Talk:Dromedary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Good articleDromedary has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 17, 2011Peer reviewReviewed
September 1, 2012Good article nomineeListed
October 30, 2012Peer reviewReviewed
November 14, 2012Featured article candidateNot promoted
Current status: Good article

Intro is still unclear with respect to conservation status[edit]

Yet, the world's only population of wild dromedaries are in Australia.

In addition to being grammatically incorrect (should be "...is in Australia"), this sentence seems to directly contradict the animal's conservation status of "extinct in the wild". Can someone please clear this up? Matt Gerber 19:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How exactly does 13 million dromedaries plus a large feral contingent consitute 'extinct in the wild'? Considering that they are more or less self-sustaining without human intervention.

  • The dromedary is listed as 'extinct in the wild' by the IUCN because every remaining dromedary is either domesticated or feral, neither of which is considered wild. Bart133 (t) 16:30, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Move mention of bactrian camels[edit]

The paragraph which begins "The stronger and more durable Bactrian Camels. . ." seems to imply that the Arab conquest of North Africa introduced the domesticated Bactrian camel, not the dromedary. Is this correct? If it is, it belongs in the article on the Bactrian Camel, not here. —Charles P. (Mirv) 17:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

The paragraph "The stronger and more durable Bactrian camels first began to arrive in Africa in the fourth century" apparently has not been changed since the above remark. Since no Bactrian camels exist in Northern Africa, the writing must be wrong. /Lars 10 February 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.82.250.209 (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC) DDromedary camels are awesome!!!!!!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.171.173 (talk) 03:14, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

700,000 is exaggerated[edit]

The current article states "None survive in the wild, although there is an escaped feral population of about 700,000 in Australia.[1]" But according to the PDF linked in [1], the article states the number as being "at least 300,000". This is the same figure that is mentioned in the Feral article, which uses the same source. Where does the number 700,000 come from? This figure should refer to another source, or be changed to 300,000.

"None survive in the wild, although there is an escaped feral population" sounds like a contradiction to me. Is there some good reason why a feral population does not qualify as "in the wild"? -- DPJ, 2006-02-19 19:38 UTC

I've altered the text so that statement hopefully makes more sense. The previous wording was a copyvio anyway. Tomertalk 05:11, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Giant Dromedary Discovery[edit]

May also want to mention recent discovery of giant dromedary dating around 100,000 years. --Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.245.251.158 at 03:16, 11 October 2006


Terminology[edit]

I was rather taken aback by the title of this article. Surely the correct term is Arabian camel? A dromedary is a specialised type of Arabian camel bred for racing. PatGallacher 21:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I quote from Oakland Zoo website[1] "The name 'Dromedary' is properly reserved for the Arabian racing camel such as those used in the various military camel corps."

Having moved this article, I will change the contents in due course. PatGallacher 14:49, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I have never heard of an "Arabian Camel". Was this change made based solely on the Oakland Zoo page? If no further support for the name "Arabian Camel" can be found, this page should be moved back. See Wikipedia:Use common names. Note also that every other Wikipedia version also calls the animal "Dromedary" or a variant thereof. Tomertalk 03:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to "Arabian Camel" instead of "Arabian camel". No, this change was not just based on Oakland Zoo website. I read something along the same lines in an encyclopedia some years ago, and Wikipedia is the first serious reference work I have come across which used this terminology. I rode one of these animals a few years ago, I don't remember the guide calling it a dromedary. There is a certain symmetry in Arabian Camel v. Bactrian Camel. Trying a goggle search does not provide a clear answer to the question: which is the more common name. In any case, if you read the Wikipedia guidelines, "Use common names" is not a rigid guideline, there can be exceptions if a name is problematic in some way. PatGallacher 12:40, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

On the contrary. Google searches pretty emphatically show a preference for "dromedary" over "arabian camel".

The first shows a 19.4:1 occurrence of "dromedary" vs. "arabian camel" in non-wikipedia mirror sites. The second shows an astonishing 28:1 preference for dromedary exclusively over mention of both names. Moreover, the third search demonstrates a mindblowing 79.3:1 preference for "dromedary" on pages that also mention zoos. I'd say that pretty definitively, if not thoroughly and soundly, demonstrates that "dromedary" is clearly more common. The name "dromedary" isn't problematic, it's "arabian camel" that seems to be. For pete's sake. The binomial name is Camelus dromedarius, not Camelus arabicus. Tomertalk 22:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Since no response to the above has been made in the past month and a half, I'm going to go ahead and move the article back to Dromedary. If anyone wants it at Arabian camel, they can go ahead and bring it up at WP:RM. Cheers, Tomertalk 20:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am doing a report on ARABIAN CAMELS and it is defenately one of the names for the Dromedary Camel. I have seen it on a very large number of web sites and books. SM

