Jump to content

Talk:American bison/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Extent Map

The research that went into the creation of the map posted herein was incomeplete. It is well know that in 1669 when Charles Town (across the Ashley River from modern day Charleston, SC) bison were present. See: http://www.scdhec.net/environment/ocrm/regs/docs/Program/SC_Coastal_%20Program%20(Pt.%202%20-%20Ch.%20I).pdf I have not found how to put this into the record without dissing the map, as I love reading maps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pbeaty (talk • contribs) 16:52, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


Homosexuality

"The Mandan nation Okipa festival concludes with a ceremonial enactment of this behaviour, to "ensure the return of the buffalo in the coming season." Inter-sexual bison also occur. The Lakota refer to them as pte winkte —pte meaning bison and winkte designating two-spirit— thereby drawing an explicit parallel between transgenderism in animals and people.[3] See Homosexuality in animals."

This entire section does not just inform us of the bison's behavior, which would be appropriate. It also seems to try to celebrate the magic of homosexual bison and glorify the native amreican's rituals regarding it--not to convey useful information about the bison, but instead to justify homosexual/transgender ideals. While there is absolutely nothing wrong with homosexuality, an encyclopedia article on BISON is not the place to be trying to convince people that homosexuality and transgenderism is normal(that homosexual behavior occurs among animals AND that this is celebrated by some people.) How about we leave the part about the homosexual behavior if properly sourced, but delete the other irrelevant information. This article will be a joke if that section remians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.253.135.139 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Also the citation is no good. I'm removing it. Vividuppers (talk) 11:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

"Dangers"

I like how the "unique ability to jump straight up" is listed under Dangers. :)

MisterSheik 15:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

If you're floating directly above a bison you're in danger. 69.118.247.101 02:39, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Or directly under it when it comes down again. (Ouch!) TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Extermination (almost)

The herds formed the basis of the economies of local plains tribes who would attack the trains for plunder or during native vs. settler warfare.

I changed the above sentence, because I thougth it presented the Native Americans in racist fashion, making them look like a natural hazard, like the bison herds, instead of active participants of a political dispute over the land they inhabited. I also put it first in the list because I think that destroying the Native economy was the primary reason for the extermination of the bison herds. The political context of white colonialism should not be left out, though it probably would need an article of its own.

--Timo Honkasalo

I disagree there are few records to suggest the bison hunt was subsidised. I think the extermination of the bison was influenced greatly by the aboriginal and Métis hunters as well as American hunters and traders responding to a market demanding industrial leather for the making of belts, smith aprons, gloves, gaskets and similar industrial products. I would like to know what effect the over hunting of the bison had on places like Indonesia, Singapore and the Congo Free State, where rubber plantations were built in the 1870's, around the same time bison leather supplies were becoming unreliable. I think this transition from bison leather to vulcanized rubber had a greater effect on the world then is considered.

--Brett Knoss --BKnoss 17:41, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know there weren't many rubber plantations in Singapore. Singapore was primarily a port, the rubber plantations were in Malaya Nil Einne 11:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Ok fair enough however my point is; bison hides were of great value durring the industiral revolution, and although some products could be make from cattle hide the toughest applications requiered a new material such as vulcanized rubber.

--BKnoss 04:53, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=282720


Bos?

Why isn't this article under Bos bison? Eco jake 22:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Eco Jake


Why should it ? Can you name any modern zoology textbook that would include them under the genus "Bos" ?
147.142.186.54 (talk) 15:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


The Name "Buffalo"

It is perfectly proper to refer to the American bison as buffalo. Check any dictionary. These animals were called buffalo long before the taxonomists gave them the name bison (which incidentally is not an English word but the Latin spelling for the Germantic word wisent).

"Bison" is more precise; it refers only to the North American animal.
the Bison bison, and to the European bison, Bison bonasus.

Bisons are not true buffalos, which exist in Africa and Asia. That's just the name people always call it.

