Talk:Capybara/Archive 1

Archive 1

Capybara As Fish

The correct genus name is Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 (Opinion 1894, International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1998) and the correct family name is Hydrochoeridae. This is not copyrighted information. Alvaro Mones

The "fish" story is interesting but deserves a date and a reliable reference.
I changed "the Pope" to "Rome" or "the Church" because it is questionable whether the Pope himself would be involved. (This detail smells of a popular legend rather than a historical fact.)

Also beware of non-neutral point of view -- the Church's "error" is "obvious" only if you assume that the scientific definition of the word "fish" is the only valid one, but (e.g.) for a fisherman it makes perfect sense to define "fish" as anything that swims in the sea, dolphins included. Jorge Stolfi 04:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This story has been said of several water dwelling mammals. For example I've heard it of beaver and muskrat too. The only case I knew of where it was true was whale, which was fairly certainly counted as a fish by the Catholic Church for centuries.

That said there is some support for this story I find.[1] It sounds like the Vatican isn't really saying the capybara is a fish, that'd be stupid, but instead says they can count it as one for Lenten purposes. That's not quite the same thing.--T. Anthony 11:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Googling for "capivara AND quaresma" (Portuguese for lent) and "carpincho AND iglésia (Spanish for church) I could find no references on the web. If someone unearths a bibliographic reference it must be surprising. I suppose this anedocte is just that.jggouvea 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

T. Anthony, this has been true in at least some places, of several water mammals (beaver, muskrat...). This looks like a reliable source (.edu), and it says "there is a high demand for capybara meat, especially during Lent." These sorts of exemptions are an old Catholic tradition (Middle Ages or earlier). In medieval times, Barnacle Geese were exempted because they were believed to grow from barnacles and therefore not be "born of flesh." Unborn rabbits were also exempted, though I do not know the rationale. But it has nothing to do with claiming that it is a fish (in the taxonomic sense), merely that it is not a "land animal". Vultur 20:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Capybara In Mass Media

Given that (at least to a North American audience) capybaras are fairly unique and somewhat comical animals, a section on famous examples in fiction, literature, news, etc. provides an extra degree of relevance. And, that said, Speak from The Tick is one of the very few examples of this (perhaps even the only only). I'm reverting to the version that includes information on Speak, which seems no more unusual than a page on famous horses, fictional lions, etc., although certainly if it's felt that the information is better provided in a seperate page or a disambiguation page I'm more than willing to do so.

I placed Speak in Category: Fictional rodents. If there's justification to create a Category: Fictional capybaras he could go there, but so far I think he's the only one named.--T. Anthony 11:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it very odd, simply because it's a cartoon, it's not real -- a cartoon character can have whatever it likes as a pet (even a speaking capybara?). There's no link to Scooby Doo at the bottom of dog... Apparently some (real live flesh and blood) people keep capybaras as pets: do you feel up to the task of writing a section about "capybaras as pets", in the real world, with a mention of the cartoon capybara at the end? Either that, or change the title: "fictional capybaras", "capybaras in fiction", something like that? There must be an odd reference or two to capybaras in the novels of Rómulo Gallegos or Jorge Amado or García Márquez... –Hajor 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Would it be useful to anyone looking up the Capybara article, as if in an actual encyclopedia? I don't think so. I think it's just worthless trivia. User:justfred

Perhaps the fictional reference is, but a "Capybaras as pets" section could be very informative, say, to people who would like to know whether or not they can be easily domesticated, whether they are as intelligent as some other rodents (rats and mice are freakishly intelligent, are capybaras as well?), if one needs special "exotic animal" permits to keep one, etc. --Corvun 09:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Only if anyone keeps them as pets. Which I suspect they don't, at least in the english-speaking world. And I'm not talking about cartoon characters here, I mean someone in real life (if y'all can remember what that is) actually keeps them as actual pets. --User:justfred

