Talk:Moose/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Moose. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

do the British really not say "moose"?

I'm surprised that the article seems to suggest the British don't really use the term "moose", given that "moose" is the term used in the Fawlty Towers episode "The Germans" (1975). I would assume "moose" is not all that unfamiliar a term in Britain. Can someone clarify? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 08:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure the term is probably well known in Britain by now. Language varies not only by nation, but by locality and even for individual people. However, when the British say "elk," it more than likely refers to moose rather than wapiti. Zaereth (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm from Britain. The term "moose" is a part of everyday language here, but I suspect many think it is a different animal to an elk. The term "wapiti" is, I suspect, not known by the vast majority of the British population. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Heck, the term "wapiti" is largely unknown to the North American population. oknazevad (talk) 22:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Same with Finland. I've never heard anyone mix up elks and moose. Alces alces are moose, Cervus canadensis are elk. It's misleading for the article to suggest that they're known as elk in Eurasia. 81.197.80.29 (talk) 12:51, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I think a lot of this is spillover from the disputes at the elk article, where people from the UK and Europe have been quite insistent that this animal is the “real” elk. Hasn’t been a big issue recently, but if you look at the talk page archives you can years of arguing on the subject and multiple attempts to move the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I remember it used to come up from time to time here as well, which is why I worked to expand the etymology section. (This is one of the few articles that I think needs one, along with maybe "dog", "bird", and other words without any known/explicable origin.) People often blame it on us Americans but forget that the only Americans at the time were America Natives. In all my research it appears to me that the writings of the Lewis and Clark expedition (out of Virginia), which was distributed nationwide, is what finally cemented these terms in our lexicon. (It might also be worth noting that in Proto-Germanic "elk" was also a thorny bush and a letter of their alphabet, appearing as a three-pronged trident pointing upwards, meaning "defense" and possibly representing antlers.)Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

inappropriate language

Please alter language surrounding the colonization of the Americas in the 4th paragraph of Etymology and naming. Europeans invaded and colonized America. It had been discovered and inhabited long before their arrival. Ndeavila (talk) 05:30, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the problem. I think you may be reading something into the sentence which it doesn't say. A discovery is merely something a person finds. I discovered a trail in the woods just the other day. Many other people used that trail long before I found it. The Europeans discovered America in the 1400s. The Vikings discovered it much earlier. The Phoenicians discovered it long before the Vikings, and there is even some evidence that China discovered it at one point. I don't think anyone questions that American Natives and moose discovered it first, probably around the same time as each other. The sentence is accurate. The Europeans had no knowledge of America before they stumbled upon it themselves, but they did have knowledge of moose before they began colonizing it. Zaereth (talk) 06:50, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Did St. Brendan the Navigator not discover it? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmccabe (talk • contribs) 00:59, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I support getting rid of the tired claim that Europeans "discovered" America. It is part of a long-running discourse of discounting Native Americans. That is where the usage came from, and that is what it continues to imply. Rationalizing it with tortured language does not change that it is both inaccurate and steeped in a broader context of racist revisionist history. 2601:441:4102:9010:9D6C:4BCD:C783:ED99 (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I'll add to clarify: your interpretation (Zaereth) is valid but what matters is how the majority of readers will interpret it. The message that "discover" sends to readers is that Native Americans didn't count. 2601:441:4102:9010:9D6C:4BCD:C783:ED99 (talk) 04:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

It strikes me as funny that a "majority of readers" always turns out to be one group or individual hung up on their own insecurities. Nearly all of my friends that I grew up with are Alaska Natives, who I believe count for quite a bit. A person who is insecure about themselves will always find a way to read offense into anything. That said, it looks like CambridgeBayWeather came up with a valid solution that I hope should not offend anybody. Zaereth (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Lead image of the bull

Alternative 2 (I would flip this so he moose is looking into the article)

I think we can improve on the lead image of the bull. It is woefully underexposed in the area of the bull. I have had a look at the commons and there are a couple of images which I think would be improvements. DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:00, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I suppose this is all very subjective, but I don't think either of these is better than the image currently in use. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The current image for the lede is not very sharp in focus. However, that's not very noticeable from a thumb view. What I like about it is that it shows the entire moose. It's also taken at an upward angle, giving some sense of the animal's size. Alternative 1 very sharp with a beautiful background, but the moose is lying down, so I don't think it's the best for the lede. Alt-2 is also sharp, better lighted and colorful background, but the drawback is that it only shows the front half of the animal, so I'm sort of undecided between those two, but leaning slightly toward the current pic. Zaereth (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. My main concern about the current image was about the exposure. But guess what, I just turned up the brightness on my screen and the problem goes away! I would still like to see a crisper (better focused) image and one without the distracting red flowers, but for the moment, I think I would also support the current image. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Habitat in Scandinavia

I would like to point out that the Eurasian Elk appears in very large numbers in Sweden as well, no mention of which is made in the section concerning habitat. It is the country with the most Eurasian elk in all of Northern Europe; so many that Naturvårdsverket requested the population to be halved in 2005, to protect people and trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.228.154.240 (talk) 14:14, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

What is source for this: "By the early 20th century, the very last strongholds of the European moose appeared to be in Fennoscandian areas and patchy tracts of Russia, with a few migrants found in what is now Estonia and Lithuania." Same as below, no. 34, by Schönfeld (typo there), Fiona, "Presence of moose (Alces alces) in Southeastern Germany"? I have at moment no source at hand, will look up at nearest opportunity, but from memory I can say that moose (elk) has been in Estonia and Latvia significant pest all 20th century, and not just few migrants. (They eat up parts or sometimes all re-forestation - young fir trees planted after cutting forest.) BirgittaMTh (talk) 08:19, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please find a source if you have some time to do so. I'm not familiar with European moose, but if they are anything like American moose, then they would have to be practically starving before they would eat evergreen trees. Alaskan moose may during a very bad winter, but mostly they go for the deciduous (leafy) trees and forbs. Zaereth (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Nice page.
A minor typo: burulini should be buturlini (2 places). The pages is locked ...
A lot to correct on taxonomy etc on this page. I don't have time. Here is some formal info and references.

