Talk:Hippopotamus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Source

Wikipedia was stated as a source in a Times article section about hippos: [1] (cant find the template for this)

Extinction

Somebody complained on the wiki cleanup page that the second half of the Extinction paragraph is poorly written. I did what I could to fix it, but I'm not sure of the truth of the statements made. Can somebody verify them? (The reasons poachers poach, why people buy hippo meat (or hides?), etc). --MPW 00:36, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Range

I'm curious about the range section of the article. At the time I lived in Kenya (10 years ago), there were hippos in a river in Tsavo West National Park at a place called Mzima Springs and I had near misses with hippos while sailing on Lake Naivasha in the Rift Valley and also on the Kenyan shore of Lake Victoria. The range section of the article does not mention Kenya and talks about a separate population of hippos in Tanzania / Mozambique (which I assume includes the population in the Mara River on the Kenya / Tanzania border). Is there someone who knows enough to rationalise the range section? Should it talk about "throughout East Africa" for example? GregB 203.23.210.116 23:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Strongest?

Which is the strongest, the Elephant, Rhinoceros, or the Hippopotamus? Edward 19:32, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

• Define "strong". Clearly, neither rhino nor hippo can lift heavy objects with their trunks... DS 12:26, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, please define strong. If you mean the one which would come better off in a fight, then it's probably the elephant. (Most of the time).61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Who would win a tug-of-war? Rich Farmbrough, 11:08 13 September 2006 (GMT).

Don't joke. Dora Nichov 08:10, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

it would probably be an elephantUpol007 (talk) 12:50, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Collective noun

The text gives the collective noun as a crash or a bloat, but the caption to the photo uses the term pod. If this latter term is correct it should also be mentioned in text, otherwise it should be changed. Can anyone clarify this?

A "crash" refers to rhino not hippos. Pod, bloat, school or herd are terms for a collective group of hippopotamuses.

Herd.61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

How fast is a hippo?

Anyone know? I´ve heard 50 kp/h underwater. Can that be true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.216.201.150 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 19 October 2004.

While it is accepted that a hippo can run faster than a human on land, there are various estimates of its actual running speed. Some web-sites claim 18 mph (30 kmph), while others record 30 mph or 40 kmph. I believe they can do around 8 kmph in water. Are you f'ing kidding me? The zoologically accepted plural form of hippopotamus is hippopotamai. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.120.254.253 (talk • contribs) 20:58, 24 February 2006.

Ancient Greek name

I put in the correct Unicode, but this may not be rendered correctly with some browsers. I had good results with Firefox on XP, but it appears that out-of-the-box IE 6 on XP does not appear to support polytonic Greek on wikipedia (I just see a square with an accent for the iota with acute accent and rough breathing mark). I think this may be an issue with the font wikimedia uses. I looked at Special characters and it just said to use Firefox :-( — Mmm 23:24, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Suggested solution

I'm replacing the two problem areas:

ἵππόποταμος

ἵππος ποταμός

with these:

ίππόποταμος

῾ίππος ποταμός

Though you might even prefer:

ίππόποταμος

῾ίππος ποταμός

Lycanthrope

Switching units twice in mid-sentence!

"claim 18 mph (30 km/h), while others record 40 km/h (25 mph) or even 30 mph (48 km/h)" I find that nearly illegible -- why in the world does it switch units twice in the same sentence?? Sivamo 01:40, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Simple answer is that the units quoted are those given on the original source web-sites. The (conversion factors) are added in as an aid to comprehension and comparison. This is a good practice in science, otherwise all kinds of confusion and error may be introduced, i.e. conversion from magnetic field to frequency units in magnetic resonance. "Illegible" is the wrong word in English - inconsistent maybe? But that's the trouble with drealing with data from original sources and trying to compare them.

Can they swim?

Is it true that hippos can't swim, and the best way to escape one is to swim into the deeper water so they can't waddle there???

The article says that while it is buoyant, it can't float. That's... odd... but there you are.