I would find it hard to believe that no-one in the English speaking world has tried to keep one as a pet, but even if that's the case: why not? Are they ill-tempered? Hard to domesticated? Hard to house-train? What makes them undesirable as pets? --Corvun 20:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

They're the size of a medium domesticated animal - a large pig or small pony. They like to live in a river - are you planning to let them swim in your pool? And having had golden retrievers who did just so, I would imagine they would smell really, really bad. They're native to the Amazon and Brazil, not North America or Europe. Guinea pigs, sure, they're pocket-sized. Boa constrictors and smaller snakes, yes; Anacondas, quite a bit more difficult. Sure, there are people who keep (full-sized) pigs and goats and sheep, ostrich, emu, llamas as pets - but for the most part they're livestock, and an encyclopedia would tend to describe them as such. Go ahead, look it up and see. If you can find proof, documentation somewhere (preferably a less-than-flaky internet source), you're welcome to put it up. But just because it was on a TV cartoon does not seem to be a valid reason to add it to the encyclopedia article. --User:justfred

Have you had a bad day? I wasn't arguing that a section on capybaras as pets needs to be included, only that it might be useful if there are a significant number of people out there who would be interested in such a thing, or maybe a brief statement as to why doing so might be undesirable (if it actually were undesirable, which it doesn't really appear to be). If it's not that common, then there's no reason to spend a lot of time on it. It's not as if I'm saying there needs to be a lengthy section dedicated to the subject, only that something more than "some people capture them as pets" would be useful and ellucidating. Something like "not unlike the 'barnyard' animals of North America and Europe, capybaras are sometimes kept as pets, but are most often regarded as livestock". I'm not suggesting a complete upheaval of the article just for the sake of appeasing the few people who (like some North American goat, pig, chicken, etc. owners) keep them as companions and shudder at the idea of using them for food.

Also, it appears capybaras are somewhat more common an animal than someone unfamiliar with them might think. How common are they in their natural state? Are they thought of as pests like the Raccoons, Opossums, and Armadillos of North America? Are they (like the Armadillo, the Raccoon, or the Hedgehog) common enough to be regarded as pests in some areas but kept as exotic pets in others? How are the animals actually viewed?

I understand that they are considered livestock, but just as with pigs, goats, ostriches, emus, chickens, etc., there must surely be a lot more to them. How quickly do they reproduce? How fast do they age? How long do they live? Are they hostile, fearful, friendly, or indifferent toward humans? These are the kinds of things a visitor to the page might want to know about. I mean, would a page on dogs be complete if it didn't mention dingoes? Would a page on chickens be complete if it made no mention of the Indonesion jungle fowl (wild chickens), or of bantams, silkies, polishes, or any of the other breeds that have obviously been bred for purposes other than food? Is there a strong foreign market for capybaras meat? Is there any market for capybara pelts, or does their fur have no desirable qualities at all (such as water resistance or insulation, as with duck feathers)?

All I'm saying is that one leaves this page feeling like one has only gotten a small part of the story. One of the great things about Wikipedia, as opposed to paper encyclopedias, is that here we have the chance to give people the "complete scoop" -- we don't have to skimp on less-than-wildly-popular topics to prevent a set of hard-bound encyclopedia volumes from taking up an entire room. If you don't feel like taking the time to do all of this, that's fine, but why all the hostility at the suggestion that such information might be useful? --Corvun 22:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as agressively as I did - mainly I thought that referring to a little-known tv cartoon added nothing to the article. You're right that the article could be well expanded in many of the ways you mention - and please feel free to do so! All of your questions would be good research subjects for expansion. Most of the questions I have no idea of the answer, but someone must. --User:justfred (who would like to thank Windows viruses for his current cranky attitude)