It is neither "perfectly" nor "un-perfectly proper", since they are neither "un-true" nor "true", but simply NO "buffaloes". It may hurt your patriotic sentiments, but a number of large animals in North America are popularly misnamed; for the simple reason that hunters, explorers and settlers had very limited knowledge of zoology (probably the number of degree holders or otherwise well-read individuals was quite limited). They saw an animal and gave it a name as they saw fit, according to their knowledge, which was rather superficial. What you call "elk" in America is not one (that is a Germanic word for the genus alces), but the larger sub-species of the Eurasian Red Deer. Then they saw "real" elks/alces, and had to take an indigenous name. The "mountain/silver lion" is not closely related to any lion, far less than the leopard or even cheetah, it is a very large small cat, zoologically. They saw these wild bovines and apparently confused them with water buffaloes (the English is from French or Italian, in turn from latin Bubalus, in turn from Greek boubalos, which was their version of some indigenous name of some horned animal in North Africa, and later applied to water buffalo when they came to see them in the Near East.What you Call "elk" we call Moose. What we call "elk" are really "Wapiti". I don't know how to take your remark about limited "degree holders or otherwise well-read individuals". Are you talking about a few early hunters or Americans as a whole?
It would be most confusing to continue such erroneous naming, esp. in an Encyclopaedia. And you unconsciously gave another good reason yourself. Bison are included in the same genus as wisent, so it is a good idea to use the age-old term when naming a newly-discovered animal. "American Wisent" would have been appropriate as well. It is completely unpossible to use "buffalo" for a sister-species of wisent. Dictionaries do not count here, because they simply reflect ordinary people's habits. here we are dealing with science.147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Are names like red panda, aardvark, hippopotamus, sea cow, and hedgehog really so impossibly difficult to understand? This is language; science has nothing to do with it. The American bison could be called the azure-winged goat-ape and that would be a perfectly sensible term to note if it were a name that people actually used. And it would make so much more sense than an under-utilized, practically invented term like "American wisent" (which produces three Google hits as of 16 April 2008). -- MLS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.221.165.118 (talk) 06:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There's a reason it's called a Common Name. Stop being pedantic about this shit. k, thnxAsk D.N.A.- Peter Napkin (talk) 15:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"It is completely unpossible to use "buffalo" for a sister-species of wisent.", Sorry, but bollocks! I suppose you're perfectly happy to hear the term "Cape Buffalo, yet its scientific name is Syncerus caffer, and you'll please note that there is no mention of the word "buffalo" in the scientific name at all. But, Cape buffalo is accepted as the common name, because that's what it's commonly called. And by the same token, 300 million people in N America call their animal buffalo too, so, buffalo they are. 68.99.252.93 (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
300 million people in North America don't use proper grammar, either, and if asked would probably tell you that "octopi" is a valid word, that the rhinoceros is a dinosaur and that puffins can't fly. Common opinion doesn't stand for very much. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 02:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

to the guy above you have to remember American English is not British English and this needs to be reflected in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.185.56.19 (talk) 13:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Biggest in size

So wood bison, as large as it is, is still not the biggest cattle in the world. I have to wonder what kind of beast gaur and Asian wild buffalo are? Anyone know much about these creatures?

Take a look at their respective articles. Bear in mind the thick winter coat especially around the head and neck (giving it a rather large looking head) would make it look significantly bigger then it is (ever seen a wet longhair cat?). This thick coat is obviously lacking in these Asian cattle Nil Einne 11:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing I found common in Bison and gaur is they both bear a shoulder hump:

So my question is: bison's hump, is it the same type of hump found in the gaur, which is made of muscles?

Good answers above. Wild Water buffalo are very rare; I do not know if one could encounter them in captivity anywere - and do not in any way confuse them with the numerous domestic water buffalo (Southern Asia through Southern Europe) which are much smaller. Gaur are held in a number of zoos (I remember them very well from my adolescent zoo visits in Berlin. Gaur do not have a hump like Bison, Camels or Zebu cattle. They are just very muscular (sort of like an hypertrophic athlet, if you like that image). 147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Yellowstone's bison herd

The article implies that Yellowstone's herd was formed from transplated animals from the Bronx Zoo. That is only partially accurate. The animal never became extinct in the park; there was a small herd living there in 1890, but as its numbers were threatened, it was decided to stock the park with some zoo transplants as well. (I made a small edit to reflect this.)

Actually, it is entirely untrue that bison were brought in from the Bronx zoo. The bison that were brought in in 1902 were from the Goodnight herd in Texas and the Pablo/Allard herd in Montana, where the National Bison Range is now. Reference: History of the Bison in Yelowstone National Park (1951) Skinner et. al. Chief Rangers's office. I made changes to reflect this, as well as changes to the "hunt" portion. (Anonymus)

What about the Austin Corbin herd from New Hampshire? http://books.google.com/books?id=Oy4_AQAAIAAJ&pg=PA434&dq=corbin++new+hampshire+bison+herd&hl=en&ei=9qegTtynHajH0AGir9mNBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=corbin%20%20new%20hampshire%20bison%20herd&f=false

Reproduction

In a narrative about the American Bison, I think it is wrong to state that Bison can be homosexuals. Many male mammals will mount males as well as females but is this homosexuality? The term homosexual should relate to human behavior only. Humans can understand and choose this sexual preference if they desire. Animals do not have the cognizance for this any more than they have for hate, greed or any other human trait. Many young people use these pages for reference and should not be confused by verbage such as this. All statements relating to Homosexuality in any animal should be stricken from Wikipedia. (edit by anon user 66.157.90.190 2005-07-08 15:07)

Sorry but I disagree with this 100%. Your assertion that homosexulality is a purely human trait seems to be based on the assumption that homosexuality is a choice. Homosexuality is a natural state in humans and there is increasing evidence it is natural in other mammals as well. Homosexuality is sexual relations with same gender. Nothing in there about humanity – the prefix "homo-" deriving from the greek for same "homos" (as in homogenous), not the latin for man (as in Homo Sapiens). The implications of saying that other mammals "lack cognizance" or are too stupid to tell the difference between males and females is just ludicrous. Please dont push political agendas by requesting that things that disagree with your own personal philosophy be removed from wikipedia, we have a policy of maintaing a Neutral Point of View. User:MrWeeble (who in the interests of full disclosure is homosexual and didn't "choose" to be so) 23:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the bigger question is whether we're talking about male bison who mount exclusively (or nearly exclusively) other males, or whether we're simply talking about overexcited animals that will mount anything vaguely resembling another bison. The first case would represent a homosexual bison. I would argue that the second case wouldn't. Gary D Robson 17:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The question can be addressed by discussing homosexual behaviour among bison, which is pretty clear: some male bisons mount other male bisons, so the have sex with members of the same sex as themselves. Unless there is evidence of bison who engage exclusively in homosexual behaviour, talking about homosexual bison would be incorrect. Deleting references to homosexual behaviour among bison would also be incorrect: young people do not learn if we hide facts from them. There is no Wikipedia policy that says that articles should be bowlderized. Ground Zero | t 21:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad you feel that way, I am of the same opinion. So what to do about the anon and his repetitive deletions of material we both agree is appropriate? Haiduc 21:34, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I have restored the paragraph, and adjusted it to use "homosexual behavior" instead of "homosexuality". The paragraph is lined to another article on homosexuality in animals, and there is a reference provided, so there is not much more that can be done to convince the anon editor. I will look into protecting the page if necessary. As an administrator, I can do this, but I have to research the protocls for doing so. Ground Zero | t 21:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Homosexual behavior" sounds much better. Anonymous

