Talk:Great American Interchange

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

bear migration[edit]

I have a question ¿Didn't bears migrate southwards, or was that something that happened much later?

The first sentence[edit]

I was kind of surprised the first sentence said:

......in which land and freshwater animal faunas migrated from Central America to South America and vice versa, as the .....

instead of:

......in which land and freshwater animal faunas migrated from Central America and North America, to South America and vice versa, as the .....

any takers on this thought: ?....From the Ariz-Desert...--Mmcannis 17:02, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central American species listings[edit]

Below are the Central American species of South American origin referenced in the article:

Central American opossum species[edit]

Central American caviomorph rodent species[edit]

Central American platyrrhine monkey species[edit]

Central American xenarthran species[edit]

WolfmanSF 09:42, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canid species/genera by continent[edit]

Below are the listings of extant canid species and genera by continent referenced in the article:

North American canids: 4 genera, 9 species

Central American canids: 3 genera, 4 species

South American canids: 6 genera, 11 species

Eurasian canids: 4 genera, 12 species

African canids: 4 genera, 12 species

Cervid species/genera by continent[edit]

Below are the listings of extant cervid species and genera by continent referenced in the article:

North American cervids: 4 genera, 5 species

Central American cervids: 2 genera, 4 species

South American cervids: 6 genera, 16 species

Eurasian cervids: 10 genera — Alces, Axis, Capreolus, Cervus, Dama, Elaphodus, Elaphurus, Hydropotes, Muntiacus, Rangifer — 36 species

African cervids: 1 genus, 1 species

the lists of invaders[edit]

There are some improvements that could be made to the lists of successful invaders. The section headings refer to species but many of the listed organisms are genera or even higher taxanomic groupings. I think that higher taxonomic groups are more usefully listed than individual species as genera might have moved up or down and speciated; thus the species didn't successfully invade, but its genera did. Sabine's Sunbird talk 05:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the section headings were inappropriate. Thanks for pointing that out. Your point that the list does not distinguish between species that actually walked across the isthmus and those resulting from diversification in the new land mass is also well taken. I agree that it is generally better to list genera rather than species; however, I think that in cases where an invasive genus is only represented by a few "invasive" species it is useful to list those, especially when there are many more species that stayed behind (as otherwise it might not be easy to quickly identify the "invasive" members of the genus). WolfmanSF (talk) 04:00, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibility of plant genera inclusion[edit]

Is there any possibility that a section of the interchanging of different genera of plants could be added, or is the research in this area too scant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.58.8.200 (talk) 17:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with the subject, but my impression is that tropical plants tended to migrate mainly northward in the interchange. If you come across any good sources I'd be happy to hear about them. WolfmanSF (talk) 09:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An example of a plant genus that probably migrated from South to Central America around the time of the interchange is Roupala. WolfmanSF (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Wolves?[edit]

The Discovery Channel program Mega Beasts mentions a type of wolf called Edward's wolves, which modern wolves descended from. I can't find anything out about them, but the program says that they were resident in North America with Saber-toothed cats when the terror birds migrated north. They eventually out-competed both.--Auric (talk) 17:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring to Canis edwardii. It is quite possible that Canis edwardii and other North American predators out-competed terror birds, but the reason(s) for the eventual extinction of the terror birds in North America after their initially successful invasion remain speculative. One could imagine that terror birds initially had an edge in being a new type of predator that North American herbivores had not been exposed to, but that eventually their prey were able to adapt. However, Smilodon outlived Canis edwardii, becoming extinct only when its prey died out in the Quaternary extinction event. So, it looks like saber-tooths in the Americas were only out-competed by humans. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
According to this phylogeny, coyotes and golden jackals are descended from Canis edwardii. I'm not sure how well this is accepted. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for clearing this up.--Auric (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little crosses?[edit]

Do the daggers symbolize extinct animals? If so, is there a consensus to use the symbol this way? --John (talk) 20:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a common shorthand for extinction, see Dagger (typography). Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:14, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "it also represents the Christian cross, in certain predominantly Christian regions, the mark is used in a text before or after the name of a deceased person". Is there a consensus on this project to use it to denote extinction though? --John (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is contextual. In a biological article it would hardly be relating to deceased people, anymore than it would represent extinction if placed after the name of a person in a non-biological text. Sabine's Sunbird talk 04:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I get that it is contextual, but is it consensual? --John (talk) 05:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes in a de facto capacity, insofar as it's been used for years without complaint. Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. See, there are a couple of problems with its use here. This came up recently in discussing {{template:KIA}} which displays similarly. One is that for many the cross symbol will have connotations of Christianity. It has been successfully argued that this makes its use inappropriate on an article about pre-Christian or non-Christian subjects. The other problem I can see is its rather common use to denote footnotes. I think these two problems both apply here and make its use to denote extinct taxa rather problematic. --John (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first problem is a non-problem, as the article is clearly utterly unrelated to any subject relating to Christianity. It's about landmasses, deep time and animals. Moreover the symbol is used by many other fields of knowledge, such as chess, maths, textual criticism, linguistics, hell, even cricket. The idea that it should be reserved for Christianity only is ludicrous. With regards to the footnotes usage, it is only used as such in books with pages and in a footnoting system that starts with an * and then moves eventually towards ‡. Since no footnoting system anywhere on Wikipedia works in such a way there is only limited scope for confusion.
I'd suggest that if you have a problem with non-Christian related subjects using this commonly used symbol that the talk page of a single article is not the place to start the fight. Make a proposal on some Wikipage (MOS I guess?) and be sure to notify all the concerned Wikiprojects so that no one suddenly finds the system they've used without issue for years is suddenly denied to them in a discussion they never heard about. I'd wish you luck, but you're not the one that would have to find alternative arrangements for hundreds of articles to fix a problem no one knew existed. Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:19, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly this isn't a fight unless you think it is, secondly I am not the first to discuss the problem (as I said it has been discussed in relation to the KIA template), and thirdly there are lots of articles which use this mark for footnotes (Template:Infobox football biography and all the articles it is transcluded onto constitute a fairly major example), so I do think it is potentially confusing to readers especially if it is not glossed to use a culturally sensitive typographical mark for two completely different purposes. I'll be happy to raise it at MoS. Thanks for all your help. --John (talk) 20:49, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As a devout Christian, I'd like to point out the dagger (or cross, as you prefer to call it) is in fact used in certain liturgical material, but let's also remember this is a pre-Christian symbol for death. No matter how you look at it, a dagger or a cross, both were once unmistakeable symbols for a gruesomely murderous death. The Christian connotation came around only because death on the cross happened to be the manner in which Jesus was executed. That said, the usage to indicate expiration of an individual or extinction of a taxon is highly sound and completely unbiased. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 02:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recent pageviews[edit]

Does anyone have any insight into the unusual pattern of recent pageviews for the article? WolfmanSF (talk) 07:39, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probably part of a botnet that is monitoring this page for a particular change in the text, which--when detected--it will use as a trigger to activate. Bueller 007 (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would be the point of that? WolfmanSF (talk) 17:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Great American Interchange. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Great American Interchange. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 21:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Great American Interchange. 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.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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) 23:25, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arctotherium angustidens in Central America?[edit]

Did Arctotherium angustidens extend into Central America? Sarsath3 (talk) 17:58, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We have one recent report, cited in the article, of Arctotherium wingei in the Yucatán Peninsula. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plants![edit]

Plants too participated in the biotic interchange, e.g. Quercus (oaks) moved south to Colombia. We should probably have a section on plants here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:27, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Great_American_Interchange&oldid=1207408552"