены в различные районы России, Украины, Белоруссии, Литвы и других стран 328 чистокровных зубров. В Спасском районе Рязанской области расположен Окский биосферный государственный заповедник с зубровым питомником (питомник действует с 1959 года). С 1989 года вольная популяция зубров обитает в Клязьминско-Лухском заказнике во Владимирской области (около 50 голов в 2017 году). В Вологодской области зубры появились в 1991 году (завезли 1 самца и 2 самки), а в настоящее время их численность насчитывает 112 особей. С 1992 года этот редкий вид краснокнижных животных есть и в новом заповеднике «Калужские засеки» на юго-востоке Калужской области на территории, пограничной с Орловской и Тульской областями. С 1996 года по настоящее время в национальный парк Орловское Полесье завезено 65 зубров. К 2001 году там создано три группы зубров общей численностью более 120 животных. В 2019 году — 401 зубр, это самая большая популяция вольноживущего зубра в России и вторая по численности в мире. В Шебалинском районе Республики Алтай находится Чергинский зубровый питомник. В 2015 году поголовье Зубров в Чергинском питомнике составляло 47 особей. Цйфыву (talk) 16:40, 21 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:European_bison&oldid=1228911796"