Talk:Mule deer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

deer in Baja california sur[edit]

It seems that the deer in Baja sur are listed as O. hemionus subspecies. I have found evidence that thier horns are NOT similar to those of other mule deer , but rather like those of whitetail deer. Although they do not have `white` tails. The deer on Isla San Jose` are rather dark (almost black sometimes) as in the jackrabbits that inhabit the island. Any information on this would be greatly appreciated thank you, sincerely rexreno@yahoo65.197.130.13 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is epic fail. It needs moar mudkips. -=Greg=-

Removed offending part claiming that Mule deer are physically smaller than white tails. Removed offending portion claiming colder climate Mule deer are smaller. A claim about antler spread and size for whitetail may be larger and feel free to elaborate on it. But if you need to make a superfluous claim about trophy antler size, feel free to do so, but remember people are here to learn about deer, so if you wish to elaborate further then consider doing it in a hunting forum, Im just here to work facts. B4Ctom1 19:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not confuse phenotypic plasticity or adaptations with divergence. Mule deer and black tails can vary in size or coloration over different geographic areas, however that does not make them different species or even subspecies. They are indeed the same species as they fail every test on the "species checklist". For instance they are not reproductively isolated, live in sympatry etc etc. 15:45, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Rocky Mountain mule deer[edit]

I am working on an article about the South Warner Mountain area of California and came across information about forage and hunting of the Rocky Mountain mule deer. I linked to this article, read this article and realized there is no information here on this animal, at least not under this name. Please let me know if there is another name or if the information is just missing and could be added. Sincerely Marcia Wright (talk) 09:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Inconsistent with Wiki article on black-tailed deer[edit]

This article states that the black-tailed deer is not a separate species, but rather a subspecies of the mule deer. However, the wiki article on the black-tailed deer explains that this was once believed to be true but no longer is. Instead, the black-tailed deer article explains that white-tails evolved into black-tails, then the two species were isolated, then they hybridized to produce mule deer. I don't know which is correct, but the two articles need to be edited to give a consistent description. Off2Explore (talk) 14:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)In

I agree. Walter Siegmund (talk) 14:59, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
Noticed the same thing & agree. Rob Johnson (talk) 7:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
I've dealt with it and reverted to treating them as subspecies of a single species, which is the view held by virtually all recent authorities and thereby follows WP:NPOV. Notice also that when they were treated as separate species, the black-tailed deer wasn't monotypic, as it included the Sitka black-tailed deer (I hope this is clearer after my edits, which includes the addition of a taxonomic section both here and in the black-tailed deer article – the latter previously included some very problematic info; see "Section removed" on talk of black-tailed deer for that). (talk) 07:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your work on the article. I think it is very much improved. WP:RECENT and WP:NOT may apply to content based on recent work that is not widely accepted. Best wishes, Walter Siegmund (talk) 20:36, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Taxobox image[edit]

I don't think a cut off image of the head of a taxidermied exceptional individual is representative of the species.[1] I reverted the edit that changed the image. Image:MuleDeerTrophyBuckOregonRecordBooneandCrockett.jpg may be appropriate in the body of the article. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Walter, the reason I replaced the image with the closeup of the taxidermied individual was to illustrate the size of the ears (not the horns) which is the attribute that distinguishes this species from other similar deer species. The image of the male and female at a distance, although visually appealing, does not provide sufficient distinction to illustrate the point I was trying to make. I apologize for not including information about the ears as the reason for the species name in the caption. As for whether a picture of a live animal or a preserved animal is suitable, I maintain that it is irrelevant. In fact, perserved specimens are all that remain of many extinct species so I point out that if Wikipedia uses images of preserved specimens for extinct animals, it should be appropriate to use images of preserved animals for other articles as well, especially since it is a matter of personal preference not a matter of informational content. I have photographed many animal specimens (as well as live individuals) and often viewers cannot detect whether the subject of my images is alive or dead unless the background, file name or other supplemental information reveals the individual to be a preserved specimen. Mharrsch (talk) 00:33, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

distribution map: insufficient diff between colors[edit]

I can not make out the difference between the two oranges in the map on the article page, and I can barely do so if I enlarge the map. "Peninsular" gives it away - but maybe someone more capable with image editing programs than me can alter one of the two? HMallison (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)



Mule deer are ruminants, meaning they employ a nutrient acquisition strategy of fermenting plant material before digesting it. Deer consuming high-fiber, low-starch diets require less food than those consuming high-starch, low-fiber diets. Rumination time also increases when deer consume high-fiber, low-starch diets which allows for increased nutrient acquisition due to greater length of fermentation[1]. Because some of the subspecies of mule deer are migratory, they encounter variable habitats and forage quality throughout the year[2]. Forages consumed in the summer are higher in digestible components (i.e. proteins, starches, sugars, and hemicellulose) than those consumed in the winter. The average gross energy content of the consumed forage material is 4.5 kcal/g[3]. Due to fluctuations in forage quality and availability, mule deer fat storage varies throughout the year, with the most fat stored in October, which is depleted throughout the winter to the lowest levels of fat storage in March. Changes in hormone levels are indications of physiological adjustments to the changes in the habitat. Total body fat is a measure of the individual’s energy reserves while thyroid hormone concentrations are a metric to determine the deer’s ability to utilize the fat reserves. Triiodothryionine (T3) hormone is directly involved with basal metabolic rate and thermoregulation[4].

Rachelsmiley (talk) 12:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ Mccusker, S (2011). "Effects of starch and fibre in pelleted diets on nutritional status of mule deer (odocoileus hemionus) fawns". Journal of Animal Nutrition. 
  2. ^ deCalesta, David S.; Nagy, Julius G.; Bailey, James A. (October 1975). "Starving and Refeeding Mule Deer". The Journal of Wildlife Management. 39 (4): 663. 
  3. ^ Wallmo, O. C.; Carpenter, L. H.; Regelin, W. L.; Gill, R. B.; Baker, D. L. (March 1977). "Evaluation of Deer Habitat on a Nutritional Basis". Journal of Range Management. 30 (2): 122. 
  4. ^ Bergman, Eric J.; Doherty, Paul F.; Bishop, Chad J.; Wolfe, Lisa L.; Banulis, Bradley A.; Kaltenboeck, Bernhard (3 September 2014). "Herbivore Body Condition Response in Altered Environments: Mule Deer and Habitat Management". PLoS ONE. 9 (9): e106374. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0106374.