Linguistic

Elk according to Oxford Dictionary
1. British ... another term for moose
2. North American ... another term for Wapiti

Elk according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary

a large kind of North American deer with big antlers

a European or Asian moose

Taxonomy

According to:
ITIS
Mammal Species of the World

In the genus of Alces, there are two species with each two sub species:
Alces alces
Alces alces alces
Alces alces caucasiscus
Alces americanus
Alces americanus americanus
Alces americanus cameloides

Alces alces alces synonyms
aces (Shaw, 1801)
albes (Bowdich, 1821)
alce (Boddaert, 1785)
angusticephalus Zukowsky, 1915
antiquorum Rüppell, 1842
europaeus Burnett, 1830
jubatus Fitzinger, 1860
machlis Ogilby, 1837
malchis Gray, 1850
palmatus Gray, 1843
platycephalus Pusch, 1840
resupinatus Rouillier, 1842
tymensis Zukowsky, 1915
typicus Ward, 1910
uralensis Matschie, 1913
vulgaris de Serres, 1835

Alces alces caucasicus synonyms
<none>

Alces americanus americanus synonyms
andersoni Peterson, 1950
buturlini Chernyavsky and Zhelesnov, 1982
columbae Lydekker, 1915
gigas Miller, 1899
lobatus (Agassiz, 1846)
meridionalis Matschie, 1913
muswa Richardson, 1852
pfizenmayeri Zukowsky, 1910
shirasi Nelson, 1914
yakutskensis Millais, 1911

Alces alces cameloides synonyms
bedfordiae Lydekker, 1902
~~you are correct. There are 2 species and there are solid secondary sources to back that up. I briefly fought that battle a few years back and yet here we are.

Wikipedia is not the place to fight battles. Those who come with a combative attitude have poor luck compared to those who work collaboratively. I remember such a battle a few years back, which was sad because only one person was battling and everyone else was trying to help them. All knowledge is self-knowledge and all conflict reflects our own insecurities. Sometimes we stand in our own way, some battles we create for ourselves, and sometimes we become our own worst enemy. (It's hard to win an argument when no one argues back.) Zaereth (talk) 07:49, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

suggestion

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I find the following badly worded.

They either assess which is larger, with the smaller bull retreating, or they may engage in battles, usually only involving the antlers.

Alternative suggestion:

A smaller bull may retreat after judging the opponent or they may engage in battle to test strength. These battles usually only involve the antlers and generally do not result in bodily injury. --198.103.184.76

Your suggestion is better in grammatical structure, but is omitting some information and assuming others. It is unclear why a smaller bull would retreat and what their judging the opponent for, and battles often do result in injury. Of course these are often limited to the face, but it's not unusual to see moose with battle scars. It is also not unusual for the antlers to become locked together to the point that the moose cannot separate themselves, which is fatal to both. Zaereth (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the section. Hopefully these are improvements. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

I think they are definitely improvements. Thanks. I don't have access to all the sources, but I'm willing to bet that they specifically refer to size. It's well documented that their assessment of dominance is based upon size and, primarily, the size of their antlers. I think it's an important detail, and could probably be easily worked in using just a few words. (ie: Initially, the males assess which of them is dominant based on size and the smaller bull may retreat... or something like that.) What do you think? Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In most animal interactions such as this, mating priority is based on several variables such as (vocalisations) roaring, (displays) pawing the ground, and of course size. I have not looked at the source, but unless it specifically states the bulls assess size, it would be inaccurate for us to write this. DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

According to Valerius Geist (Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology), unlike most other deer such as odocoileus, dominance displays are fairly rare for moose. Those that are equally matched will generally battle while younger, smaller bulls that are obviously unmatched generally watch and imitate the larger bulls. They may approach like they are going to battle but quickly retreat at the sign of real threat. The antlers are a sign of prowess and social status and are used primarily for mating battles and to attract females. However, although the battles are fascinating spectacles for the girls, a female can choose any male she likes, and that is not always the winner. Zaereth (talk) 21:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem to have access to a reliable source so why not edit the article to reflect the content. Be bold. DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:24, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

The idea originally was to engage the IP in conversation, in the remote hope of attracting a new user. They obviously had good ideas and intentions, but the grammatical change also changed the meaning of (what I assumed based on other sources was) sourced information. Ideally, they'd suggest a solution, see their changes go into the article and feel good enough to join. If I ever get a chance to get out of here and take lunch, perhaps I'll dig up some page numbers and do a little expanding. Zaereth (talk) 23:12, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. Hopefully, the IP will be reading these messages and will feel comfortable about editing here and at other articles. DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:20, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

White moose

Surprisingly, the article contains nothing on the white variant moose. This thing recently gained celebrity status, but that's no reason not to incorporate it into the article. Reliable source: [1]. --Viennese Waltz 13:53, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Tagged and bagged! See the photo in the "as food" section of this article. If you have sources, please feel free to add some information about it. Keep in mind that we should be adding info about white moose in general, not simply about some video that is going viral or something. A quick search of google indicates that some people seem to think it's just an albino, while other say a genetic anomaly, and yet others suggest perhaps a new subspecies. In other words, perhaps a genetic anomaly that has benefits in terms of natural selection.) It would be interesting to know which is correct. Zaereth (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand the first part of your response. There is no photo of the white moose in the "as food" section of the article. Anyway, my reason for posting here was in the hope that someone else will add referenced information about it. I won't be doing so myself. --Viennese Waltz 07:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

What's a moose?

The moose is the largest extant species in the deer biological family.

Animal, mineral or vegetable: Do I know a moose is an animal? (well, since it must be something like a deer, I may suppose it is, but it isn't exactly said). Do I know a moose is a mammal? How about a BIG mammal? 'largest' could mean most individuals. The largest member of the shrew family wouldn't be a BIG animal. How about an antlered animal? Not said. An animal with antlers is probably a pretty big animal.

biological family is mostly noise words; most non-biologists won't have a clear notion of what the biological classification 'family' is; we don't need to know that a moose is a member of some family, because most living things are. The deer analogy is limited - a moose is a whole lot more massive than a deer.

extant species goes under taxonomy - if something is extinct, it's notable so we say it. So the animal is extant by default. Saying that it's a species without first noting it's an animal just seems like the wrong emphasis.

How about an opening sentence: A moose is a big antlered animal? The first time you have a close encounter with a moose, you think "I could get trampled! (because it's BIG) or "I could get gored! (because it has antlers). We could also say, A moose is a big antlered mammal. More precise, but not more informative. Or A moose is a big antlered herbivore. (It doesn't want to eat us). Or even more informative, A moose is a big antlered ungulate, so now it's an herbivore with hooves; but that's more abstruse, because the man-in-the-street probably doesn't know what 'ungulate' means. It's not necessary to be precise, but it is necessary to be descriptive. A moose is a rather distinctive "thing", so it shouldn't be too hard. So we get A moose is a large hooved animal with antlers related to deer. A moose is in a tribe of its own; it's not so clear that it's 'closely related' to deer, but good enough; taxonomy will clarify it's familial relationships.

Sbalfour (talk) 22:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

A moose is a large hooved animal with antlers related to deer. The problem with this sentence is it has two meanings, depending on how you look at it. It can mean either, "The moose is a large, hooved animal with antlers. The moose is related to deer." or it can mean, "The moose is a large, hooved animal. The moose's antlers are related to deer." So, it's a little more complicated. It's a good idea to consider the target audience. If we were describing a moose to aliens from another galaxy, our description would need to be extremely detailed to give them some understanding. If talking to a general audience of humans, we can assume they have some background knowledge of what certain animals are. There is a danger in being too simplistic, because then it seems to the reader like they're being "talked-down" to.

