Talk:Saiga antelope

A news item involving Saiga antelope was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 31 May 2015.

Wikipedia

Untitled

Didn't this page use to be a lot longer?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.15.236.254 (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think someone redirected the link "Saiga" to the current "Saiga Antelope" and deleted the older, superior article. The old article also had a normal photograph instead of one of these 3-D jobs being posted everywhere. How many people have 3-D goggles anymore? (Edit: Looking at the redirect page for "Saiga," the article was simply longer, I suppose, though it should have been merged with the current one.) -- MLS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.41.65 (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1/3+1/3=1?

"In springtime the mother gives birth, in one third of all cases two, or in one third one single foal."

This line here seems to be a bit ambiguous. I would edit it myself, but I am unsure of the intent of the statement and the actual facts about the subject matter. Thought I would make note so someone could fix it if they could.

I fixed it. probably you can check if the grammar is correct.--Altaileopard 07:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongolian Saiga

The Mammal Species of the World (MSW3) database lists a species called the Mongolian Saiga (Saiga borealis). Is this the same as Saiga tatarica mongolica? If so, which taxonomy is more up to date? Kaldari (talk) 04:37, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Endangered species?

How come there critically endangered?--97.127.52.198 (talk) 22:43, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Zoos that had them in the past

Quoted from the article: "Currently, only the Moscow Zoo and Askania-Nova keep saigas.[11] Cologne Zoological Garden and San Diego Zoo had them in the past. Pleistocene Park in northern Siberia plans to introduce the species."

Why is it that only cologne zoo and San Diego zoo are mentioned as zoos that previously held saiga? This implies that nowhere else has ever held them, however this is completely false. If you follow the reference [11] which is to a "zootierliste" page and click on former holdings you can see that a number of zoos in Europe (48!) have held saiga and it is likely that zoos otside europe have held this species. It should be changed to something that either lists all the zoos or (probably better) just says something like there being a lot of zoos previously holding the species.Jubblubs (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

These sentences "Today, the populations have again shrunk enormously — as much as 95% in 15 years, — and the saiga is classified as critically endangered by the IUCN. An estimated total number of 50,000 saigas survive today in Kalmykia, three areas of Kazakhstan and in two isolated areas of Mongolia" are a bit confusing with regards to the timeline. The word "today" is probably not a good idea in an encyclopedia anyways, and the population seems to have followed a fairly clear up-and-down over the past few decades. Articles about the May die-off often refer to the Saiga "success story" with a decade of growth to 250,000 animals. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 epizootic outbreak

An estimated 40% of the species total population has just died? Isn't this quite significant and worthy of inclusion in the lede? I added it, but it was reverted without any explanation, or indeed an edit summary of any kind. Given that this is the reason it's now appearing on the front page, I'd have thought that was further reason to emphasise this news. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Dunno. Perhaps this does belong in the lead. It would probably help if the lead is improved first though. The 40% drop is significant but surely pales in comparison to the possibly 95% drop over 15 years. The lead mentions hunting in the 18th century but fails to mention much on the later recovery and then major drop, nor its use in TCM. If this more important info is in place, the addition of the recent epizootic outbreak wouldn't seem so out of place. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I quite agree. The lede is meant to summarize the entire article. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The "In The News" was not written well. It reads as if this is a routine occurrence. The past tense, "died" would have been grammatically correct because half have already died. Mkdw ^talk 03:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Everything has to be "happening now" on ITN, doesn't it. How exciting. Can't recall exactly who posted it in such a state. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. I'm simply stating that the choice of conforming to that format has not done this particular story and benefit. I'm just pointing this out in terms of the discussion above, not trying to change the ITN format or re-word it. Perhaps I could have been more clear about that but this was a section about emphasis and not about changing ITN. 16:51, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

"It reads as if this is a routine occurrence." hardly. If it was a routine occurrence it wouldn't be in the news, now would it? Moreover, the blurb is grammatically correct and in keeping with the way in which ITN blurbs are written. Of course, WP:ERRORS is that way if you wish to suggest an alternative phrasing. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I used "routine" not in the sense it's pedestrian (as in not news worthy), but rather that it reads as if it happens every May on an annual cycle (and therefore routine). It's grammatically correct but implies it happens every May as opposed to this May only. I have no stake in changing it, merely stating it's not written clearly and was contributing to the conversation above. The need to conform the statement to the ITN present tense has not served this particular story well for the readership, that's all. I do think it's an important news story and should be mentioned at ITN. Mkdw ^talk 16:49, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Tyga tartarica"

@Mysterioussprinkle: I'm confused by you recent edits to this page. Can you explain why you changed "Saiga tartarica" to "Tyga tartarica"? Jarble (talk) 04:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find these on the websites for either of the places they're in captivity

I can't find these on the websites for Moscow Zoo or Askania-Nova. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperMarioMuseum (talk • contribs) 14:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sympatric?

"Saiga are highly vulnerable to the sympatric wolves." Well, yes, in the broadest sense of the term "sympatric"; but the word is usually understood to refer to populations of the same or closely related species. Since this sentence is not cited, I am deleting "the sympatric", leaving "Saiga are highly vulnerable to wolves", which retains the meaning. One could as well say in the following sentence, "Juvenile saiga are targeted by sympatric foxes, steppe eagles, golden eagles, dogs and ravens." Milkunderwood (talk) 06:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikispecies?

What about saiga borealis?Xx236 (talk) 09:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's an extinct species, as noted in Saiga_antelope#Evolution. No separate article so far, presumably due to lack of material. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:11, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2018/01 source

A Wet and Warm Spring, Then 200,000 Dead Saigas https://nyti.ms/2mHQoeO

Yug (talk) 17:05, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saiga antelope. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304101617/http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-038-01-0001.pdf to http://www.science.smith.edu/msi/pdf/i0076-3519-038-01-0001.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is S. borelis?

The article says this in the Taxonomy and phylogeny section

Two subspecies are recognised:[1][5][10]

S. t. mongolica Bannikov, 1946: Also known as the Mongolian saiga, it is sometimes treated as an independent species, or as subspecies of S. borealis;[1] it is confined to Mongolia. S. t. tatarica (Linnaeus, 1766): Also known as the Russian saiga, it occurs in central Asia.

What is S. borealis as it does not seem to be mentioned otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.133.30 (talk) 09:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar

Under the heading "Evolution," the following sentence appears: "Several species of extinct Saiga from the Pleistocene of Eurasia and Alaska have been named." "Pleistocene," without any qualifiers, is an epoch, a specific period of time, not a demographic or geographic subdivision of Eurasia or Alaska. "The Pleistocene formations of Eurasia and Alaska" would be better. Citizen127 (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN is wrong about the saigas

According to them saigas are CE, they aren't. Now in 2022 their population has exploded and is at 1.3 million. They're vulnerable not critically endangered Fatty tha orca (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN is a more reliable source than phys.org. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:55, 15 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah but IUCN last updated saigas in like, 2020/2019 something and, you know saigas they just explode in population time to time, and then die out, and then come back to a steady population again. It's not known how many saigas there are in the world but there are definitely enough to not classify them as CE Fatty tha orca (talk) 14:35, 17 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What about the nose ?

There is nothing about the adaptive role of nose of the antelope here, this should be added.

2A02:A03F:615C:9C00:727A:87D5:B783:4C7D (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you find reliable, independent sources that discuss its nose, then please do update the article with information and remember to please cite those sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]