Thanks for your help, Ground Zero. And to the anon, please discuss next time you have a problem, things can usually be worked out. Haiduc 23:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Has anyone more familiar with the species considered adding more information about typical reproductive habits? As it is, the discussion of homosexual behavior and "inter-sex" individuals rather overwhelms the rest of the information--information that probably has a broader appeal. Moreover, the comparison between the inter-sex bison and transsexuals seems a little out of place. I imagine there is a substantial difference between the biological condition and the psychological condition. --MLS

"Not Verified"-Tag

I put a not verified tag on this article becaue a)it needs citations, and b) it seems to repeat a common myth about the Plains Culture Native Americans playing no role in the decimation of the buffalo, erroneously blaming the decimation solely on European colonists. It is thought by at least some anthropologists that the Plains Culture, which did not exist prior to European-American contact, specifically Spanish-American contact, and the acquisition of horses by Native Americans, that the decimation of the buffalo began with the large scale hunting by Native Americans that hunting on horseback made possible. Most tribes that were not able to make a sure living on the plains prior to horseback hunting, migrated to the plains, causing a population explosion, and *subsequent over-hunting of the bufffalo. This lasted about 200 years, all the while the buffalo population dwindling --coinciding with the rise and fall of the Plains Culture-- until the near-extinction of the buffalo (which European encroachment probably only gave a coup de gras to). From my understanding, which I can cite sources for if I rewrite some of this article, guns and direct hunting by Europeans did not play a significant role because the guns available at the time were not as efficient as arrows from horesback. Natives Americans on horseback were far more efficient at killing the buffalo than Europeans in other words. --Brentt 03:11, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

There has been quite a lot of work done on the role of native people in the extinction of most of the large mammals in North America, with a very recent study associating such extinctions on one of the Carribean islands (Puerto Rico?) with its colonization six or seven thousand years ago, long after the mainland extinctions, so this could be put in that context also. But it is up to you to document theories and sources. Haiduc 12:02, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find a page that verifies that the Bison can jump a fence at http://www.nwbison.org/raise_buffalo.htm. This should be a good source for the needed citation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.159.118.118 (talk) 06:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)


I believe all of these points are defensible: - Most of the inidigenous cultures in north america were modern hunter gatherers who were good at self regulating (both their populations and harvesting techniques). A lot of cultural change had taken place after the wave of paleolithic hunting technologies involved in the megafauna extinctions (consider how far European cultures have changed in the past 10,000 years...) - Plains cultures clearly existed before contact and had hunted buffalo for centuries (using buffalo jumps and pounds). The buffalo were a highly seasonal source of food, supporting only small populations, and seasonal movement to wooded areas was common. - The release of horses into north america led to a change in the hunt pattern and societal changes (eg. pony raiding, increased polygamy, expansion of populations and movement of several groups onto the plains) - prior to effective european control there had been a couple of centuries of horse based buffalo hunting and the herds are still reported as being uneffected into the 1840s. The arrival of cheaper gunpowder could have had an effect after this point. - The hunting techniques used by aboriginals were largely sustainance based and much less efficient than the annual hunts organised by the Métis. - The widespread harvesting of buffalo in order to support the fur trade (pemmican) and industrialisation (belts) created a massive increase in demand. Encouraging sport killing and slaughter by American soldiers didn't help. - The introduction of cattleborn diseases could have also played a significant role (I would be interested in seeing any references on this). - If the primary cause was hunting by indigenous people then why did the final collapse happen during the 1870s and 1880s with European dominance of the plains? With the decrease in aboriginal hunting why haven't the populations returned to their former size?

There has been much debate about this topic (both now and when it was taking place). Perhaps a new article is in store?--Hrimpurstala206.248.130.147 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty to make one passage in the above contribution appear in bolt print, because it appeared to me to be especially important for rational reasoning. 147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


White Buffalo/Albino?

"One very rare condition results in the white buffalo, where the calf turns entirely white. It is not to be confused with albino, since pigment still exists in the skin, hair, and eyes. White buffalo are considered sacred by many Native Americans."

I changed the sentence slightly for added clarity. It was hard to tell what was being described, the albino or the white buffalo.