It's hard to forget taxonomy, because that's the very basis of how the human mind categorizes all things; it's hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala.

What classifies a moose as a moose? It's an animal. It's bears live young and produces milk (mammal). It's quadrupedal. It's a ruminant. That narrows it down to a wide variety of animals, but most have hooves (ungulate). It has a cloven hoof (artiodactyl). It has antlers (bone) instead of horns (keratin, or fingernail material), and annually sheds them. That narrows it down even further; now we know it's a type of deer (cervidae). As you said, it's big; comparable in size to buffalo, brown bears, and rhinos. Of the cloven-hooved ruminants that shed their antlers (or "deer") the moose is by far the largest.

The lede is for everyone, including children, so it should be understandable to a sixth-grader, yet also be written for adults as well. It's important not to talk-down to the reader in a condescending way. Most readers, for instance, from the sixth grade and beyond have a pretty good understanding of what differentiates a deer from other animals, vegetables, or minerals. So how do we condense all of that into one, simple, opening sentence that concisely yet precisely defines the subject in the fewest words possible? I think what we have seems to touch on all the major points in a way a general audience can understand. However, if you would like to try improving it you are welcome to give it a shot and edit the article yourself. If it works then great. If for some reason it doesn't, I'm sure someone will come along and fix it. Zaereth (talk) 23:09, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Moose. 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) 21:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2018

This edit request to Moose has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would like to suggest http://what-do-animals-eat.com/moose/ as an additional reference under Moose Diet. Daniel Koepf (talk) 09:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Not done: Per: WP:LINKNO Spintendo ᔦᔭ 11:45, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 January 2018

This edit request to Moose has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the "Subspecies" table of the "Populations" section, change "A. a. burulini" to "A. a. buturlini". This also applies to the final sentence of the "Europe and Asia" subsection of "Habitat, range and distribution".

If needed, some sources to support this spelling include:

The ICUN red list page (linked in the page's own taxon bar): [2]
Safari Club International Online Record Book: [3] (also includes authority and etymology; named after S. A. Buturlin)
The Wildlife Museum: [4] (again includes authority and etymology)

There may be more sources (reliable or otherwise) I missed, though google books results also seem to support it. "burulini" on the other hand I don't see where it came from; first instance it may have been on Wikipedia altogether was this edit in June 2013: [5]. The source used for the subspecies then is now permanently dead (archive.org gave me nothing), so I can't check it. The List of mammals of Russia and Kamchatka Peninsula pages both added the subspecies at a later date with no source at all, perhaps copying this page. Best I can guess is that the original instance was a typo?

Sorry if a block of text like this for an edit request is unusual, I just want to make it clear why I'm suggesting this change. 82.9.105.98 (talk) 04:36, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Done Stickee (talk) 06:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Merge Moose attacks article here?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Unless there are plans for a massive expansion of this article, I don’t see why what little content it has can’t or shouldn’t be merged witht he existing section on aggression and/or relationship with humans. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:18, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Beeblebrox: once, I have the time, I do plan to dramatically expand this article, in a similar fashion of Bear attacks. Moose attacks are frequently mentioned in various wilderness manuals. :Furthermore, they often make the news in various stories.

Postscript

I feel like we’ve been had. The article was expanded, but mostly with content about moose/vehicle collisions, which obviously are not moose attacks. Vehicle collisions are already covered pretty thoroughly here, so we’re duplicating our coverage of that subject in order to rationalize keeping an article that still actually says almost nothing that this article does not. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree. Some things are duplicated word-for-word from here. I've seen moose attack a car, but really just charging at the terrified occupants inside that pissed it off. I've even heard of them "attacking" trains during the rut, but I've never heard of one attacking a speeding automobile in some sort of suicide, kamikaze mission.

The article starts out fine in the first paragraph but then fizzles out from there. An encyclopedia is about things, but should not be a collection of trivia and lists of every moose attack that occurred. I don't see how far such an article can go on its own; it seems like just an unnecessary fork to me. I mean, I would expect such an article to describe what a moose attack is, where and when they attack, and how they attack. As a finale, why they attack. I'm sure there is likely enough info out there to build a decent article if one wants to scour through biology books, but as it stands it doesn't say anything different from what is already here. Worse yet, it gives a very misleading impression of what a moose attack really is. Zaereth (talk) 00:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I’m goint to re-introduce the merge tags as that reticle doesn’t seem to be going anywhere not already covered better here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:22, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Done Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Merge Moose attacks here redux

As discussed above the promised expansion and improvement of that article consisted of adding more content on vehicle collisions, which are not moose attacks, they are car accidents. As such, the subject is already covered well here. If we remove the content on car accidents it would go back to almost nothing. Not saying it is impossible to write an article on moose attacks, but the one we have now isn’t it and the promised improvements were more of a mirage. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, it seems the enthusiasm for that article has dried up, as such I have redirected it back here. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Moose. 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) 10:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Fact check: However, like all ungulates known to attack predators, the more aggressive individuals are always darker in color.[91]

Can anyone check this source? This sounds like a very odd claim; possibly tampered sentence? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It says it right there in the source by Valerius Geist, on page 237. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I might add that it seemed like an odd comment to me too, but who am I to argue with the world-renowned deer-expert Dr. Geist. The oddity of it made it seem interesting enough to add to the article. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That is weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Range:

The range in the lower 48 states is listed as "New England", but Rocky Mtn states are not. I'm not a moose biologist but do believe that they are common in Wyoming and perhaps other Rocky Mtn states? 156.33.241.37 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As always, we must go with what realible sources on the subject say. If you have one that backs this assertion, by all means add it to that section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Björklöv

"While there has been documented cases of individual moose being used for riding and/or pulling carts and sleds, Björklöv concludes no wide-scale usage has occurred outside fairytales." That's nice for Björklöv. In what way is this relevant or significant? No other mention of this Björklöv is given, and it isn't explained why his/her say-so has any value at all. It's a random name and nothing more. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell you his (or her) importance other than being the author of the source. I can't read the source since its in Swedish, but, since the paragraph is about Sweden, I guess I'm willing to take his word for it. (I think a more plausible explanation is found in the "diet" section of this article, however. One of the greatest and little studied inventions in the world was the storing and stockpiling of hay, a cheap food for livestock that grows fast and keeps well through the winter. It didn't exist during the time of the Greeks and Romans, people just let their animals graze, but appeared sometime before the middle ages. Unfortunately, not all ruminants can digest it.) Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. It's a random name, with no introduction. "X conclude that..." There is no mention of any research, there is no introduction of this person, nothing. If it had been "research indicate that", sure. But you could just as easily have replaced that name with "Mary, Queen of Scots" or "Donald Trump" or any other. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you've never herd of him doesn't mean the info is not valid. I did some searching. Sune Bjorklov was an author, political advisor, PhD, etc... He is very well known is Sweden. The source is a snippet from one of his books, Älgen in our history and everyday life. In the book he details the historical attempts to domesticate moose in the 18th century, during the reign of Karl IX. There were apparently a lot of rumors about using moose in place of horses, rumors which were exaggerated over time. In his book he quite thoroughly examines those rumors and the real historical context and information, concluding that they were just that, old rumors and wives tales. He notes that there are farms that raise moose for food and milk, stating: "In the Pechero-Illycher reserve in the northern Ural Mountains there is an elk farm where about 450 animals under five moose generations are domesticated for milking and meat production. On the other hand, [they] have not been successful in dressing any moose to do a heavier utility job. If that were the case, our ancestors would have used that opportunity a long time ago."