Ah, virus troubles. Enough said. --Corvun 00:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to tack onto this discussion, but I must say the "would someone expect to read this in an encyclopedia" comment is just phooey. I think the reason they wouldn't include this is for space consideration, something Wikipedia doesn't really have. If people want the short of the info, that's why there's section heads. If they want details, there's space for it. I can't believe how stuffy some of this comes off as. Bobak 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. I come from a country where capybaras are native (sometimes I can see some from my backyard window because they have adapted to live by the brook that flows across my town). Here's something about the way people regard capybaras here. 1) They are not pets: they're smelly, dirty and are vectors of diseases. It's OK to have them at a zoo or a public park, but it is unthinkable to have them at home --- unless you own a pretty large cottage with enough space. 2) They live in or by fresh water streams, their health and their feeding depends on that. 3) They are pretty large and eat quite a lot (mostly grass, leaves and hay). They'd be costly to keep, though not as much as costly as keeping a cow at your backyard, perhaps just about keeping a smaller breed of lamb. 4) They are rodents and they bite to defend themselves. Not safe for children. 5) They are wild and like to wander about, sometimes walking kilometers each day. They'd be very unhappy living in your backyard. 6) Nevetheless I think someone will consider them as pets because they look cute. Must be a quite rich guy, living in a cottage or big house with a large backyard and without children. The best thing, however, would be to see them at a park or zoo. Just like that cute deer your children find so cute ;-) jggouvea 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I have a pet capybara named Caplin Rous (for Rodent Of Unusual Size). He is currently four months old and I've had him since he was 11 days old. He makes an excellent pet. He is very smart and affectionate. He does not smell at all, in fact he's very clean. He house trained himself. From the very first day he has used a bowl of shallow water that we keep next to the toilet. Of course he only weighs about 25 pounds now so maybe when he gets larger he'll have to spend more time outside. I live in the country and have horses and cattle on my property. Since they dwarf a capybara in size, I don't expect that to be a problem. There is currently one photo of him on the main capybara page. I'd post more but I haven't had time to figure out how to add them to the gallery. One point I'd like to make is that many of these arguments (not all) could be made about rats, yet anyone who has kept a rat can tell you they make great pets.

Also, there is a children's book written in the 1960s called "Capyboppy" by Bill Peet about a capybara kept as a pet. --Caplin Rous 14 November 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 03:16, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Foreign names

Someone has added the Polish name to the head section. Not to be negative, but obviously we cannot include the translations of the name into all the thousand languages of the planet. (The interwiki links will do that job, and better, by the way.) The Spanish, Portuguese and Guaraní names were listed only because those are the languages spoken in the capybara's natural range; so they are likely to be used even in English documents, and thus are useful even to English readers.
On the other hand, the names in other major local languages (say, Quechua, French, Saramaccan, etc.) would be fitting.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Taste

The article mentions they are raised for meat, and they are sometimes used as a substitute in pabellón criollo. Can anyone comment on their taste/texture/nutritional qualities?

Tastes like chicken. ;-) --Carnildo 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Hydrochoerus isthmius

This subspecies is often given full species status by scientists. More phylogenetic testing needs to take place, so I will refrain from altering the species' taxonomy box but I included this notation at the end of the introductory paragraph. Based on morphological evidence alone it seems rather clear the Panama race is a distinct species, and new studies will hopefully conclude this in order to give the species more protection for its restricted range. --EllisD 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't Woods and Kilpatrick (2006) treat it as a new sp.? I can't remember offhand. If they do and you are so inclined, please make the change. --Aranae 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They do treat it as a separate sp. I agree with splitting this page into Hydrochoerus, Capybara (H. hydrocchaeris), and Lesser Capybara (H. isthmius) along with a separate Hydrochoerinae. --Aranae 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Capybara in romanian mythology

The word "shobolan" is not a romanian word. The correct word is "şobolan", but that simply means rat, there is no mythological meaning attached to it.

Excising Phoberomys

Because Phoberomys is more closely related to the living pacarana, I deleted that section from this article. Plus, why only talk about P. pattersoni, and not other members of that genus, as well?--Mr Fink 02:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The two sections on extinct relatives were originally pages that were very tiny stubs and linked here. That information was absorbed in accordance with the information in that article.

As for granivore/graminivore, my mistake; it appeared as a spelling error.