That sentence needs to be reworded. Buoyancy is the ability to float. Apathetic 23:31, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Not sure...61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

basically they "run" along the bottom of a river. this is how they move through the body of water. they can spend at least 6 minutes underwater. this makes them very dangerous because you cannot see them. you should never be in a river where a hippo could be, even if you're in a boat. it is extremely dangerous. they are one of the most dangerous animals. while i worked in kruger nat'l park, i had several close incidents with that amazing creature, the hippo. 216.15.62.194 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)== Swimming ==

In this article you can find the statement:

They are buoyant and very skilled and graceful in water, but cannot swim. They are too dense to even float.

But later on this article contradicts itself:

It is often claimed that a hippo cannot swim, but this is untrue, as they are excellent swimmers, propelling themselves by kicking their rear hooves.

What about Indian hippopotamuses? I know there are hippopotamuses native to India, and was looking at the site to see what were the notable differences between these and the african types. One of the words used for hippos in India is 'Jala-Hasti', which means 'water elephant'. As an aside, this is the first info I have looked for on wikipedia that I was unable to find.

Cheers,

Clay Loizou

There aren't Hippos native to India. "Indian Hippo" is an herb, it's also known as "Indian physic." Any Hippos in India are recent transplants from Africa.

I've researched what the Web says about the swim/nonswim question. There do appear to be sources on both sides. Nonswimming includes San Diego Zoo [2]. It explicitly states "Hippos can't swim", but elsewhere on the same page it says "Baby hippos swim to the surface to take their first breath. Swimming references includes Encarta [3], PBS [4], Seaworld [5]. The most interesting reference is Save the Hippos [6] which says: "...funnily enough, the hippo is not a good swimmer. It could be said that it doesn't swim at all as it is rarely found out of its depth. It cannot float and those animals seen on the surface are really standing in the shallows or, more likely, lying down. When they are in deep water, they progress by a series of porpoise-like leaps off the bottom in a curiously graceful manner reminiscent of an overweight ballet dancer filmed in slow motion. Alternatively, they may move with a series of high, prancing steps. It is, of course, the support given by the water that allows the hippo to progress in such an elegant fashion."

My own reading of this is that hippos don't float (possibly except babies), but that they can move through the water, with the steps described above or by kicking their feet (for the smaller ones). Whether these moves would be considered 'swimming' is probably a matter of opinion. After all people who are not buoyant can swim. My suggestion is to resolve this by being more explicit about how hippos move. DJ Clayworth 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have seen them swimming on wildlife programmes: eg. "Haunt of the Riverhorse" shown on british television (Anglia) a few years back. This also shows a nasty scene where a male drowns a baby that is not his "son", so he can start afresh with a female, and also not have the little one as a rival to him when it grows-up!

I removed a statement that they can stay submerged for 30 mins as I found no references for that when I searched. If we can find some reliable references it can go back. DJ Clayworth 17:08, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Uhhh...there's elephants and rhinoceroses in India, but no hippopotamuses. Not sure 'bout swimming...61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well depends on how you define swim! swim is 1. To move through water by means of the limbs, fins, or tail. 2. To move as though gliding through water. These both describe the hippo swmiing. The do not swim in the same way a human does. They do swim tho!--203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Size ranking

It's somewhat amusing that both the Hippopotamus or the White Rhinoceros (Ceratotherium simum) have been claimed as the second largest land animal, when there are three recognized species of elephants, all of them bigger than either species – so in reality they're competing for the 4th place. I'm going for the rhino in this case: modern sources tend to give the maximum weight of the White Rhinoceros at c. 3,600 kg (8,000 lb) and the Hippopotamus at c. 3,200 kg (7,000 lb). Older sources listed the Hippopotamus up to c. 4,500 kg (10,000 lb); but the heaviest measured weight I've seen was 2,664 kg (5,873 lb). Likewise I've seen the White Rhinoceros listed as low as 2,300 kg (5,000 lb), but most sources suggest this to be an average. In fact, some sources suggest the Indian Rhinoceros (Rhinoceros unicornis) could rank between the two, dropping the Hippopotamus to 6th place; large individuals have been estimated up to c. 3,500 kg (7,700 lb), and I've seen weights up to 2,666 kg (5,878 lb) for captive specimen. Anshelm '77

