Talk:Aardwolf
| WikiProject Africa | (Rated Start-class) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
| WikiProject Mammals | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Hyena or not?
The article says "unlike true hyenias" does this mean the aardwolf is not a hyena but just looks like one or is it an actual speices of hyena that specializes in eating ants 4.142.96.98 23:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)eric
It eats ants!!
- It sure does. KingTT 22:03, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A sign with the text "Call Apogee say Aardwolf!" appears in the game Wolfenstein 3D
There is also a MUD called Aardwolf.
This article could use a better photo.
[edit] Can't dig, but can burrow??
The article says that the Aardwolf burrows into the ground... and that it cannot dig. Any experts care to clear this up?Iroll 01:55, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Alternate/Common names
The following where removed from the list of alternate common names.
Earth Pig - An 'Earth Pig' is the literal translation of the Dutch/Afrikaans name for the Aardvark similar but not the same.
Tamanoir - this name refers to new world ant eaters
On second thoughts. I have removing the list of 'common' names as I cannot find any credibly source that refers to them. The line was: "Other common names are: Ant Bear, African Ant Bear, Anteater, Cape Anteater."
The list of common names may have been removed, but I was still redirected to this article when I searched on "antbear", which I thought was another name for the aardvark, not the aardwolf. As there is now no reference within the article to "antbear", it does not seem good form to redirect "antbear" to this article, especially if an antbear is in fact an aardvark. Kabechoro 01:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Proposed Change
"Unlike other hyenas, it does not scavenge or kill larger animals because of its weak jaw and small size."
This pretends that an animal does not do something because of certain characteristics it has, rather than that it's simply specialized in eating insects, and thus does not kill larger animals.
It's a very common mistake, that also goes the way of the Giraffe (Giraffes have long necks because they stretch them a lot?)
Better would be to simply state it does not do these things. And that it has a weak jaw and small size. There is absolutely no relation between these two in this species.
(Apparantly not logged in, can't be arsed right now - Nerusai)
Does anybody know if the two subspecies look even slightly different? I understand that they are geographically separate - wouldn't this lead to differences evolving? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.246.28 (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
- Nope. No reason to think it would, either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Update to match MSW3
I will be updating all of the hyena aritcles to match the following taxonomy from Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005):
If you need to discuss this, pleae contact me on my talk page. If no one objects, I will proceed in 48 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Eats carrion.....doesnt scavenge? Which is it ?
This article is full of errors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.241.29.63 (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
[edit] "Protelid"
The article identified "protelid" as another name for the aardwolf, but this was wrong. "Protelid" means a member of family Protelidae, in the same way as words like canid, felid, viverrid, etc are formed. Also Protelidae was not, as previously claimed in the article, monotypic. For example, the IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group shows a phylogeny identifying two species within genus Proteles.
It seems that parts of this lead section have found their way verbatim into various touristic and derivative web sites and even at least one book. Are we helping to spread an urban myth here?
I've removed the "protelid" name and the "monotypic" claim. If reverting, scholarly citations might be a good idea. --Stfg (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