"Coyphillas" was taken directly from the reference (which is why that line is referenced). Perhaps it should read "coyphillas" and link to nutria...

The line that specifies the taxonomical difference is important and information and I'm readding it. There's no reason NOT to say that, especially since the page for that species redirects here. It was absorbed into this page awhile back.

More answers to similar questions can be answered through a quick glance at the page history, as edits - at least my edits - are very clearly and specifically commented.

Hope that helps and thanks for your edits and correcting my error of reasoning on the graminivore part... better also make sure someone takes out the Capybara line on the granivore page too... And would you by chance be interested in starting the graminivore page?

VigilancePrime 03:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Graminivores are essentially grazing herbivores that are restricted to grass, yes? At the very least, we need to clean up the grazing page, too.--Mr Fink 04:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, while it is important, if not imperative to show the taxonomic information/history of extinct animals, we shouldn't go over what the taxobox already mentioned. When we discuss the taxonomy, we need to expand on it, like, mention any sister genera, or species, which related taxa are regarded as daughter taxa, is it a basal taxon, etc.--Mr Fink 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I removed the entire section as I (apparently) never did make the redirect. Maybe I was tired and forgot to hit save instead of preview. Anyway, it's gone and linked instead. I think that's probably best after our discussion. Yes? VigilancePrime 04:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I suppose so: we have plenty of time to revive and rewrite that section later, as, after all, they're dead, and aren't in any hurry in the first place.--Mr Fink 04:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)We should figure out what "coyphilla" is and create a redirect to that page. We have pages for all the hystricognath rodents and, whatever this is, there's a more common English name for it. I'm uncomfortable setting up a link to nutria unless it's known that coyphilla = nutria/coypu. Google gives no results for the word.

The taxonomy is covered by way of the taxoboxes and I'm not sure it adds anything. Carleton and Musser (2005) demote Hydrochoeridae to subfamilial status and Neochoerus would then be moved as well. Hydrochoerinae needs its own page and shouldn't redirect here. --Aranae 04:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Coyphillas. I think it was misspelled or something? Don't know, but now I have Google results (whereas I didn't the first couple times...I don't get it). Mr Fink, awesome comment... yeah, they probably aren't in a great hurry! :-D I think removing the "extinct relatives" and leaving them on their own stub pages is, after all, best. VigilancePrime 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Photos

On a wholly separate note, I'd like some feedback on the four primary photos on the page (the non-gallery ones). What's good, what's not, if we like them, what else we'd like to see (or instead). VigilancePrime 04:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, all of those photos are excellent.--Mr Fink 05:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm "retired" from photography, but I can't resist a camera sometimes... I thought they came out pretty well. They're formatted as widescreen desktop backgrounds if anyone's really a Capybara fan! Anyway, I appreciate feedback. Good, Bad, or Otherwise. Thanks. VigilancePrime 05:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Where to find

This is a great section. I know to a certain extent it could be Original Research, but I think it's important. When we can reference these, we need to, even if the reference gives only a list of animals and the number comes from visiting... As best we can, let's reference and expand this list! On a side note, I modified this line - "* Two capybara live at Hovatter's Zoo in Kingwood, West Virginia (as of 09/2007). " - to make Hovatter's posessive (add apostrophe); it seemed logical. If this is an error and it really is Havatters singular or plural, please change it back AND COMMENT IT. I tried a Wiki search and a Google search but could not find this zoo. VigilancePrime 05:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

TOCleft

Is there a WikiPolicy on TOC's? I ask because I'm not sure and I'm certainly not any sort of expert on all the various Wiki-isms. I don't see that this should be any sort of a big deal. Quite simply, without the TOCleft there is this big dead space on the top and the page simply looks far better without the dead space. Considering all the WikiPolitics, I imagine there's long dissertations on TOC's! :-) Hoping to find official guidance. VigilancePrime 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Some thoughts

some comments from, I think, before the overhaul even

Per your message on User_talk:Videmus_Omnia, I'd like to make some suggestions. It's mostly technical and copy-editing stuff, and the overall impression of the article is that it's quite good. Anyway: (adding notes as I address or look at each of these)