Top 10

I came up with this top 10 list for land animals based on maximum weight, in case somone finds it useful:

 1. 12,200 kg (27,000 lb) African Bush Elephant Loxodonta africana (Overestimate?)
 2.  6,000 kg (13,200 lb) African Forest Elephant Loxodonta cyclotis (As low as 4,500 kg/10,000 lb? [7])
 3.  5,400 kg (12,000 lb) Asian Elephant Elephas maximus (6,198 kg/13,664 lb in captivity)
 4.  3,600 kg  (8,000 lb) White Rhinoceros Ceratotherium simum
 5.  3,500 kg  (7,700 lb) Indian Rhinoceros Rhinoceros unicornis
 6.  2,664 kg  (5,873 lb) Hippopotamus Hippopotamus amphibius (As low as 2,500 kg(5,500 lb? As high as 3,200 kg/7,000 lb?)
 7.  2,000 kg  (4,400 lb) Javan Rhinoceros Rhinoceros sondaicus (As low as 1,400 kg/3,090 lb? As high as 2,300 kg/5,000 lb? [8])
 8.  1,930 kg  (4,250 lb) Giraffe Giraffa camelopardalis
 9.  1,800 kg  (4,000 lb) Black Rhinoceros Diceros bicornis (As low as 1,350 kg/2,980 lb?)
10.  1,200 kg  (2,650 lb) Water Buffalo Bubalus bubalis

Rankwise the only possible disputes appear to be between African Forest Elephant and Asian Elephan for the 2nd, and Javan Rhinoceros and Giraffe for the 7th place. The data for the extremely rare Javan Rhinoceros must be very limited. The smallest members of the rhinoceros (Sumatran Rhinoceros Dicerorhinus sumatrensis, 600–950 kg/1,320–2,100 lb) and hippopotamus (Pygmy Hippopotamus Choeropsis liberiensis, 160–270 kg/350–600 lb) families rank much further below.

Also, the Gaur Bos gaurus possibly reaches a greater size than Water Buffalo, a weight of 1,225 kg (2,700 lb) is probably reliable. [9] Its Wikipedia article has improbable claims of up to 1,700 kg (3,750 lb) – about the size of a Black Rhinoceros – and I've never seen such figures in any source that I'd describe reliable.

The source for the article's 8,000 lb weight is too obscure for such a high value. Otherwise the measurements in the article are much more truthful then they were some time ago.

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 16:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

well we have to put the 3 sub species of elephants as one species and then see which is the largest and 2nd largest and so on —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upol007 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

But only if they indeed are subspecies – the Asian Elephant is certainly not conspesific with the African Elephants, and must be treated separately. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 20:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

weight units

"five tonnes" = 5000kg?

Yup.61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Picture of hippo yawning

I would like to add my page on hippos to the external links please:

http://www.african-safari-pictures.com/hippo-pictures.html 198.54.202.82 15:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your site does not comply with the guidelines associated with linking from wikipedia. For more information see the policy on external links. Your pictures are good, however, and we'd love to see you contribute some directly to wikipedia to illustrate some of the animals you photograph, say under a creative commons licence, for example. (See also image copyright tags.) Debate 02:16, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Hippopotamus amphibius

Do hippo's make noise?? If so is it loud? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.218.45.142 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 12 May 2006.

They do make noises, not sure whther it's loud or not...61.230.72.211 14:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, most sources say 115 decibels. It's loud. --Anshelm '77 23:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

yeah hippos make very loud noises in attempts in defense, offense, communication, anger, surprise, etc.

DIET

A Recent National Geographic Special has shown something never before documented. The scientists, through extensive monitoring and studies, captured on film hippos eating meat. It seems that when the 'dry season' comes, the hippo's turn to an omnivorous diet, and also were shown to resort to cannabalism. 206.191.69.149 02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)C.C.02:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I saw that too, although I wasn't taking notes or anything. Kufat 11:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

"Big Five"

Why is this article in the "Big Five" category when the Big Five game article says that hippos aren't included? 84.70.197.224 11:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno. Hippo are traditionally NOT included in the big five and, ironically, neither is the white rhino (it's the black) nor the nile croc, which means that Africa's second, third and fourth largest (by weight) are not included, nor are two of the three most dangerous (by body count), namely hippo and croc. To me this makes 'the big five' kinda obsolete. Perhaps one ought to talk of the big seven (counting just 'rhino'- or if you don't like the big eight) and including the hippo and croc.