I translate from "Djurens Värld" by B. Hanström 1972, vol 14 p. 229 f. "Karl XI [reigned 1655-1697] used moose riders as couriers, and the royal family sometimes travelled in a moose-sleigh". Attempts to use moose pulling a sleigh during the 1950s failed, as the moose would not hear/understand/obey commands, and because they would stop very frequently to feed on bark. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.147.242 (talk) 17:37, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessary that all sources be English or all experts be famous in English-speaking countries. A few minutes on google can usually clear it up. Zaereth (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see. First and foremost, there is no indication that the text is by this Sune. At all. It's a name, nothing more. The argument that the info isn't valid is null. That isn't the point. The point is that the info is attributed to a nebulous "Björklöv" without making any points about who that is or why this person is any sort of authority. That he was Swedish, and not native English isn't really relevant. I wouldn't take the word of "Smith" or "Petersen" or anyone else either, be they Swedish, English, Japanese or from the deepest dark of Africa, based just on their name. And finally, "He is very well known is Sweden." No. He is, and was, not "well known", except maybe by people deeply interested in Swedish wildlife, and even that would be doubtful. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There most certainly is. Take a look at the source. To those who don't know, Valerius Geist is just a name, but we mention him in this article. For those who do a little research, you find that Geist is a well-known expert in the field. Same with Adrian Lister or Augusto Azzaroli, also mentioned in this article. It's not uncommon to use an author of the source's name in the text to attribute the information to them --especially in matters of opinion-- such as this line from the BFM article, "According to author Mike Spick, "Disengagement from a vertical rolling scissors is best made with a split-s and a lot of hope."" Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I might also add, for your assistance, that over 50% of the most common words we use in English everyday are Scandinavian, so, etymologically speaking, Swedish and English are even more identical than English and French. It's fairly easy to parse through, but because of this google-translate is actually able to give a really good translation of the sources and background info. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the argument you try to apply is not only complete nonsense, it's also completely and utterly irrelevant, in several ways? That's not a good sign. How about you try and address the point at hand, that a name with no more information isn't a source or an authority? That "Björklöv" says something on the subject of moose is no more authoritative than "Robinson" would be speaking about practically any subject you care to name. He isn't well known IN Sweden, much less OUTSIDE of it, except PERHAPS to people studying the subject of native Swedish wildlife, and even that would be a stretch. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your beginning assertion is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity, followed by argumentum ex silentio.

Wikipedia works by citing information found in reliable sources. In matters of opinion, Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view by attributing those opinions to somebody specific. In this case it is the author of the source. If you disagree with the opinion, that is your perogative. The opinion is well sourced and you've provided no reason why it should be removed other than "I don't believe it." If you believe the name should be removed because you personally don't think he is worthy of being named (perhaps because the name just looks strange to English speakers, you've provided no other reason than what appears obvious) then that leaves the opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and we can't have that either. Either way, you're going to need to give a better demonstration of why it should not be included. Zaereth (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sune Björklöf (note the spelling!) was an economist who worked in the public sector (as director of a major hospital, among other things). His PhD was in industrial economics. His writings on folklore and culture are probably well worth reading and I do not doubt that he based it on thorough studies of existing research on the subject, but he was not actually a historian. (I know this because I have read his obituary and reviews of his books for the purpose of participating in this discussion - I had not heard his name before, and I can't really find anything that suggests he was a well-known person in Sweden.) That being said, the claim that moose have never been domesticated on a larger scale is factual and well-attested, it is not difficult to find sources for it, and I believe Björklöfs book could be one such source - it is a hefty tome and according to reviews it is well-researched if a bit dry and boring for a popular scientific work. I notice that an unusually large number of university libraries in Sweden have it in their catalogues, which is a good sign. (It is late and I have to get up early tomorrow but if necessary I can dig up a couple of good sources later.) I wouldn't phrase it in terms of "only in fairytales", but maybe that's just me. --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP about the need to rewrite the sentence a little. Using a last name in that way without any introduction would only work with someone like Einstein - even most Nobel Prize winners would need some kind of introduction/attribution. In this case I see no need to mention him by name at all; the article in the reference is a nice and factual summary of existing research, and so a phrasing like "there is no evidence for any wide-scale use" instead of the clause starting with "Björklöf concludes..." would work, I believe. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I was interpreting the IPs problem, they either disagreed with the statement or disliked the name, or both. In reading your statements, perhaps I was misinterpreting the IP. My general point was that there needed to be attribution of the line. It would make sense to add more information about who he is, if that's what the IP was aiming for. I have no problem with rephrasing it or even removing it entirely on the grounds you state. Expressed as an opinion, it does need an attribution, but ignoring the opinion in the source and summarizing the factual information, like you suggest, may just be a better way. It might be worthwhile to keep clear that (although it likely applies worldwide) his book is only about the moose in Swedish history and does not get into other countries. Zaereth (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Habitat

Added section on habitat to put in context the discussion later in article about heat stress. Also added this citation of trade offs in selection of habitat by moose: Dussault, Christian, Jean‐Pierre Ouellet, Réhaume Courtois, Jean Huot, Laurier Breton, and Hélène Jolicoeur. "Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors." Ecography 28, no. 5 (2005): 619-628. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks really good. Very professional. Thanks for your help in improving this article. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Diving moose