I think you've changed it the wrong way; Albinism reads "Albinism... is a lack of pigmentation in the eyes, skin and hair.", while this article reads, "It [White Buffalo] is not to be confused with albino, since albinos still possess pigment in the skin, hair, and eyes." I've changed it to "since white buffalo...." --Nucleusboy 13:23, 26 December 2005 (UTC)


Rv of http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Bison&oldid=31352453

Why was this edit reverted - it looked fine to me. N0YKG 19:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about the revert I made, it was copyvio from this site. — Amcaja 20:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


Bison hunting

I have not found anything on hunting techniques used by Native American peoples except a (very) brief mention of buffalo jumps in this article. I think we should start a Buffalo hunting or Bison hunting article (see Talk:Paul Kane#Bison hunting for some leads), incorporating the current contents of the "Hunting" section from this article, and then replace that section here by a summary of that new article. Lupo 09:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I have an ethonography that goes into quite a bit of detail of plains culture hunting techniques. Most of the hunting took place during a seasonal large scale hunt, in which a herd was circled by men on horses then they would be picked off with arrows (they didn't use guns because muzzle loaders, which although available, we're much less efficient, and more expensive than arrows, and they were basically shooting a captive target since they were surrounded and the buffalo tended to stay together in the circle). Because of this technique of killing off a whole herd in one seasonal hunt, the buffalo population was actually already dwindling significantly by the time Europeans started directly participating in hunts (Europeans we're trading plains peoples for buffalo products before Europeans we're actually participating in hunts, which I think was part of the impetus for such large scale hunts to take place --the statement in the article about native americans not "participating in commercial hunts" seems to be innacurate, as at least some of the spoils of the hunt were eventuall traded with Europeans --trade is commerce, isn't it?).
Also of interest is the fact that no tribes hunted buffalo as a primary means to make a living, and nobody lived in the interior of the plains, before the acquisition of horses from Europeans in the 1700s --as it wasn't a feasible way to make a living without horses. The plains culture was a result of the newly exploitable resource that horses made possible to benefit from. That's why the plains culture was such a mish-mash of different cultures with only a basic common language used for trade which had no native speakers (the sign-langauge).
I've been planning on adding some of this info to the article, but I havn't got around to it. I have the book to reference and cite, which I think is going to be important since some people seem to be offended by the idea that native americans possibly weren't always "in harmony" with their environment, actually may have traded, didn't actually use "all" of the buffalo, and killed whole herds off therefore contributing to the decimation of the buffalo even before Europeans participated in hunts. The whole noble savage myth. --Brentt 08:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Make sure you accurately mention what times and places/regions (and perhaps numbers) you are talking about when you print those statements (which I do not claim to be wrong, and are not new to me either, because I also read similar texts in print before). The more detailed the picture, the more precise the wording, the less probable becomes any confusion arising in readers. - Also it may be a goog idea to use more than one text or book, since at least some aspects may be controversial among modern researchers; I guess journals like your "Ethnohistory" may be a good source, e.g. for book reviews or review articles (I read some issues years ago in a European library).147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Natural enemies

Do bisons have any natural enemies, one that takes on both adults as well as calves? I think it is an interesting point to be mentioned.

I have seen videos of a wolf pack taking down a straggling cow in winter when the bison do not have the energy to fight back effectively as a herd. Therefore, I think the statement "Grizzly bears and packs of wolves may attempt to attack a young calf or subadult, but it's impossible for them to challenge a healthy adult." is bogus. If no one protests, I will edit out the last part of this sentance. Eco jake 17:09, 22 July 2006 (UTC)Eco Jake


Native American names for Bison

Is this relevant since there is only one entry? Either it needs to be expanded (and potentially moved to its own article) or taken out. I edited this section for vanity.

This statement seems to have been from last June, and I have to agree. First off, it doesn't seem (to me, anyway) particularly relevant what the many tribes who interacted with or depended on the bison called them. Secondly, there's only three names there, and none of them are sourced. It's been 7 months since this comment, and only two more words have been added, and I can't immediately find any real justification for leaving the section in, so I'm going to be bold and remove it for now. --Miskwito 00:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your point on "relevance". In a purely biological context, of course it does not matter at all. But an article in a general Encyclopaedia may well contain information on the cultural history side as well, as large print Encyclopaedias do. I do find it appropriate, esp. if well-written, well-referenced and included in a larger section on the role of Bison in Native American Life and culture.147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Mitochondrial DNA

"The numbers are uncertain because the tests so far used mitochondrial DNA analysis, and thus would miss cattle genes inherited in the male line; most of the hybrids look exactly like purebred bison."

My understanding is that in bison/cattle interbreeding a successful birth to a cattle cow is exceedingly rare if not impossible because of the large size of the calf. If this is true all or nearly all interspecies offspring would have a female bison and male cattle parent and thus inherit no cattle M-DNA. Either my understanding, which I believe is fairly common, is incorrect and may be worth addressing, or the validity of the M-DNA analysis sited is questionable.

It appears to be true that crossing a male bison with a female cow isn't particularly successful Beefalo (which isn't particularly unusual when there is a significant size difference). On the other hand, bear in mind we're not necessarily thinking of great success and it doesn't have to happen that often. Once you have a beefalo or whatever you want to call it with cow m-dna this will spread through it's female offspring. In any case, since the results show a very high level of cow m-dna amongst bison and a low level of purebred bison, if anything the number of purebred is even smaller then we think Nil Einne 11:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Buffalo versus Grizzly bear?