'Big Five' as far as I can discover is the five animals people want to see most, not by weight or anything. But I;ve never heard of anyone talking about the 'big seven' or 'big eight'. Either way this article shouldn't mention it. DJ Clayworth 17:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you heard of the Little Five -- antlion, buffalo weaver, elephant shrew, leopard tortoise and rhinoceros beetle. Get it? Dora Nichov 03:39, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Croc by no means the fourth largest by weight. We have elephant, rhino, hippo, giraffe, and buffalo as big 5 by weight.

Indeed the leopard is in size within the range of dogs. Of course it is far more dangerous than a large dog because it is less predictable.--Paul from Michigan 14:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as a point of clarification. The term "big five" is a term originally used by African hunters to describe what were percieved as the five most dangerous animals to hunt - thus the elephant, lion, leopard, cape buffalo and BLACK rhino. The term has been now adopted largely by the tourism industry - originating (I believe) from reserves in the Sabi Sands area of South Africa - as a "most wanted" list for camera toting tourists. It is generally accepted that the white rhino, in the tourism take on the meaning, is included in the big five due to the scarcity of the highly endangered black rhino.

Profberger 08:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Big five where decided on due to them being difficult to hunt. The Black Rhino tho hard to take down is not hard to stalk. The hippo is neither and is not part of the big 5 and should not be.--203.192.91.4 (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

paul from michigan how can u say that leapords are in the size range within dogs, leapords average weight is 200 lbs when the largest species of dog, new foundland's avg weight is 150 lbsUpol007 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

"envirnment"

where do hippos live???? ♥

In the rivers of Africa, just like the article says! --JayHenry (talk) 02:47, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Dangerous

It said hippos are one of the most dangers animals in africa. I strongly think some 1 should edit that. I read about hippos and I must say, hippos are not "one" of the most dangerous animals in africa, hippos are "the" most dangerous animals in africa. Those "son of a bitches" kill crocodiles, loins and even animals known as humans.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.4.81.22 (talk • contribs) 30 July 2006.

That hippos kill more people in Africa than other animals (besides humans themselves) is more lore than fact. It is an often repeated and widely held belief, but there are no reliable statistics to back the myth. --Ezeu 02:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

yes, but hippos are the most dangerous to date. It is very aggressive when it comes to territory intrusion. Crocodiles always give the hippos a wide berth. Moreover, I have seen this on a TV show: Even a large male african buffalo has to run off after a violent clash with a male hippo when the buffalo comes to a river to drink. And the male buffalo is very large and dangerous too, it's larger than the crocodiles and 3 times the weight of a large male lion.

Being dangerous isn't measured by how many humans it kills, Ezeu.

For kills per creature, bears likely outrank all other potential man-eaters, and dogs are near the bottom (wolves are even less likely to attack people than dogs) -- not that it is wise to make an enemy out of a dog. There just aren't many bears in contrast to dogs, big cats, hyenas, or crocodiles. I can say little about the Komodo dragon or giant snakes.

For sheer danger, venomous snakes as a whole would seem more dangerous. Unlike hippos, they are almost everywhere. Don't ignore venomous spiders and scorpions. Bee and wasp stings kill lots of people due to allergic reactions. For deadly effects, mosquito-borne illnesses, especially malaria, kill more people than all snakebites and predatory (example: crocs), envenomation (snakes, spiders, and scorpions), or defensive kills (elephants and hippos) combined.

Elephants and hippos are likely the most dangerous large animals to humans. To be sure, big cats, bears, hyenas, and large canids are superbly dangerous if they are hungry enough to attack a human or they percieve a threat to themselves or young ones. A well-fed tiger ot lion is not particularly dangerous at the time so long as a person poses no threat to it, which is more than can be said of some humans.