Is there better evidence that moose dive deep into water? It seems plausible that a fat-depleted moose at end-of-winter might be able to dive. However, moose with high fat stores float high in the water. I'm skeptical that a well-fattened moose could dive much beyond a few feet deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond having seen it myself, is there better evidence than the world-renowned deer expert Dr. Valerius Geist? I might also add that there is not much fat on a moose, most of their insulation comes from their coat, in which the thick hairs are hollow. If you've never eaten it, it's extremely lean meat with no marbling whatsoever. (In fact, to make moose burger you have to add pork or beef suet (ground fat) or it will fall apart when you cook it.)Zaereth (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I use eggs to hold my moose loaf in one piece, keeps it moist too. I ran across this unfortunate fella in the Kasilof River last year. Best guess is he fell through thin ice and was insufficiently buoyant to escape. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Good photo. My brother has one of two moose floating down the river with the antlers locked together. That's a good point, though. Many animals with very high fat stores can dive with ease, for example a seal (which is really just a dog with flippers) or dolphins and whales (evolved from horses). They have thick layers or fat and blubber, yet it doesn't seem to affect buoyancy all that much. Zaereth (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge visitor’s center actually has the skulls of two bulls who died that way on display. Next time I’m up that way I’ll try to try remember to stop in and snap a photo. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would make a good photo. I can't use my brother's (which is not just the skulls, and frankly kinda disturbing and gory). You know, I walked right upon one giving birth several weeks ago, but didn't have time to take out my camera. (Barely had time to turn my troop of German Shepherds around and hightail it outta there.) Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Its clear that moose browse on plants that grow on the bottom of streams or ponds. They do this while wading or by shallow diving. What I'm asking is about the evidence for deep diving. Does Geist document deep diving?Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of a moose diving at all. They usually just wade in, their long legs and necks allow them to walk into water several feet deep and just lean down with their nostrils closed (they can do that for exactly this reason) and eat plants directly off the bottom. This may be my original research, but every time I’ve seen a moose in deeper water it was swimming with its head out of the water. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Geist doesn't go into any great detail. The book basically says just what is in the article (phrased differently, of course). It's like seeing a moose stand upright on its hind legs. It doesn't happen often, but when they get the notion, they can do it with ease. (And it's an impressive sight; if you think they look big on four legs...)

This is my OR, for your personal benefit. Moose are good swimmers, and have even been spotted in the ocean, swimming to or from some island presumably. But their usual hang-outs are swamps, marshes, spruce bogs, lakes and rivers. So, no, I seriously doubt they go very deep. What I've seen is similar to what they do when they stand upright. They'll be feeding from underwater plants, slowly reaching out farther and farther from shore. Then (I guess spotting something it likes or thinks would be easy enough to get rather than abandoning its spot just yet), "bloop" it just goes under, coming back up a couple minutes later a much farther distance out from where it went in. Then it will typically swim back to shore and move to a new spot. Zaereth (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Neat. I saw two of them stand up and “kangaroo box” for a few seconds once, it was a hell of a sight. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Moose hooves

Anybody have a public domain picture of the moose hoof? I'm looking for a multi-image photo that shows the dorsal view, the medial view, the lateral view, and the sole view. I've found a bunch, but none of them appear to be public domain. Also, any of you with hunting or photo stalking of moose want to opine on the hooves and prints info I added? Thanks! Sbelknap (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is no good as it is mostly self-published websites and blogs. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I think our university library has a copy of an old book about feet and footprints. I don't recall the title. I'll track it down and get better cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can find it, the journal Alces is the gold standard for biological information about moose. Maybe somebody watching has one of those free Highbeam Research accounts and can access it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting information about times of moose activity

In the section "Social structure and reproduction", it is said that moose are diurnal (active during the day). The section "Vehicle collisions" cites the Newfoundland Transportation dept, which claims that "The majority of accidents occur between dusk and dawn. This is the time when driver visibility is severely limited by darkness, and when moose are most active." (emphasis mine). Should we address this disagreement somewhere?

The citation (currently #155) can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080513202718/http://www.roads.gov.nl.ca/moose.htm --Jmlpgh (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, moose are not nocturnal, meaning they like to bed down somewhere and sleep for the night. However, being prey animals, moose are very leery about coming out of forest cover, where there is a lot of underbrush and other obstacles to predators (the reason moose have such long, spindly-looking legs), during the hours of broad daylight. So, while I would describe them as diurnal, I would also say that they're most active (most "on the move") during the twilight hours of dusk and dawn, when they can still see but it's harder for predators to see them, because that's when you're most likely to see them darting out from one cover to reach another, which often takes them across roadways. (So in that case their natural defense becomes more of a liability.) As I recall, you can find this info in Valerius Geist's book, Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology. Zaereth (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying that a moose's day is not especially active, as they often move very sloth-like, leisurely browsing and expending very little energy. Surprisingly quick and agile when provoked, when no predators are around, they're pretty much the kings and everyone else better damn well step aside. (As I heard a mother once asking her child, where does moose go? "Where ever moose wants." What does moose eat? "Whatever moose wants.") They may often take naps in the day, or if in an area where predators abound, they may just lie in the forest and wait until everybody leaves. (There is a number of them who will do just that at the local dog park, patiently awaiting access to the lake.) They're not territorial, but they tend to roam in the same circles (which can cover as much as a hundred miles), so you see the same ones in the same places about the same times every year, but they do most of their traveling (thus expend most of their energy) under the cover of darkness. Zaereth (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Calves stay with cows until estrus

I was hoping to find a good secondary reference for this. I modified the text in the lede to cover cow/calf relations, but we need something in the body of the article as well. We could add something old (1950s), but most of what I see published doesn't seem grounded in systematic observation. Does anybody have a high-quality secondary reference?

I don't know if that's quite right. Moose rut in the fall, which is when the cow is in proestrus (the deer version of menstruation). They breed once the cow goes into estrus (heat) shortly thereafter. After that is anestrus (normal state), in which the moose remains until the following fall.

Calves are born in the spring, and are pretty much full grown by winter. (Amazingly fast growth for such a large animal, but it's needed to survive the winter.) They winter with their mothers, likely to learn foraging habits, the routes she takes and familiar areas with lots of cover and escape routes. There has been quite a bit written about the extremely strong bond between mother and calf. (In fact, as I recall, calves raised in captivity form such a strong bond to the human handlers that it is like imprinting, and they can become very distressed if separated from their human "mothers". This bond can become so strong, especially with females (and especially if they've been handle or milked by the same handler over long periods of time), that later in life they may reject other moose sexually in favor of humans.)

A moose will generally drive away her calves when she reaches the time to give birth. At this point she will become very aggressive toward other moose, including her young (not to mention dogs and people) and will drive her calves away. The calves usually don't stray too far, though, at first, and if mother fails to give birth she may tolerate their presence for another year, but never more than two. Female calves may stick around that long, but rarely males. Once she gives birth in the spring it's game over, and she get's really mean and won't tolerate them anymore; they suddenly become a potential threat.

I could list a few sources, like The Importance of the Cow-calf Bond to Overwinter Moose Calf Survival by Marilyn Sigman, but most of them cite Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology, by Valrius Geist, so I would recommend starting there. (Somewhere around page 250 or so, as I recall.) Zaereth (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Plural form

"The fact that the word was a loanword borrowed after Middle English's Great Vowel Shift was determinative in its highly irregular plural form, which is also moose (as in, "Nine angry moose are chasing me right now")."