Does anyone have any information on any clashes between Grizzly bears and buffalo?--Ryan Gardner 18:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Just this:There are some photos circulating of a bison chasing off a potential grizzly attack. The photographer was Mike Tercek. http://www.miketercek.com -Kalanu

How can there be a clash, if at all, between a bison and a grizzly? The bison outclasses the bear in every way, strength and size. Trust me on this, there has never been a case of grizzly bringing down bison, those are the cases in which grizzly feeds on the carcasses of dead bisons, the observers just try to boast the strength of grizzly by this kind of exaggeration. If not convinced, you can spend your whole life with the bear and will not witness this, I assure. I really doubt if the bear has enough courage to take on a bison just to steal calf. Let alone bison, an adult moose is already too much for grizzly/Kodiak, all kinds of brown bear. 

-S-
What is this? A zoological Dungeons and Dragons? "The bear has mad attack skills, gotta be at least 30 points per hit. But I don't know, the buffalo has atleast 10 more stamina points, tough call." Brentt 07:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Where was that? In the article? Nil Einne 11:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind I get it now, that was a joke suggesting what the people above may be thinking Nil Einne 11:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


Bison and cape buffalo

I suspect that the bison weight is only equal that of cape buffalo. Bison is taller at the shoulder, but c.buffalo has a stockire body. In fact, I got some pic of killed bison and cape buffalo, and my feeling is the cape is even larger than bison. Anyone agrees?

Those are your guesses. Look at a good modern zoology textbook, and the reference they in turn cite, for answers.147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


Too many pictures?

I think there are too many images on this article. Some of them aren't as well done as the others and should be removed. 211.25.10.168 07:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


Too specific

Most of this article is pruely about the Plains Bison and doesn't relate to the Wood Bison. Only generic information common to both subspecies should be on this page, with more specific info, moved to the sub-pages. Kevlar67 23:29, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


Subjective sentence

Regarding the following sentence: "Bison can jump up to 6 feet high and run up to 40 mph, a fact that comes as a surprise to those familiar with docile domesticated cattle."

This is not necessarily true. Having grown up in a family that raises domesticated cattle for a living, I've personally seen cattle clear five-foot fences and run upwards of 30 MPH - which can, incidentally, make for a rather interesting four-wheeler ride at roundup time. Since bison are larger and stronger, their athletic abilities come as no surprise to anyone really familiar with domesticated cattle. The sentence should be rephrased to exclude the subjective elements. (Anonymus)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.25.128.4 (talk • contribs) 05:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


Evolution and Prehistoric Bison

There's been a hot debate among evolutionary biologists concerning the origins of the American Bison. Some argue that the modern bison are descended from the Beringian (Steppe) Bison, others vehemently disagree. (The Beringian bison is characterized by the wide spacing of it's horns as shown in this picture here. A recent genetic study of bison mitochondrial DNA provides hard evidence that the Beringian bison are not ancestors, but cousins to the American Bison. BBC Bison Study Report. Why the ancestors of the American Bison would survive the great megafauna extinction at the end of the last ice age when so many other species perished, is still a mystery. (Anonymus)

That extinction at that time was mainly a North American affair; genus Bison evolved in Asia and spread subsequently filling the gap; what is the problem ?147.142.186.54 (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


"Buffalo trails"

I proposed merging the article Buffalo trails into this one. I have since looked at it further, and most of the information is already present, so I think I will redirect it to here. However, there are a couple of interesting external links that I thought might be useful here:

--Kateshortforbob 11:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Only distantly related?

"'Buffalo' is something of a misnomer for this animal as it is only distantly related to either of the two "true buffaloes", the water buffalo and the African buffalo."

This seems incongruous with the information on Bovinae, which states that the three are in different genera of the tribe Bovini. So how is this statement justified? -- Smjg (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging

This article talk page was automatically added with {{WikiProject Food and drink}} banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here . Maximum and carefull attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories , but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns , please inform on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Move

When, exactly, did bison become a proper noun? I suggest a move to American bison (which is now one of the stupidest & most needless redirects I've seen). TREKphiler hit me ♠ 10:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

See other replies. Elsewhere. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:RCMP logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --02:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bison bones

I came across a 2005 Article that talks about some 2,000-year-old bison bones discovered in Illinois, and how that doesn't jive with accepted theories about American bison. I wasn't sure if it was relevant anywhere in the article, so I just thought I'd share it here. Mingusboodle (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Another article Mingusboodle (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Raised importance rating

[1] An attempt is made to gauge the probability of the average reader of Wikipedia needing to look up the topic (and thus the immediate need to have a suitably well-written article on it). Topics which may seem obscure to a Western audience—but which are of high notability in other places—should still be highly rated.[2]SriMesh | talk 03:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Species/Ecotype Controversy

From the little bit of research that I've done, there doesn't seem to be a consensus, yet, on whether the Wood Bison is a subspecies or ecotype of the North American Bison. So I added some references that discuss the controversy. But it would be nice if someone created a section for discussing the controversy and enumerating the arguments for both sides of the debate. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies with other language versions

