|WikiProject Mammals||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
Bovine redirects to Bovinae, but Bovidae redirects to Bovid. According to ], common names should be used when well-known and unambigous; hence this article should be renamed Bovine. Geira (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
The taxonomy of this group is about as messy as it gets. I think I'll leave it as-is for the time being (anyone wants to jump in and sort it out for me, go right ahead!) but make a mental note to come back to it. In particular, the recently extinct members need to be added. Tannin 10:58 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I like the BOVINE!
Corrected some spelling: Pseudoryx (lacked the e), Saiga (was Sagia), genera are always italicized, higher ranks never (the tribes were).
Is there a phylogeny somewhere? Phylogeny is real, taxonomy is not... do I have to go to the Tree of Life?
David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 1:50 CET-summertime 2005/8/6
I think you have vandalism on the page - have a look, -jkb- 07:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
Is pig considered as bovine?
- It depends on what you mean by pig. If you were talking about a wild bore that yes, but if you were talking about a farm pig, then no.
Does this article really need a 'see also' to the geier hitch? I think there would be lots of other articles more relevant than this.
The following is listed under Etymology : "The term "bovine," in some cultures, is considered extremely vulgar when used as an insult (i.e., "You bovine!")."
While this is a true statement, it has nothing to do with the etymology of the word "bovinae"--126.96.36.199 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I noticed some obvious vandalism on this page - i deleted it accodingly. Hope this ok.
Kansas is constantly rated second and third place in beef/bison produciton (swapping with Nebraska on a yearly basis). A hint to the Buffalo's importance to Kansas, Kansas personalised liscence plates feature a buffalo covering the plate, and the Kansas Quarter is a buffalo. I have added Kansas to the list of featured bison producers.Kcuello (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the first para say 10 species and the list have more
It would really be helpful to me if this topic included links to GMO plant articles
- It's usually just considered a form of Bos taurus. Ucucha 06:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
The text of this section was
"The closest relations to this subfamily are the Boselaphini and Tragelaphini tribes. There are 13 extant members. These species appear to have evolved over the last 5–8 million years.[Maceachern2009 1] The first clade to diverge was the buffalo clade (Bubalus and Syncerus species). This was followed by the banteng/gaur/mithan clade and the domestic cattle clade. A fourth clade leading to the bison and yak species may also exist."
and the reference is
- Maceachern S., McEwan J., Goddard M. (2009) Phylogenetic reconstruction and the identification of ancient polymorphism in the Bovini tribe (Bovidae, Bovinae). BMC Genomics 10(1):177
which can be found online here.
This is misplaced because the reference is to a paper about the evolution of the Bovini tribe, not the Bovinae subfamily. Also, the reference has been misunderstood in that it says that 13 extant members of the tribe were studied, not that it has 13 "members" (whatever that might mean).
So I have copied the text to the Bovini article with that correction, and deleted the text from this article. I've left the header in to protect any anchor links there may be and in case someone has knowledge of bovinae evlution to offer here. --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
It's insane to think that cattle roam the Sahara and African rain forest freely but are absent from South America, Australia, and the Eastern United States. This may be an accurate map of something, but not of modern bovines. — LlywelynII 06:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)