I removed this sentence because, as another user pointed out, it was not found in the cited source. It also sounded fishy to me, because the Great Vowel Shift had little to do with pluralization. The GVS took place in the Middle Ages, and concerns a shift in the way vowels were pronounced. Prior to the shift most vowels were long, but afterward many shifted to short vowels. Thus led was pronounced "leed". The plural form lede was pronounced "leedee". In some cases like this (especially with verbs) the singular became the short sound and the plural the long, but in other cases, such as child/children, the opposite occurred. However, "moose" entered English long after the GVS.

English came from the Germanic languages of the Angles and the Saxons. In Old English there were five different suffixes that could denote a plural word, each having a slightly different inflection. These were -a, -an, -as, -ar, and -u. Thus, "led" was pluralized as leda, which became lede, and eventually morphed into "lead". Steorr (star) was pluralized as steorran, which became steorren, morphing into steorres, and finally dropping the "e" to form "stars. Likewise, childr was pluralized as childru and eventually became "children".

Then the Normans (French) conquered the land, and frankly did their best to squash the Germanic from the language. The French had many suffixes to denote plural words as well, but many of these were silent, so, while spelled differently, the words were pronounced exactly the same as the singular form. This tradition carried over to many English words. In Old English you would say "I love" but "they loven". "I caught five fishen." or "I saw eight deeren when walking through the wild." Most of these suffixes were dropped during the Norman conquest, so the plural of "wolverine" is "wolverine", the plural of "deer" is "deer", and the plural of "elk" is "elk". (The suffixes were at first replaced with the letter "Ø" to denote a silent suffix, but then were eventually dropped altogether.) This tradition was likely just passed along to "moose" when it entered English.

There really is no reason or rhyme to how this all turned out. There are no "rules" that anyone can devise to make some sense of it. The Old English -an eventually morphed into today's "-es" and "-s", which became the primary method of pluralization, but these other so-called "irregular" (not "highly irregular") suffixes still exist in English --even in modern words like Kelvin or Torr. (What happened is that English changed from a highly synthetic language, relying heavily on prefixes and suffixes (similar to German, Welsh, or Tlinkit), and became a highly analytic language, like Chinese, in which suffixes and other morphemes were dropped and the inflection is determined by analyzing the context.) Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We do the same with the plural of deer, reindeer, elk and caribou so I propose that the real reason is that it's a deer. Seriously though, I think you could've stopped at "not found in the cited source" and "sounds fishy". Seems like classic WP:SYNTH. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That part, about the word "moose" in specific, is exactly what I said. It's not synth at all but pure speculation on both our parts, which is why I phrased it as I did. ((eg: It's not found in any source.) The rest on the etymology and morphology of the English language (which I included as a reason why it sounded fishy, but only for those who are interested) is easily sourced. See, for example, the book A History of the English Language. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Elk?

Elk are a seperate species, in my experience Eurasians don't refer to moose as elk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETBA1999 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a mystery, ain't it? Come to think of it, I think I read something about that in this very article, just a little further past the first sentence. Try the section called "etymology and naming". Zaereth (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Name Change from Moose to Alces

In the French entry–where there is a moose/elk (orignal/élan) naming issue–the solution they used was an italicised Alces as the title of the page. This makes sense to me for English as well, especially as they are known as Alces Alces and having "Moose" be the title is a bit unfair to "Elk"-sayers, no? (Danachos (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, missed this comment at the time, but I'm gonna go with WP:COMMONNAME on that. I would suggest that millions and millions of English-speaking people recognize this animal as a moose, even if they might also know it as an elk. I don't see anything inherently unfair about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

"Elk" is actually technically the correct name for the animal in English even if "moose" (which is not an English word) is commonly used. Shouldn't this article use the correct name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isenhand (talk • contribs)

Says who? According to that logic, technically, "hund" is the correct English word for dogs. The word "dog" is a made-up word, that just mysteriously appeared, and has no cognates in any languages. "Dog" was originally a specific breed of hund. So, shouldn't we rename the dog article "hund"?

Very little of English actually comes from the Angles. Almost none comes from the natives of ancient England. English is a language that borrows words from other languages like no other. It doesn't just borrow words, but shapes them, and molds them, and beats them into submission.

That's what I mean when I say language changes in illogical and unpredictable ways. For example, gear originally meant "habits and mannerisms". It was only about a hundred years ago it came to mean "a wheel with interlocking teeth". We drive on parkways and park in driveways. Tidal waves have nothing to do with the tide. Like "dog", "bird" is another word that just materialized out of thin air. Elk was the correct word for moose, but now refers to an entirely different animal, and this is a very good example of how language changes. No, I would leave it like it is. Zaereth (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

All that. Saying it's "technically the correct name" without the slightest hint of why that would be is not at all persuasive. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

If it helps, the particular flaw in this logic is called etymological fallacy. I could have just said that, but sometimes I find a few metaphors and analogies help drive the point home better than a link nobody will click. I find this same sort of thing happens all the time, for example on articles like alloy steel or alloy wheel, where people complain that, "technically", steel is also an alloy. Eventually, I found it easiest just to explain in the alloy article that, a hundred years ago, steel wasn't considered one. The language itself may take a long time to catch up to the science, or it may never. In the glass article, we had a devil of a time explaining the differences between the technical (scientific) definition from the general one, and the same problem occurred with phosphorescence. What's common is correct. Zaereth (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

And we still say we are "taping" something when pretty much nobody uses magnetic tape anymore. Language is funky. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:13, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Interestingly (to me, at least) is that these are all used as classic examples of language morphology by people like the Oxford English Department, with "dog/hound" and "moose/elk" being prime examples of how words can completely reverse their meanings. It sure is funky, as in, far out! Too cool. Bad ass. Gnarly... Zaereth (talk) 23:44, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

edit request

Page is locked. I would like to suggest rewriting part of the etymology section because it is currently confusing.

When the British began colonizing America in the 17th century, they found two common species of deer for which they had no names.

The wapiti (Cervus canadensis) appeared very similar to the red deer of Europe [11] (which itself was almost extinct in Southern Britain) although it was much larger and was not red.[8] The name wapiti is an Algonquian indigenous name.

The moose was a rather strange-looking deer to the colonists, resembling the "German elk" (the moose of continental Europe). This was, however, less familiar to the British colonists.