I just noticed the discrepancy between the english language version and other's language versions, f.ex. the german one: In the english one there is never mentioned that originally 60 billion(!) bison lived in the US before the Americans started to slaughter them next to extinction, in addition, the fact that native americans contributed to it is emphasized. looks to me as if americans wanted reduce the guilt they have propaganda-wise. hope that someone sees the urge to get some facts straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.195.181.106 (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


Just checked, the German version does _not_ currently give any indications that there were ever 60 billion bison. If it did at one time, it was likely a transcription error. I've never seen any reasonable estimates that claim there were ever more than about 200 million (and 60 million is a commonly cited number). As far as any perceived emphasis on aboriginal contributions to the near extinction in the 19th century, I think it more likely that these theories (which are not entirely implausible) are explained in detail because they are in opposition to the popular notion that it was entirely the fault of US Government policy in order to completely subjugate the Plains tribes. If you want to present information that contradicts something most people already accept as fact, it's best to be thorough.SEWalk (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Fewer ribs in Europe?

The claimed rib and spinal differences between American and European bison seem surprising for such closely related species. I note that the only reference for this is from the early 19th century. The 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica mentions other differences but nothing on this. Is this information correct, or an ancient misunderstanding now being recycled by Wikipedia?--Charles (talk) 22:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

According to a source slightly older than that referencing the article (Allen, Joel Asaph (1877). History of the American bison: ‘’Bison americanus‘’. Washington: Government Printing Office. p. 454.), this is a misconception that arose from an uncommon mutation which happened to be present in the specimen originally described by Cuvier. Intelligentsium 20:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Faulty, Un-Scientific Thinking in article statement

Article states: "American bison tend to graze more, and browse less than their European cousins, due to their necks being set differently."

That is bad reasoning. They don't graze more and browse less because their necks are set differently. Rather, their neck structures have evolved to become set differently, since they experience survival advantages with that neck structure; and one of the advantages may be easier ability to graze. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.77.129 (talk) 21:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey

Hi . How About FEmale Buffalo. Is There A Namee For It. 66.131.190.6 (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Female bovines are called heifers. Once they have had calves they are called cows. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mentattodd (talk • contribs) 01:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

"Massive herds" recent occurrence?

Bob Jackson claims that the "massive herds" were an unnatural reaction to the new horse technology acquired by the plains tribes of Native Americans. Jackson: "Those huge herds were already dysfunctional. Why? The Indians, now horse back, made bison families into refuge populations..." -> Here

"Ed. note: Bob Jackson was a notable backcountry ranger in Yellowstone Park for 30 years. I covered a number of stories about him on my old web site. Now he is a private bison rancher." Wegerje (talk) 01:52, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dangers

Should not the section of "Dangers" be included within the "Behavior and ecology"? It is a very strange place for it at the end of the article! --aad_Dira (talk) 14:58, 5 January 2011 (UTC).

Probably. Rivertorch (talk) 22:42, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible Vandelism

"Old West bison hunting by white people". Does anyone know what the article used to say?--Craigboy (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

As you can see from checking the article history, the edit that added it was this one. Although the content appears to be more or less factual, the terminology isn't optimal. Some of it has since been changed; some is still there. If anyone is up for helping to overhaul the whole article, I'd be willing to collaborate. (I started a rough copyedit months ago and got sidetracked.) Rivertorch (talk) 04:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