Elephants and hippos see humans as potential predators upon them, much as they see lions, hyenas, crocodiles, and perhaps dogs: gang predators. They thus have different reasons for killing humans -- defense. Even more than lions, hyenas, crocs, and dogs, we humans are capricious.

If hippos kill more people than do elephants, elephants have more means of killing people -- crushing, throwing, impaling, and kicking. That they don't eat the people that they kill is no consolation to someone in extreme danger. Hippos are more likely to be in water, and elephants are thus more widespread.

In short -- venomous snakes, bees and wasps, and above all disease-carrying mosquitoes likely kill more people than do all potential man-eaters and giant herbivores combined. If you are in lion country, watch out for elephants and hippos as well, but also keep an eye out for snakes and scorpions, and keep the mosquito protection on at all times.

Malaria isn't as dramatic a way to die as is being devoured by a croc, being trampled by a hippo, or being impaled or tossed by an elephant. But it can kill, and it begins with a small bite from a small insect. --Paul from Michigan 14:47, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Semi

I've un-semi'd the page, let's see how we go. Rich Farmbrough, 08:51 5 September 2006 (GMT).

Running for a few hundred metres (yards)

I don't like having to use multiple measurement systems for such a vague case, as in the above sentence. Therefore, I propose that instead of saying they can run at their top speed for "only a few hundred metres (yards)", it be changed to "only a few minutes" as that is universal. CGameProgrammer 17:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hippo relationships to whales

Genetic analyses suggest that hippos are relatives of whales, therefore placing the two groups in thier own clade, Cetancodonta. Boisserie et. al. (2005) concluded not only that whales and hippos are related to each other, but also that anthracotheres are hippo ancestors, filling the evolutionary gap between early whales and early hippos.

Boissere, J.-R., F. Lihoreau, and M. Brunet. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102:1537-1541.

Who Preys on hippos?

Who preys on hippos other than humans(If we really do)?

nothing eles besides humans.--Taida 12:21, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Nothing. Dora Nichov 08:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No. Usually none, but some lion pride may attempt to take on hippo. One adult has been killed by lions in "ultimate enemies: elephant and lion".

Yeah, but that's REALLY rare. Who wants to take on something that can chomp a crocodile in half? Dora Nichov 11:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Correct. It's so extremely rare to consider hippo having natural enemies. The hippo in question is killed because it refused to fight back the lions. --S--

What about crocs? Baby hippos I understand sometimes fall prey.

True. And I believe I have also read that lions sometimes try to kill baby hippos. But I think that in general babies of any mammal species are vulnerable to carnivorous predators. --JayHenry 21:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

And Adult male Crocdoile can kill and adult Hippo, read about Gustave.

None of the sources on the Gustave (crocodile) article actually support the claim that he could kill an adult hippo, nor that he would try. Also, please note that most of the information about Gustave comes from rumor and legend, not scientific inquiry. --JayHenry 15:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Conservation status and research

"However, the existence of these putative subspecies had not been tested by genetic analyses. A recent paper by Okello et al. (2005) does just that. " There is no genetic definition of subspecies. The subspecies concept has nothing to do with genetic distance, and therefore cannot be tested with (or discussed based on) genetic analyses. The part on the Okello paper should be removed from that context, and possibly put in a separate section discussing the population genetics or the phylogeny of the species.

Plural for Hippopotamus

You all have obviously done your homework here - and I'm no language expert - so forgive me if I ask what may sound like a silly question: Why is one of the accepted plural spellings for this creature "hippopotami" when the singular is Greek in origin? Isn't it Latin whose plurals end(ed) in [-i], not Greek?---Metanoid 05:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've always used "hippopotamuses", but I'm not sure if it's correct. Dora Nichov 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

According to this, both hippopotamuses and hippopotami are correct, just like both 'cactuses' and 'cacti' are correct. But most people, I guess, just say hippos. --Ezeu 15:54, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

According to this, only hippopotamuses is technically correct, although hippopotami is sometimes used. The correct Greek plural is hippopotamodes, but this is never used in English. I switched the spellings to hippopotamuses as this is the only spelling acceptable to all dictionaries, and is by far the most commonly used spelling ([10]). Using hippopotami as the plural of hippopotamus is a bit like using bi as the plural of bus. Rnt20 09:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