For a long time neither species had an official name, but were called a variety of things. Early European explorers in North America, particularly in Virginia where there were no moose, called the wapiti "elk" because of its size and resemblance to familiar-looking deer. In the early days of colonization, the two species were often distinguished as gray moose for the wapiti and black moose for the moose. However, early accounts of the animals varied wildly, adding to the confusion.[10]

Eventually, in North America the wapiti became known as an elk while the moose retained its Anglicized Native-American name.[11]

59.153.115.205 (talk) 07:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Two Species

I'm curious why the article treats Eurasian and American moose as one species? Here are secondary sources that make the distinction clear: https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/united-states-and-canada/canadian-physical-geography/moose https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180702#null It's misleading as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:C600:EA51:CD1C:A32E:5E49:78D6 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a complicated issue, so bear with me here. Taxonomy is a highly subjective science, and classifications tend to vary dramatically, depending upon which scientist is making those classifications. It's all about deciding which minute traits are more similar than not, and where to draw the line between the subtle differences. There were huge debates upon which fossil species should be classified as Libralces (Literally: free moose) or Cervalces (stag moose). These differences were based more upon size than anything else. Other scientists felt these differences were too minute in comparison to the fundamental similarities (especially those of the skull and teeth) that they should all be classified under Alces (plural, Alcinae). For example, Augusto Azzaroli was a proponent of the former while Adrian Lister a proponent of the latter.

When reading books you can find them classified as any, either or all of these things, so Wikipedia should make that known. Usually these things are decided by a handful of thorough experts in their particular field who often disagree adamantly.

For the purposes of drafting legal documents, to maintain consistent and clearly defined language within those documents (avoiding ambiguity in a court of law), it became necessary for countries like the US to form boards such as the ITIS. These are not boards of scientists but lawyers, taking the words of people like Lister and Azzaroli and turning those into legalese. These classifications are more country-specific than scientist-specific, but it became necessary when it comes to drafting laws or contracts and settling disputes.

Unfortunately, ITIS is a primary source, and most of Wikipedia is built using secondary sources (often written by scientists or people covering their work), many of which predate the changes in the legalese definitions. Not to say that primary sources can't be used, they can, but should be in conjunction with secondary sources that back them up. This has been brought up before, but the last person was only intent on changing the lede and leaving the rest of the article so it didn't match. If you want to change the article to match the current ITIS classification, you are welcome, but be sure to use RSes and change the whole article to match. Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, bear with you I will. Thank you for a thorough explanation of moose; taxonomy; scientific consensus; and the way Wikipedia works. IUCN, itself an important source of taxonomic information, comes down on the single species side but provides valuable sources on each side of the debate. What a fascinating we are as we debate the finer points of classification of another fascinating species. Thank you again! https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/56003281/22157381#taxonomy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.216 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think a valid solution is to simply add a section on taxonomy, explaining all of this ... that is, if anyone feels up to it. Zaereth (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(restarting indentation) According to mitochondrial DNA, moose around the world are a single species, whose oldest populations are in eastern Asia.^[1] More on moose evolution and migration would be a good addition to the article. I got interested in this because several articles about winter ticks mention that moose have not had time, in their 15,000 years in the Western Hemisphere, to evolve strategies to cope with these ticks. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that when I get a little more time. Is this saying that all moose originated in Asia, or that all American moose originated in Asia? The latter makes more sense to me, since modern moose are thought to have crossed the Bering land bridge about 15,000 years ago or so (Cervalces scotti much earlier), but from what I've read the oldest relative fossils were found in France and date to about 2,000,000 years ago. I think that would be good info to add to the paleontology section, once I know how it all fits in. (I find evolution to be fascinating. In the 25,000 years dogs have been with humans, they have evolved into one of the most diverse species ever to exist, tailored to some specific job or another, yet they're all classified as one species).

Taxonomy, on the other hand, has little to do with DNA (so far). It's all about deciding which physical traits and features more resemble each other than not. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, which acts as a filter of information before storing it as memories in the hippocampus, (ie: when walking through a forest you don't remember every single tree, your mind simply categorizes them as generic "spruce trees" or "birch trees", etc... This can also be the neurology leading to psychological phenomenon of racism, prejudice and stereotyping; all forms of categorization.) The problem, as I see it, is that we have many different sources that categorize both modern moose and their ancestors differently, so no matter what we do, people will come here and say, "that's not what I read". If we simply add a section showing: at one point they were categorized this way, then like that, and now like this in the US but like that in other countries..., then it would be less confusing to people whose sources don't match ours. Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

^ Hundertmark, Kris J (2003). <0718:MPOMAA>2.0.CO;2 "Mitochondrial Phylogeography of Moose (Alces alces) in North America". Journal of Mammalogy. 84 (2): 718–728. doi:10.1006/mpev.2001.1058. Retrieved March 14, 2019. Levels of genetic variation and structure of phylogenetic trees identify Asia as the origin of all extant mitochondrial lineages. A recent coalescence is indicated, with the most recent common ancestor dating to the last ice age…Timing of expansion for the population in the Yakutia–Manchuria region of eastern Asia indicates that it is one of the oldest populations of moose and may represent the source of founders of extant populations in North America, which were colonized within the last 15,000 years.

Tamed not Domesticated

Whoever is authorized to edit the page, change the See Also section to read "tamed" rather than "domesticated". Domestication means that the animal has been bred to live among humans. Tamed means that the animal, while genetically wild, has been raised or trained to live among humans. The moose in that linked article was tamed, not domesticated. 32.213.242.231 (talk) 08:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where are you getting your sources for this? I think you're trying to make a distinction without a difference. Domesticated originally comes from the word "domicile" meaning "house". This originally meant an animal conditioned to live in a home/farm setting, but now has much more diversity. "Trained" on the other hand, meant "conditioned to perform a task", but also has evolved. For example, I can make the distinction that I have dogs that are house trained, so they are domesticated, but they are also search and rescue trained, so they are trained. But I can't expect everybody to make that distinction themselves without context, because context has far more to do with determining the meaning of a word. Zaereth (talk) 09:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Anon IP user's case is supported by Jared Diamond's usage of the terms in Guns, Germs, and Steel. I believe it's a standard distinction in archaeology looking at the beginnings of pastoralism. And the replacement term is tamed, not trained. Though yes, IP User, if you're asking for a change to be made it's Wikipedia etiquette to find the references yourself. —VeryRarelyStable (talk) 10:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

By golly you're right. My mistake. Ok, that's the last time I edit when all hopped up on Nyquil. (Supposedly the "nighttime sniffling, sneezing, how the hell did I end up passed out on the kitchen floor medicine, but has the opposite effect on me. Like most downers it just amps me out and keeps me awake.) That does make a difference, as in, my dogs have 25,000 years of domestication to fall back on, whereas back in the 1980s these hybrid, 98% pure wolves became a popular pet for people who didn't know any better. Great animals until they hit adolescence, and then their wild instincts kick in, nobody could handle them, and they would end up at my friend's wolf rescue. At any given time he had about 30 to 40 wolves, and about once a week one would get a bug up its butt and try to take control over the pack, and he'd have to physically wrestle this 120 lbs animal down and pin it to the ground, and bite it on the ear until it started peeing all over itself and submitted. However related, they are very different animals than dogs. So, yeah, I do see the difference when the word is "tamed". Zaereth (talk) 19:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

(PS: While it occurs to me that to some this may sound mean, that's the reality being the alpha of a wolf pack, and the only way to maintain their respect. Show any fear or weakness and the rest will jump into the fight and tear you apart.Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC))

As food

In the last paragraph of the As food section it says: "A kill of 124 wolves would thus translate to [the survival of] 1488 moose or 2976 caribou or some combination thereof". Citing source [152] which does not say 1488, but rather "1,400 moose or nearly 3,000 caribou". Has the source been updated or is this a white nationalist dog whistle? If it is a reference to the white supremacist 1488 slogan, would someone please edit this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hideousguy (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? "White nationalist dog whistle"? Is that supposed to mean something? Personally, I think white nationalism is something made up by media outlets to sell newspapers, just like all the latest coronavirus and bird flu scares. Fear and hatred sell, and If a person spends their life worrying about white nationalism then they will probably see it everywhere they look.