That's nice, but how does it support or diminish anything said above? Tomertalk 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • The Oakland Zoo link is now dead. I've removed it. Hairy Dude (talk) 04:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The following paragraph is full of ambiguities, PLZ re-edit[edit]

"Around the second millennium BC, camels became established to the Sahara region but disappeared again from the Sahara beginning around 900 BC. The Persian invasion of Egypt under Cambyses introduced domesticated camels to the area. Domesticated camels were used through much of North Africa, and the Romans maintained a corps of camel warriors to patrol the edge of the desert. The Persian camels, however, were not particularly suited to trading or travel over the Sahara; rare journeys made across the desert were made on horse-drawn chariots.

The stronger and more durable Bactrian Camels first began to arrive in Africa in the fourth century. It was not until the Islamic conquest of North Africa, however, that these camels became common. While the invasion was accomplished largely on horseback, the new links to the Middle East allowed camels to be imported en masse. These camels were well-suited to long desert journeys and could carry a great deal of cargo. For the first time this allowed substantial trade over the Sahara."

Please state which species os camels you mean here. the paragraph explains an intertwined history of two species of camels which can be both described by the word camel. Hakeem.gadi 08:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

 Done. I have re-edited this paragraph.--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Recategorization[edit]

I've recatagorized this page into 'Category:Fauna of the Sahara', instead of 'Category:Wildlife of the Sahara', because there are more animals in 'Category:Fauna of the Sahara'. User:George cowie 09:06, 8th July 2006.

Map query[edit]

If there is a very substantial population of dromediaries in Australia, and the only major feral population in the whole world, the map should show this. Since there is no wild population, the distribution shown on the map should be the actual domesticated and feral populations, not historic distribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.55.37 (talk) 15:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Domestication[edit]

Are there any (archeological) references on the domestication of the camel? How does it comes that estimates range from 4000 to 1400 BCE. That is several thousand years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.132.139.146 (talk) 22:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done. References added.--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

ale stew[edit]

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.205.111.192 (talk) 20:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the hump?[edit]

What is the hump? why doesn't the article say anything about it? --62.101.126.215 (talk) 11:42, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have described about the hump now.--Sainsf <^> (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Camel milk nutritional value[edit]

There are three pages on Wikipedia that mention the fat content of camel milk. Here is what they say:

"Camel milk is a staple food of desert nomad tribes, and is richer in fat and protein than cow milk."(This article, "Dairy" section)
"It is lower in fat and cholesterol fat than cow milk." ("Camel" article, "Dairy" section)
"The fat content in camel’s milk is similar to that of cow’s milk." ("Camel milk" article, "Nutritional value" section)

I'm no expert on camels, but this is a bit... surreal. Can somebody please do something about this: I'm not qualified to do it myself. Thanks. Tennesseellum (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

On the subject of milk, mightn't it be easier if the amount of milk was given in gallons & liters instead of pounds? Or is camel's milk more of a solid than a liquid? Thanks. Arkansawyer96 (talk) 15:35, 12 September 2013 (UTC)Arkansawyer96 (talk) 10:34, 12 September 2013 (CST)

Diet?[edit]

The plants listed are Australian, which I imagine are only of much use to feral camels in Australia. What do they eat in their native range? Peter Greenwell (talk) 08:18, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Made more informative.

Origin[edit]

For some reason the article says the origin of dromadery is Arabian Pennisula while other wikiarticles and sources mention Western Asia. Western Asia is more logical if you consider where camelids in general came from and what was the recent geological history of Arabian pennisula — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.97.209 (talk) 23:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

There are references supporting the origin as Arabian peninsula in the article.--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Unreferenced drinking capacity claim[edit]

There is claim in the article that states "a dehydrated camel can drink 200 liters in just three minutes". It is not referenced and doesn't look like being possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.199.76 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