-potamuses is less common than -potami in the literature. The Askoxford link doesn't say that that "only hippopotamuses is technically correct," merely that they prefer it. This has actually been changed back and forth probably a dozen times in the last year. I don't care which we use, I just wish it would stop changing. Some people are used to one, some people to another. --JayHenry 11:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While the origin of the name is Greek, so too are many Latin words, since the Romans borrowed heavily from the Greeks. As for a correct plural, it depends upon whether the noun is second declension (in which case the plural would take -i in the nominative plural) or the fourth declension (in which case the short u would simply become a long u). I don't have a latin dictionary handy, but given that equus is a second declension noun, I think it's a fairly safe bet that so, too, is hippopotamus. Of course, that only deals with Latin--not English.--Visagrunt 17:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I have taken out the reference to "hippopotamodes" which (regardless of which language people prefer to derive the English plural from) is not a well-formed plural in Greek and is based on a spurious analogy with "octopus". The (modern) Greek plural is "ippopotamoi" in one transliteration ([11]). Pecsorin (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Relationship of hippos to whales

Research by Boisserie et. al. (2005) suggests that hippos are relatives of anthracotheriids, and that these two families, which form the clade Ancodonta, are related to cetaceans. This may suggest that hippos diverged with whales about 50 million years ago.

Boissere, J.-R., F. Lihoreau, and M. Brunet. 2005. The position of Hippopotamidae within Cetartiodactyla. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 102:1537-1541. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Hippos' buttocks

Do hippopotami have buttocks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

hippopotamus

how they live

In the water.--JayHenry 20:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean how or where? Dora Nichov 08:09, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Hippopotamus

how they live? -- In the water.

You mean how or where?

It's a crappy hippo haiku! --JayHenry 22:41, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Lol!!! Dora Nichov 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hippos are whales or even toed hoof mammals?

Well, some of us may have heard that hippos are more realted to whales. Thats true, but how much? I think I know, but I'm so sure. Probabaly 90% or 95%? Any I personsaly belive hippos showed be in the whale group, not the even toed hoof mammals. Why? Alot of reasons.

First, they have thick skin, like that of a whale's blubber. Second, look at the toes on the hippo. They're not the typical two big main hoofs you see on caows or camels, but are seperent. Third, the hippos vocie sound more of a whale.

So, that's why I think hippos are supposed to be whales

From 4444hhhh

Hippos and whales share a common ancestor, but that was about 50Mio years ago. Only because some cousins of their early ancestors evolved into whales, this does not mean they are whales too. In fact they are clearly and undoubtless toed hoof mammals. Things like thick skin is really no specific criterium to determine the relation of animals. In fact whales have only a very very thin skin, which is only about 1cm thick, the blubber is just subcutanous fat, whereas hippos have really thick skin, but comparably little fat.

"Dr. Ed Evans" and Deadliest Animal

The following sentence is a bit suspicious:

"Hippos have been known to be very defensive towards humans, and according to the paper by Dr Ed Evans, hold the title of African mammal which kills the most humans."

As far as I can tell there is no "Dr. Ed Evans" who writes about Zoology, or Africa or has ever made this claim about Hippos. The "citation" for this fact is actually the following YouTube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E51DyWl_q0c which shows a Hippo getting in a fight with a crocodile.

It's not even that cool of a video. And it's definitely not proof that Dr. Ed Evans made this claim. When I first added the quote from Smithsonian Magazine, it was after doing a lot of research for a reliable source. I had always believed that Hippos were the deadliest animal too, but this appears to be an urban legend, well, not really urban... a Savannah legend, perhaps? --JayHenry 19:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Diet besides grass

I'm surprised there's no mention of hippos eating fish in this article. One would think hippos are herbivores after reading it. I mean, come on!!!! 68.186.24.147 19:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Lili Golden

I have never read or seen a hippo eating fish, but I saw a hippo bull which ate from a carcass of a buffulo or something like that.