American bison → American buffalo – See WP:COMMONNAME. The question of what is the "correct" term for something is often open to interpretation and not engraved on tablets of stone. The scientific name for this animal is "Bison bison" which nobody is challenging, but nobody is proposing to make the title. I am aware that this animal is more closely related to the Old World animal called bison that buffalo, but that is not decisive. Migrants to the Americas often transferred the names of Old World fauna to superficial New World equivalents which were not closely related, but the terms are now generally accepted e.g. American robin. The term "buffalo" for this animal is well-established in American culture. Imagine referring to "Bison Bill", or singing about "O give me a home where the bison roam", or re-naming the city in New York state. A recent documentary series about the Wild West abandoned pedantry and called them buffalo. PatGallacher (talk) 16:25, 19 May 2011 (UTC) I was thinking about The West (documentary), acclaimed executive producer Ken Burns who made the earlier series on the Civil War, see [3] which just calls them buffalo. PatGallacher (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Meh. While "buffalo" is undoubtedly more common than "bison" in the North American vernacular, precede either word with "American" to precisely note the critter in question and it's not so clear. A Google search turns up 691,000 hits for "American buffalo" versus 536,000 hits for "American bison"—not exactly a landslide in favor of the former—and a quick check suggests a preference for the latter in the scientific community. I rarely consider article titles worth fighting over, since an infinite number of redirects are possible, but since "American buffalo" seems less precise to me, count me as a weak oppose. Whatever the title is, the article needs some work. Rivertorch (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • It is properly a bison, not a buffalo. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose bison is pretty popular, as is buffalo. When I go to the supermarket, I buy bison meat, and I've seen them referred to as bison more often that buffalo, as of late. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 03:49, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose; usage is fairly evenly split, but if we favor scientific sources, "bison" is the clear winner. (And the city in New York was not named after the animal, so that's rather a silly argument.) Powers T 00:50, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Could you please clarify? I understand the regional distinction betweeen possum and opossum but don't see a parallel there to bison and buffalo. Rivertorch (talk) 05:41, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
No one says "bison" in the U.S., not even in PBS documantaries about them or about Yellowstone National Park, etc., and no one says "oppossum" in the U.S., not ever. Softlavender (talk) 01:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining what you meant. Lots of Americans do say (and write) "bison", though. Fewer sound the 'o' in opossum, although it's not exactly unheard of. Rivertorch (talk) 04:26, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I say bison and opossum, as do many others I've talked with in the Pacific Northwest. It is possible that there are regional differences in how common the two alternatives are. Pfly (talk) 08:31, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "buffalo" is not necessarily the common name any more. As far as which term is "correct", J. A. Rorabacher in The American Buffalo states that "scientifically, the term buffalo is incorrect for the North American species...however, common usage has made the term buffalo an acceptable synonym for the American bison. Let's not use a synonym for the article title. Also, W.T. Hornaday an authority on bison mentions that "a true buffalo is an animal with no hump on its shoulders and is found only in Africa and Asia. Our animal having a high hump, is really a bison." (from Buffalo Sacred & Sacrificed by G. MacEwan). BC  talk to me 06:07, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I've hear "buffalo" as being pretty common, but not "American buffalo", so I don't accept the COMMON argument. I would also argue that reliable sources on the subject (i.e., scientific and taxonomical sources, even other encyclopaedias) would undoubtedly refer to it as the American bison. Rennell435 (talk) 13:57, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Buffalo was certainly the common term historically, but these days bison has largely replaced it. Also, by the way, Buffalo, NY, was almost certainly not named for bison; see Buffalo, New York#Name origin. Pfly (talk) 18:29, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Buffalo" may be widely used in North America, but "bison" is also used there, and "bison" is the usual term in British English and I think other varieties. WP is for all English-speaking users: see WP:COMMONALITY, where it says "Universally used terms are often preferable to less widely distributed terms, especially in article titles". Also, "bison" is widely and long established as the "correct" term (as demonstrated by the MacEwan quote above), even if this may originally have been for arguably spurious reasons. Richard New Forest (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Richard New Forest. The proposal is distinctly US-centric.--Charles (talk) 08:29, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too many images

I tagged the article as having too many images. I removed the audio file (it is in the infobox) and 2 images of coinage (they were based on the original nickel). My removal of the upper gallery of five images was reverted by the uploader of the images with a change in phrasing that addressed my advertising concern without reducing the number of images.

  • There are 32 images and 18 sub-/sections, (not including the reference sections of "References", "See also", "Further reading, and "External links").
  • Each section may have an image that explains said section more graphically.
  • If a section does not need an image to explicate it, an image is not needed.

How many images of B.b. are needed in the article? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Tatanka

With this edit, I'm restoring a sentence twice removed. Responding to the two points in the edit summary of the second removal:

  1. Adds nothing to explain the name of the bison.
While it adds nothing to our understanding of the English word, it is a name for bison. It was used widely once upon a time, it continues to be used regionally by speakers of an extant language which doesn't have its own Wikipedia but whose speakers also speak English, and it's encountered in popular culture. Therefore, it is noteworthy and seems reasonable to include.
  1. Why is the Lokota word solely shown? Other tribes had a name for bison as well.
The Lakota word is shown because someone bothered to include it (and I sourced it). That other translations haven't yet been added isn't a valid reason to remove this one. If you know of any others and can provide sources, please add them to the article. Rivertorch (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind, although it might serve as a useful illustration for WP:POINT. It would have been nice if a discussion had progressed here. Instead, the baby is now gone with the bathwater. If I ever get around to it, I'll try to find some sources explaining why tatanka is noteworthy. In the meantime, by all means, let's keep en.wp free of "foreign" words. Rivertorch (talk) 09:17, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Environmental history of bison conservation in Canada

Proposed Outline

  • Historical decline of the North American bison population
    • Plains bison – importance and symbolism
    • Wood bison –
    • Social ecology - importance to indigenous people
    • Evolution of hunting practices
    • Implications for preservation efforts
  • Origins of wildlife preservation in Canada
    • Ideological development of the wildlife conservation movement
    • Contradictions
  • The evolution of federal government wildlife policy in Canada
    • Trajectory: preservation → utilitarian conservation → rational, scientific, bureaucratic management that promoted domestication of wildlife and Native people
    • Goals: preservation of wilderness and wildlife; recreational, commercialization, assertion of state authority and control over wildlife and Native people
    • Contradictions in policies
    • Social, cultural, and political forces
      • Internal colonialism – disdain for Native hunting cultures, assertion of state authority, influence of scientific knowledge, modernization agenda for Canada’s north
    • Significance and legacies over the long term – historical and cultural implications
  • National Parks
    • Buffalo National Park in Wainwright, Alberta
    • Wood Bison National Park in northeastern Alberta and southern Northwest Territories
    • 1925-28: Transfer of plains bison from the overpopulated range in Buffalo National Park to the supposedly understocked range in Wood Buffalo National Park resulted in hybridization between the species and the infection of the northern herds with tuberculosis and brucellosis (Sandlos, 2002, 95).
  • Interactions between Aboriginal peoples, preservationists, and government officials
    • Cultural and ecological interactions between Native Americans and Euroamericans in the Great Plains
    • Historical conflict between Native hunters and conservationists over bison
    • Assertion of state authority over the traditional hunting cultures of the Cree, Dene, and Inuit peoples
    • Social, cultural, political, and economic implications for Aboriginals
    • Ecological implications for bison populations
  • Contemporary bison conservation
    • Significance and legacies
    • Current conservation efforts – plans to reintroduce bison to Banff National Park