"Adaptations" section says (my comments in italics):
In the Sahara, they can survive for as long as October to April or May without water what, 7-8 months? - simply not credible. In temperatures of 30–40 °C (86–104 °F) they need water every 10 to 15 days, and only in the hottest temperatures do they take water every 4 to 7 days more likely, but completely self-contradictory with 7-8 months. They drink at the speed of 10–20 L (2.6–5.3 US gal) per minute impressive. Water is expended primarily from interstitial and intracellular bodily fluids. The oval red blood cells, unique to the dromedaries, help them survive for over six months without water we're back to the utterly incredible. They have the unique capability of drinking 100 L (26 US gal) of water in just 10 minutes ties in with 10-20 l/min stated earlier, but why say the same thing twice?. A very thirsty animal can drink up even 30 US gal (110 L) of water in only 13 minutes the same information repeated yet again and 200 L (53 US gal) in three minutes again, self-contradictory - that would be nearly 70 l/min, not 10-20 l/min as stated earlier - and seems pretty unlikely.
It would be good if someone who actually knows something about camels (or can at least sort out which citations are good and which are not) would rewrite this stuff. Newburyjohn (talk) 22:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry for my wrong edits. I have tried my best to remove contradictory and weird claims and rewrite it plainly. I hope you are satisfied. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 12:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dromedary/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 20:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The article seems in good shape with no major problems. The comments are suggestions to improve the article.

How nice to get such a friendly reviewer! I am on work right away!

comments
  • Captions for images that aren't complete sentences should not end in any punctuation.
 Done. Missed some, thanks for reminding.
  • "However, there is 10.3% of difference between the species found in a mitochondrial analysis." - should have citation
 Done.
  • "Shiwalik Hills in India" - link says Himalayas with sub-ranges in India, Bhutan, Nepal etc. - so fossils have been only traced to the parts in India?
 Done. That is just to mark a location (in the source). I've removed it.
  • "The dromedary has a possible origin from Arabia" - is there a better way of saying that?
What do you suggest? Can it be 'The dromedary possibly originated in Arabia'?
  • Under "History", the phrase "these camels" refers to the Persian camels"?
 Done. No, dromedaries.
  • "About a million feral camels are estimated to live in Australia,[23] descendants of domesticated camels that were released or ran away on their own." but in next section it says: "although the escaped population of Australian feral camels is estimated to number at least 300,000." - this seems inconsistent
I removed the second claim. Has no good source.
  • Physical description section

(removed as I see you have addressed this)

  • "The lungs are not lobed" - what does this mean?
 Done. Biological term, you know, they are parts of lung. I simplified it.

(will continue)

  • Under "Ecology" it says: "During the breeding season males become very aggressive, sometimes snapping each other and wrestling, while defending the females with them. The male declares his success in the fight with the rival's head between his legs and body." Under "Behavior", it says: "They are not usually aggressive, except the rutting males. The males of the herd disallow their females from interaction with other bachelor males, by standing or walking between them and driving them away."
  • shouldn't all the breeding behavior be in one place in the article? The info under "Ecology" and the subsection "Behavior" seen to cover the same territory. Could the sections be combined so that related info can be together?
or perhaps the behavior about camels relating to each other could be together, (breeding, aggressive etc.) and their behavior relating to other animals, people separated out in another paragraph or section.
No, not the second option. I think I should transfer the info in 'Ecology' to 'Behavior'. There is no need of mentioning it in 'Ecology'.

Any more comments, I am always read to resolve them!--Sainsf <^>Talk all words 15:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:
    Just issues mentioned in the comments above
    b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:
    b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary:
    c. no original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
    b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
  4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.
    fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    no edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    Great images and captions. Should not be periods after captions that aren't complete sentences. I removed some but there's one or two left
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    Very interesting article. Well done! Will put on hold while you address my comments.
    I've made some copy edits that you are free to change.[2]

MathewTownsend (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

  • I made a few more edits fixing minor issues and adding some wikilinks, which you are free to change.[3]
Reevaluation
1. Well written?: Pass Pass
2. Factually accurate?: Pass Pass
3. Broad in coverage?: Pass Pass
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass Pass
5. Article stability?: Pass Pass
6. Images?: Pass Pass

Pre-FAC comments[edit]

Right - some observations...Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:45, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Why do you keep calling it "dromedary camel"? I have only ever heard or seen written "dromedary"....
Now "Dromedary" everywhere. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Its native range is unclear, - umm, needs clarifying - as its current native range is zero. Maybe add "original" or origins or reword like that.
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • The hair is an excellent source material for woven goods - hmm, maybe "The hair is an highly regarded source material for woven goods" (keeps it more objective sounding)
Fixed. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
  • I'd pop para 1 of Etymology to right after Linnaeus sentence. In fact, I'd make etymology a subsection of taxonomy.
How about having the section as "Taxonomy and naming", and the genetics, hybrids and evolution part as a separate section with subheading "Hybrids"? I have tried this format in Scimitar oryx (just that there are no hybrids). Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:48, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Casliber. I would work right away as per your suggestions. Sainsf <^>Talk all words 10:14, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Dromedary range is incorrect[edit]

The map showing the distribution of Dromedaries is not correct. Dromedaries are bred as far north as Kazakhstan. They live quite nicely there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.238.225.106 (talk) 08:59, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I also noticed that error- can someone correct/replace the map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.123.171 (talk) 07:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Blood volume in Anatomy[edit]