Hippopotamuses will scavenge from carcasses, but they're herbivores, silly! They never eat fish!!! Dora Nichov 10:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

There is a video on Youtube of hippo scavenging a buffulo. The narrator says the sometimes eat dead babies too. Search "Hippo Frightens off Lioness and devours Buffalo". Here is the link - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp-0BtK1zIk&mode=related&search=

GA nomination

I've failed the nomination, mostly based on a lack of citations (2b), a small lead (1b), and a lack of depth of coverage (3).

• The lead badly needs expanding. Per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize all aspects of the article.
• "is... one of only two extant in the family Hippopotamidae. The other members of the genus Hippopotamus are all extinct." - The last sentence there is redundant.
• The article is poorly cited. Any information that could potentially be challenged needs citations. This includes information about its physical characteristics, diet, evolutionary history, etc.
• Merge all one and two sentence paragraphs into larger ones.
• Be consistent with your citation style. each citation should contain as much information as possible about the authors, publishers, and date of publishing as possible. Also, online sources should indicate when they were last accessed.
• The reproduction section needs expansion. What kind of reproduction cycle do they have (estrous? menstrual?)? How often do they mate? Are they monogamous or polygamous? Are they born in litters? This type of information is important for an encyclopedic article on the subject. Any why is information about breathing patterns stuck in there?
• The article mentions that hippos eat grass and occasionally carrion, but one of the pictures shows it eating bananas. Clearly, it eats other plants, which should be mentioned.
• More information should also be included about the social structure, other than that they travel in pods of up to 40 and are territorial (also, that information should be combined in the same section).
• I'm sure some scientists have hypothesized about how hippos evolved, and this should also be included.

It's not a bad start, but its too brief given the vast amount of resources available about the topic. Teemu08 20:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Better structure?

In addressing the concerns of the hippopotamus GA review, I was thinking that the article needs a thorough restructuring. Perhaps something along the following lines:

• Biology and behavior
  • Physical characteristics
  • Social structure
  • Reproduction
  • Diet and feeding habits
• Ecology
  • Habitat
  • Effect on environment
  • Distribution
• Conservation status
  • Interaction with humans
• Origins of hippos
  • Taxonomy
  • Prehistoric species
• Hippos in zoos
• Hippos in popular culture

Just a general ideas for some of the topics and structure I think we should have... any thoughts? --JayHenry 02:12, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternative

If you look at Featured Articles (I've worked on a few), a general structure seems to be evolving as follows:

• Lead (2-3 paras)
• Taxonomy and naming (may include evolution as subsection, common names/origin/subspecies/classification)
• Description
• Distribution and habitat (can inculde conservation as subsection)
• Behaviour
  • Diet
  • Reproduction
  • Territoriality & danger to humans
• Hippos and humans
  • Zoos/where to see/toruism etc.
  • Pop culture

There are more along these lines if you want to follow some form of consensus, but some are not.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting. I looked through the featured articles that were about animals and didn't see anything quite that consistent, so I cobbled together the ideas that I thought made the most sense for an article about hippos. I'm fine with either option as both incorporate the same content, just in different locations. How important is it for the article to follow that structure? I'd like to eventually help make hippo into an FA and if Taxonomy needs to be the first section, we might as well start using that structure now. --JayHenry 02:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not critical by any means and one of the keys is flexibility - some critters eg Kakapo have a huge conservation issue, whereas others may have emphasis in different areas. I melded the one above over time so I like it :) Taxonomy and name sort of ended up as the 1st section after lead in a few articles (the baleen whales mainly, so we did it on a few others - I just got Common Raven and Amanita phalloides thru FAC so batted on from there). Anyway I like it as the headings seem better defined but no biggy.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Update

This article is starting to take shape nicely. Next will be to make a pop culture section with paragraphs where pop cult refs can be synthesized into something - examples include teh hippos from Fantasia, Hungry Hungry Hippos, I think there was a film called Harry the Hippo...among other things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think it's just about ready. I've submitted to WP:FAC and will work quickly to address any concerns that may arise. I'm pretty positive that with ready access to such good sources (particularly the Eltringham Hippos book), we'll be able to get this through. --JayHenry 06:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Some more sources. --JayHenry 20:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• William E. Barklow (2004). "Low-frequency sounds and amphibious communication in Hippopotamus amphibious". The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 115 (5): 2555.
• J.P. Dudley. "Reports of carnivory by the common hippo Hippopotamus Amphibius". South African Journal of Wildlife Research. 28 (2): 58–59.
• M. Clauss (2003). "The maximum attainable body size of herbivorous mammals: morphophysiological constraints on foregut, and adaptations of hindgut fermenters". Oecologia. 136 (1). {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Rebecca Lewison. "Population responses to natural and human-mediated disturbances: assessing the vulnerability of the common hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius)". African Journal of Ecology (Online Early Articles).

