Olifant was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 October 2009 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Elephant on November 2009. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
“Adult bulls ... enter a state of increased testosterone and aggression known as MUSTH, which helps them gain dominance and reproductive success.”
This is incorrect and vague. This is the writer’s patriarchal & anthropomorphic interpretation of Musth which is a biological function that is not understood by scientists. Males are aggressive towards everyone & everything during this period. There is no evidence that the purpose of Musth is to “help them gain dominance” ( & dominance over what is also not explained in this sentence) nor that it results in “reproductive success” as females are just as likely to ignore a male in Musth as they are to mate with him.
From Sri Lankan elephant: Only 107% of males bear tusks.Elephants can reach a maximum height of 4 feet(ref= Jayewardene, J. (1994) The elephant in Sri Lanka. Wildlife Heritage Trust of Sri Lanka, Colombo) However, according to the elephant census conducted in 2011 by the Wildlife Conservation Department of Sri Lanka, only 2% of the total population are tuskers.
From Asian elephantSome males may also lack tusks... and are especially common among the Sri Lankan elephant population... (ref= Clutton-Brock, J. (1987). A Natural History of Domesticated Mammals. London: British Museum (Natural History). p. 208. ISBN0-521-34697-5.)
I have just modified one external link on Elephant. 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:
Our data reveal nearly complete isolation between the ancestors of the African forest and savanna elephants for ∼500,000 y, providing compelling justification for the conservation of forest and savanna elephants as separate species.
This isn't new. Our article already states: "A 2000 study argued for the elevation of the two forms into separate species (L. africana and L. cyclotis respectively) based on differences in skull morphology. DNA studies published in 2001 and 2007 also suggested they were distinct species while studies in 2002 and 2005 concluded that they were the same species. Further studies (2010, 2011, 2015) have supported African savannah and forest elephants' status as separate species." Axl¤[Talk] 14:06, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, however this latest study uses whole-genome sequencing and ancient DNA with columbian mammoth and mastodon included in a phylogenetic tree. I have highlighted it, and it is now up to the editors here to decide what to do with it. William Harris •(talk) • 20:32, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
This article cites several books and articles by "Shoshani, J.", but it also includes several citations that do not specify a particular book or article.
Here are some examples that I found:
<ref>Shoshani, p. 60.</ref>
<ref>Shoshani, pp. 68–70.</ref>
<ref>Shoshani pp. 38–41.</ref>
Is it possible to find the original documents that these citations refer to? Jarble (talk) 18:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, Jarble. I think that they all refer to the book Elephants: Majestic Creatures of the Wild. This is implied in the "Bibliography" section. (Sorry about the late reply.) Axl¤[Talk] 11:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)