I'm pretty sure the blood volume of a dromedary is not 0.093 litres (it's typically 5 litres for an adult human). No idea what the correct range is, however. It could possibly be that 93 ml/kg is intended. Gubernagl (talk) 00:00, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree - possibly the value of 0.093 refers to the fraction of body weight. This article: Sachchidananda Banerjee and Ramesh Chandra Bhattacharjee, Distribution of body water in the camel (Camelus dromedarius), AJP - Legacy Content June 1, 1963 vol. 204 no. 6 1045-1047, gives the blood volume as 8.3% of body weight (presumably assuming the density to be 1 g/cm^3). That seems close enough to .093 to be believable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlazewatsky (talkcontribs) 22:40, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I have removed this point for now, it needs to be checked before or is re-added. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Dromedary" or "Dromedary camel"[edit]

In this article, the word "Dromedary" is often used without the word "camel" following it. In contrast, the word "Bactrian" is rarely used alone and is usually followed by the word "camel". Is there a convention here? It is not much of a problem in the text, but I noted that the article titles are Dromedary and Bactrian camel which seems rather inconsistent.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As Cas Liber pointed out above, dromedary is the commonest name. When I was improving this article, there was hardly a source that added a "camel" after the name. And the inconsistency is apparent in the sources as well, not just here. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Three species of camels[edit]

The current introduction to this article mentions three species of camel, but there are only two (dromedary and bactrian). I fixed this, but it was reverted with a message saying "sources suggest three species" with of course no source given. Everywhere else in this article, as well as on other Wikipedia pages about camels, any google search, and scientific literature about camels (e.g. Gupta et al, Scientometrics, 2015) indicates there are TWO species of camels. Can whoever supports this three-camel mention please explain yourself and perhaps provide some sources, if you claim they exist?

2601:184:4201:77D7:85F3:85D7:3896:F7D7 (talk) 12:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@2601:184:4201:77D7:85F3:85D7:3896:F7D7: It was I who reverted your edit. The article reads "The dromedary shares the genus Camelus with the Bactrian camel (C. bactrianus) and the wild Bactrian camel (C. ferus)." (Taxonomy section; we do not include citations for this in the lead, though this can be done if necessary.) Two sources support this – the Mammal Species of the World source, that explains the dispute on whether C. ferus is an independent species or not (I have clarified this point now, please see this); the second is the book Ungulate Taxonomy that treats it as a species and has an account on C. ferus. Hence the claim is supported by sources, and you may like to see the article wild Bactrian camel, which goes with the three-species classification. Not every source says C. ferus is nothing but a subspecies, see for example the IUCN Red List entry and a 2004 study. There is no clear consensus on this, as can be seen here. Sainsf <^>Feel at home 13:20, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@Sainsf Well done for clearing that up. I think it would benefit with a source/s. These can be provided in the lead, although in my own style I prefer to provide these in the main body. Does this mean the dendrogram need adjusting slightly? DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
@DrChrissy: Sorry for the late response, your ping didn't reach me. The dendrogram is based on a study that didn't recognise the wild Bactrian camel as a species, so we can't alter it. As this is a controversial point, I think it is proper to add a citation or two to the claim in the lead as well. Your ideas? Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:39, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
THat sounds good to me. DrChrissy (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Done. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

"It is disputed whether the male dromedary can penetrate the female on his own or not."[edit]

What is meant by this sentence? If it means they need human aid, this seems obviously incorrect, as there are plenty of feral populations that reproduce on their own. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The source (ref. 14, see here) says "there is a lack of agreement as to whether the male camel is always assisted to effect penetration. Those who accept the argument of assistance use it to justify the lack of wild camels, allegedly caused by an inability to copulate. The Australian feral herd, however, continues to expand in the wild." Later it says the lack of wild camels can also be justified if the dominant male becomes overworked and can not mate extensively. I thought it best just to mention the dispute, though the argument of assistance does appear very weak. If it is that controversial, it would be better to remove it. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 05:24, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I think you should at least reflect the "The Australian feral herd, however, continues to expand in the wild" part in the article... Then you show there is a dispute, but that it is kind of obvious that they can procreate by themselves. FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Done, thanks. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 07:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool, seems less contradictory now... FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Missing word or phrase?[edit]

...such as the ability to tolerate greater than 30% of the water content of the body...

Clarified 2nd paragraph sentence; used later "adaptations" section as source. --Deepfrieddough (talk) 16:50, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Life Expectancy?[edit]

Is missing, I believe. Anonyma (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)