Notes

I was asked to take a look at this article, couple of comments:

• There doesn't seem to be a hippopotamus (disambiguation) page, and there should be, for things like The Hippopotamus and Hippopotamus Rhythm (and I suppose for the other hippopotami, if you like).
• In the intro: "The hippopotamus lives a primarily aquatic lifestyle" - I'm not sure what word should replace it, but I think lifestyle might not be the best word choice. That usually refers to people, something chosen among options.
• In the classification section: "Hippopotami have more in common..." this is a run-on sentence.
• In the evolution section: There appear to be three branches splitting there...

*In the prehistoric species section: It would be nice to know where on Madagascar the villagers spotted the Kilothingy - what village were they from?

• In conservation status: "the genetic diversity of hippos will need to be preserved" - should be reworded, as this is prescriptive.
• It'd be nice to see the discussion of poaching in the Congo better sourced; really, each sentence there should be backed up with a source. Also, the Toronto Star article link appears to be broken.
• In the behavior section: water speeds and time submerged need citations.
• The use of plural should be consistent across the entire article - either "hippopotamuses" or "hippopotami".
• In the zoo section - need a cite for info on Obaysch.
• Need cites for Huberta, Owen and Mzee. I like that you address the animal's place in general culture but that section needs more support from references.
• Some captions have periods, some don't.

Chubbles 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

One other thing - the "Skeleton" picture obscures some text. At least, it does for me (using IE, on two different machines). The top of the image overlaps with the line of text, which thereafter justifies. Not sure if anyone else is having that problem... Chubbles 05:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chubbles, thanks for all the constructive feedback. I'm working as we speak to address your concerns. The skeleton picture hadn't been causing problems on my browser, and I didn't know about that problem, but I'll move it elsewhere so it's not causing problems on yours either! I left the information about the Kilopilopitsofy location out of this article -- it seemed too specific here. The information is available at Malagasy Hippopotamus if you're just curious. But, if you think it's absolutely essential to have on this article, I can easily add it. --JayHenry 05:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right, it's better there. Chubbles 17:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rearrange article

If anyone doesn't mind, I'd like to rearrange the article to treat it with a more zoological mindset in mind. It would go something like this: Starting with anatomy, then a physiology section (nonexistent yet), then onto it's ecological roles starting with the range and distribution, then on to actual ecological subsections, then the systematic biology section with the evolutionary history right after to establish the context of the section. Human-related sections will follow. My rationales for such would be that an organismal article should start with a basic description of the said organism. I've seen too many articles on Wikipedia starting with classification and/or ecological roles before even establishing what the article subject actually is. In line with this, I propose these changes. Shrumster 12:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Shrumster the article has recently been made Featured and had alot of discussion. As a doctor I understand physiology to mean cell function so am loath to see it splattered all over biology pages with some vague meaning like description. Ditto anatomy. The description section is usually the 2nd or 3rd section in and almost always comes before ecology stuff. Maybe taking this to WP Tree Of Life or one of the subWPs is a good idea. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomic category of the hippo

The hippo has been updated taxonomically. It is now in the order Whippomorphia (spelling of this is inaccurate.) This changed occurred earlier this year.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.227.254 (talk) 11:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Hippo's Milk

Seems there is a lot of discussion about Hippo's having pink milk. Is it true?

timhoustontx@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.217.250 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Suina

Hello? Hi. I'm just finished making the article (Suina). Can someone edit it and suggest ideas to me on my userpage or on Talk:Suina? Thanks :) 4444hhhh 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)4444hhhh

Archive 1

Archive 2