You may want to actually read the source past the first few sentences. That is a direct quote from the source, which is probably taken from simple math. Sometimes a number is just a number. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

I agree that int his case a number is probably just a number, but I still see some concerns here. For one the link isn't working for me. Also, Craig Medred is a journalist, not a scientist. Where did he get that number? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I imagine its simple law of averages, considering the average wolf can consume 12 moose and 24 caribou per year. Where those number came from is beyond me, but I would assume, being a respected journalist, he must have gotten them from somewhere, perhaps the Dept. of Wildlife, I don't know. If a better source is available, we can always replace it. Zaereth (talk) 23:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention, try the archived link. Worked for me. Zaereth (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm working int he bush right now so internet is kind of hit-and-miss... Beeblebrox (talk) 22:21, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Antlers in Alces and Dama

Palmate antlers is an unfortunate choice of distinguishing character for Alces, for the following reasons: 1 Many (probably most) scandinavian Alces have dendritic horns. 2 Palmate antlers occur commonly in other deer species, such as Dama dama 3 A character expressed only in one sex should be avoided.

Possible alternative distinguishing characters could be based on e.g. leg length and head shape. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.147.242 (talk) 22:02, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, the snout is definitely a defining characteristic, and taxonomically speaking, so are the teeth, but I believe the antlers are also one of the major factors that a general audience can identify. In fact, the specific shape and size of deer antlers has been used since medieval times at least to distinguish between different species of deer. (Or "stags" as they were called back then; the word "deer" referred to any wild animal.) I only know of three genuses of deer that ever had palmate antlers, which were moose, fallow deer, and megacerines (which are extinct), Some might say the caribou as well, but Geist more correctly describes them as flattened beams, of which they are the only deer in which both males and females have them. Of the two living species, only the moose has the large, truly palm-shaped antlers.

I've looked at pictures of Swedish moose, and they have palmate antlers as well, only those tend to face more upward, unlike American moose which tend to face more forward. The European moose probably look more dendritic due to this, looking at them head-on, because the tines also point upward, and from that angle it's hard to see the palm.

And not to get all semantic, but technically antlers are made of bone whereas horns are made of keratin (fingernail material), which is a defining characteristic of nearly all deer. Zaereth (talk) 23:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

yes, "horns" is incorrect here (my swedishness shines through - "horn" in Swedish is also used for antlers).

I quote "Djurens värld" [the world of animals] (1972)edited by B. Hanström, a popular zoological text in 15 volumes written by experts. Vol 14. p. 217, my approximate translation: "Moose antlers can be divided into two types, palmate … and cervine. Palmate antlers are ... most common in the north of Sweden, cervine antlers and intermediate forms in the south. Palmate antlers are the most common type in Norway and Russia". "As their name implies, the cervine type is more similar to those of the elk (Cervus elaphus), in that the "stalk" is directly divided into cylindrical ... branches"

It seems that some of the subspecies of caribou/reindeer have palmate "elements" in their antlers (illustrations in, again, Djurens värld.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.147.242 (talk) 05:49, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

So, the palmate antlers are really quite rare among deer species, my mistake.

I suggest writing something along these lines: large size, extremely long legs, and a conspicuous "snout" are diagnostic. Most bulls have the familiar, large, palmate antlers (otherwise seen only in the Fallow deer and, in a very different form, in some caribou subspecies) while  those of Southern Scandinavian moose are usually dendritic and rather small.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.250.147.242 (talk) 10:18, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2020

This edit request to Moose has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Hi, I think the space before the period in "in the south ." can be taken out. I think the outside parenthesis can also be removed in "(An Alaskan moose also holds the record for the heaviest weight at 36 kilograms (79 lb).)" as they seem redundant. Thank you. 198.54.105.22 (talk) 07:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Done I've implemented those changes for you. Thanks for contributing! WeirdMatter (talk) 08:25, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Newfoundland Coat of Arms does not have a moose in as claimed

The Newfoundland Coat of Arms was developed in the early 1600's with a description of an elk above the shield. Moose were deliberately introduced to Newfoundland in the late 1800's. The Elk depicted in the Coat of Arms is actually a European description of the Caribou the only deer species native to Newfoundland and the only deer inhabiting the Island at the time the coat of arms was given. The citation referred to does not say that the Elk is a moose and the person who edited this obviously has no connection or understanding of the relationship of Moose and Caribou to Newfoundland.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.177.57.241 (talk • contribs)

This source [6] says it is an elk. Also it is the crest of Newfoundland and Labrador, Labrador appears to be in the historic range of moose at least. Unless you have a compelling source that says otherwise, I don't see any reason to remove it. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The picture you linked is clearly a moose. I mean, everything from the body shape, the snout, the antlers, and the lack of the characteristic dewlap caribous have. I don't know much about Newfoundland, but the picture looks unmistakably like a moose. I seriously doubt that the British would have called a caribou an "elk". A caribou is basically a wild reindeer, which had been known in Britain since the time of King Alfred. They have very different build and body shape, and antlers (which Geist describes as "flattened beams" rather than palmate). (In fact, according to Alfred, a wealthy Norseman he befriended named Ohthere was the first to domesticate them.) If there is a better source than yours we can go with, then I would say change it, but simply looking at the picture I don't see how that's possible. Zaereth (talk) 18:16, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

[Origin-1] Hundertmark, Kris J (2003). <0718:MPOMAA>2.0.CO;2 "Mitochondrial Phylogeography of Moose (Alces alces) in North America". Journal of Mammalogy. 84 (2): 718–728. doi:10.1006/mpev.2001.1058. Retrieved March 14, 2019. Levels of genetic variation and structure of phylogenetic trees identify Asia as the origin of all extant mitochondrial lineages. A recent coalescence is indicated, with the most recent common ancestor dating to the last ice age…Timing of expansion for the population in the Yakutia–Manchuria region of eastern Asia indicates that it is one of the oldest populations of moose and may represent the source of founders of extant populations in North America, which were colonized within the last 15,000 years.

[1]