Talk:Moose

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. 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

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

moose also eat mice 192.206.244.18 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

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

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)

Overview and clarification of taxonomy and naming of the genus Alces, its species and subspecies desired

Torbjörn Sunde (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Presently the taxonomy and naming of the genus Alces, its species and subspecies, varies in different articles at Wikipedia in a confusing way. Also, some of the links between different Wikipedia pages are confusing. Neither taxonomy, nor language, are precise sciences and they also evolve with time. Though, clarification of taxonomy and naming used, is desired to avoid unnecessary confusion. Since these subjects seems to be a bit sensitive, I will not do any editing, but I urge for a review of the articles and will address some points.

1. Two different taxonomy systems are used. Most Wikipedia pages uses the taxonomy used by most of the major scientific sources, including Mammal Species of the World, ITIS, Encyclopedia of Life and GBIF. It recognizes two species (A. alces and A. americanus), each with two sub species. This taxonomy is also used by Wikispecies. The (US) English page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose) as well as some single other (for instance the German) uses a rarely used taxonomy used by for instance IUCN. It recognizes only one species (A. alces) and a number of subspecies. Due to the above inconsistency, some links between Wikipedia pages are confusing.

2. Only in some languages, there is a page at Wikipedia for the genus. Such a page is desired in all languages and a proper place to put an explanation of the taxonomy.

3. The formal Torbjörn Sunde (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)naming (in English) of genus, species and sub species depends on the taxonomy system used. In English it's further confused by the differences in everyday language used in US,and some other parts of the world, and UK and some other parts of the world. The usage of Moose and Elk (Cervus canadensis) in US English do make things complicated.

Due to the above I suggest:

1. The same taxonomy should be used in all Wikipedia pages. It should be clarified which taxonomy that is used and preferable pointed out that there are other taxonomies.

2. The taxonomy should be consistent (the same) as the one used by Wikispecies.

3. It should be clarified what version of English that is used (US, UK etc) to avoid the confusion between moose and elk as well as elk and wapiti.

4. If the taxonomy used by Wikispecies (ITIS et al), a number of subspecies used in other taxonomies, are synonyms to A. americanus americanus, and to be regarded as local populations. For instance: andersoni, buturlini, columbae, gigas, lobatus, meridionalis, muswa, pfizenmayeri, shirasi and yakutskensis.

My suggestion is, with respect to the different versions of English, that the formal (not everyday language) names should be:

Genus: Alces - US English: Moose, UK English: Elk

Species: Alces alces - US English: Eurasian Moose, UK English: Eurasian Elk

Subspecies: Alces alces alces - US English: European Moose, UK English: European Elk

Subspecies: Alces alces caucasicus - US English: Caucasian Moose, UK English: Caucasian Elk

Species: Alces americanus - US English: Ameroasian Moose, UK English: Ameroasian Elk

Subspecies: Alces americanus americanus - US English: American Moose, UK English: American Elk

Subspecies: Alces americanus cameloides - US English: Asian Moose, UK English: Asian Elk

Still, there is an issue with Elk, that in US English is used for Cervus canadensis, which most of the rest of the world denotes Wapiti (or similar). That issue is not to be sorted out now.

Lofty goals, but I think they might be unattainable. I do think we could do better --in this article-- about explaining the taxonomy, how it works, and why some sources like the ITIS may not match our article. (For more info, please see the section up above titled "Two Species".) Trying to change all articles across English Wikipedia would be more than a bit of a challenge, and people at those article will always have the problem of people coming along and saying, "But that's not what I read". I think it's better to just explain it right here, so that people will understand why some sources say something different.

I think we've done a very good job of doing that here with "moose" and "elk". The etymology section explains that quite nicely, in my opinion.

As for other languages, each language Wikipedia is its own, separate entity, with their own rules and ways of doing things. Making everything uniform across the world will likely be an impossible task. Plus, I doubt we can convince everyone in other languages to start calling them moose, just as people in North America, much of Britain, and much of the English-speaking world is unlikely to just start calling them elk.

Language changes in illogical and often unpredictable ways, determined by society. No encyclopedia or dictionary has ever been able to control the language, or else we'd be speaking Old English right now. It's futile to try. I think it's better to explain it than to try to make it logical or uniform. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)