• There are 4-5 unclosed wikilinks.
  • I corrected 4 of these... I may have missed one, but if so, I couldn't find it as I looked a couple times over.
• The taxobox is of a non-standard color. Just remove the color setting and it should select the appropriate color for the animal kingdom (pink).
  • Argh, I know you're right. Red looked so much better! Anyway, changed in prep for the upload.
• The conservation status bit in the taxobox should probably be copied from the currently active page.
  • The main page had a broken image so I took that part out. Templates are not my strong suit.
• Per WP:UNITS, all units should primarily be SI (it's a scientific article with no language-preference), and have the imperial units in parentheses.
  • In this case, then, metric all around? I used the units in the sourcees, and almost all of them used imperial units. I'd convert them if I could...
• Per WP:OVERLINK, I feel that the number of internal links is excessive and it could distract from the ones that are really interesting and/or important. I'd be happy to help trim those down.
  • Yes, they are. I tend to like to link everything. I almost gave myself a headache linking! Any help here would be appreciated so as to have, exactly as you said, the interesting (or important) ones remain and remove the others.
• The inline citations look fine, but I haven't had time to go through them all yet.
  • 'k. That's something I'm pretty good at (having once been terrible at referencing at all!).
• The gallery is a bit large, but it's no big deal (they're free images after all).
  • Yeah, another bit of my own partiality... I like galleries.
• The part about leather is mentioned twice. I suggest using only the mention in human interactions, but moving the cite down with it.
  • corrected. Thanks for that catch!
• I'm not sure the part about catholic tradition can grow much larger, so perhaps just incorporate it in the human interactions, where the fact that we eat them is already mentioned.
  • Agreed.

As I said, it's mostly copyediting. Hope you find the suggestions useful. --Pekaje 16:07, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As for the two ancesteral species that I incorporated (with the intent of changing those pages into redirects), does that look okay? VigilancePrime 17:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Peer Review

Biggest HELP! need is in putting references into the right format. I think this may have Featured Article potential and would like the thoughts (and assistance) of the "larger Wikipedia community." With the exception of citation formatting, this article, I believe, meets the criteria for a GA- or even A- status currently; if someone can confirm/"promote", please do! Many thanks! VigilancePrime 20:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really into that scene, but AFAIK galleries are frowned upon, especially when they're as big as the one included here, and which seems to be there simply to hold every capybara picture anyone has ever uploaded. See also my point below. --jjron (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Where to find

What's with the huge list of Where to find in captivity? I can't recall seeing this in any other article, and it all seems pretty pointless. Maybe if this was an endangered species it would make some sense, but as far as I know they're quite common, so I can see no reason for this list. --jjron (talk) 06:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm goin to totally redo this section; I have a plan and only need some time. I think it'll be an improvement when I get it complete. VigilancePrime (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, OK. But also re the above message about possible FA, most of this list would count as original research, which shouldn't be included regardless, and would definitely exclude it from any hope of FA status. --jjron (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree but have already dismissed any thought of this article ever being FA anyway. After two days on the peer review I figured that much out! VigilancePrime (talk) 04:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC) :-)

Hehe, fair enough. --jjron (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally took care of the Where to find section (actually, awhile ago). Wanted to note as much.

New Discovery!

Wow! A huge, old, fossilized CAPYBARA! Cool!

Now, though, we have a bunch of links and need to get those incorporated into the article so we don't end up with a LinkFarm.

Please help! VigilancePrime (talk) 05:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a stub article Neochoerus pinckneyi. Unfortunately, there are not many useful refences on that page. If it gets incorporated into this article, a link should be made. Dspark76 (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The taste

I see that there is a reference to it tasting like pork. That's true, but if you have ever eaten it the more distinguishing factor is it's strong smell that I'm told also exists in beaver meat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.46.245.230 (talk) 00:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2008 (UTC)