--Sara Binns (talk) 00:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. Is this a proposal for a new article? Its detail is beyond the scope of this article. Rivertorch (talk) 02:14, 9 Ma
Hello Rivertorch, we are a group of university students taking North American Environmental History course in UBC, and we will be making a couple of edits on the American Bison article as part of an education program called Wikipedia:Canada Education Program HIST396 (indicated on the banner on top of this talk page). We have proposed to add the section: Environmental History of the American Bison as shown outline. Thank you. Please feel free to give us any advice as we are new to wikipedia. --Chaereankim (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thanks for replying so promptly. I hadn't seen the banner, but welcome to the project. The outline looks well organized and comprehensive. It looks as if there should be enough new content for a separate article (perhaps entitled Environmental history of bison conservation in Canada). Information from that article could then be summarized for a new section in this article. My concern is that placing text based on the above outline in this article will make this article too long and unbalance it. Keep in mind that this article is about the species as it exists (and existed) throughout North America; like other articles about species, it is deliberately general in scope.

If you do decide to start this as a new article, I'd be glad to look it over and provide any help I'm able to give. Please take a look at Help:Sandbox, which provides easy instructions on creating a user sandbox where you all could collaboratively draft your article before posting it to mainspace (excuse the jargon—"posting it to mainspace" = making it an actual article). Good luck! Rivertorch (talk) 06:06, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. We are using the sandboxes to draft the article, and our outline was put on this talk page to see what response we would get from the Wikipedians! We will definitely ask our instructor if it is more suitable to create a new article titled Environmental history of bison conservation in Canada) rather than adding to this section, since this might make the article too long. --Chaereankim (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Rivertorch - a new article would be appropriate, with a summary of that article placed as a section in this article, with a link to the new article. There's a template available for making that link at the top of the section. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:24, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! I agree that it should be a new article, but may I suggest calling it Bison conservation in Canada? I don't see how adding "Environmental history of" makes it any more descriptive. InverseHypercube (talk) 22:18, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your helpful suggestions, we have decided to title our article: History of bison conservation in Canada, since we will be focusing extensively in Canadian bison conservation. Please let us know what you think! --Chaereankim (talk) 03:56, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good! I look forward to reading it. InverseHypercube (talk) 21:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I just wanted to announce that our article is up: History of bison conservation in Canada, and we are getting it evaluated by our instructor tomorrow. We would like any feedback from the Wiki community. Thank you!--Chaereankim (talk) 05:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Bison land-speed velocity: fail

" As a result, although the land-speed velocity of an unladen European bison exceeds that of an unladen American bison, as net load increases the European bison's maximum velocity diminishes rapidly, with the effect that under even moderate burdens the European bison's performance capabilities are exceeded by those of the American with respect to all of speed, strength, and endurance.[15] "

The book sited in footnote 15 does not discuss the "land-speed velocity of an unladen European bison."

Also, this footnote does not credit Monty Python and the Holy Grail with the original quote regarding swallows. You have to know these things when you are a King, you know.

Someone ought to remove this falsity. Thank you.

Carol Espinosa — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.54.199 (talk) 07:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Split

The target article Bison hunting already exists.

Native hunting is pretty much in the target article so I am removing it from this one. Same for 19th century hunts Resurgence in this article is larger than in the target article so I have moved it from here to the target. Same for Bison Hunting Today

Op47 (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

why no population history - population before the europenas arrived, massacre by europenas etc etc ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.185.47.14 (talk) 01:54, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Number of surviving bison after slaughter

In the section "evolution" (bottom of section) it says that 541 bison lived after the great bison hunts ended. According to the section "hunting" some 750 bison survived, and if you add up the numbers in the map of the surviving herds in the same section it comes to 831 bison. How many were there, actually, in 1890? I think it would be best to have ONE number and not three different ones. --Maxl (talk) 20:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge Bison

Someone needs to update this page to include the Wichita Mountains Wildlife Refuge bison, which were one of the most important locations for saving at least the southern population of these animals. They are still there now. This page should state this, and link to this page at least: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Mountains_Wildlife_Refuge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.171.36.227 ([[User talk:11:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

On Genetics

It would be helpful to know how the Henry Mountains bison herd is fairing, being cattle gene free, compared to other populations of bison. How does the introduction of cattle genes contribute to the genetic variance of the bison after the severe bottleneck? If the plains bison of antelope island are more closely related to the wood buffalo in the wood buffalo national park then to the purebred plain buffalo in Yellowstone, what does this say about the genetic variance of the subspecies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Schneider669 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

American bisons mating with old world domestic cattle

Are there any examples of American bisons mating with old world domestic cattle? Komitsuki (talk) 14:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Picture caption unclear

"Original distribution of plains bison and wood bison in North America. Holocene bison (Bison occidentalis) is an earlier form at the origin of plains bison and wood bison."

"AT the origin"? What does that mean? If it means that holocene bison ARE the origin of the modern varieties, it should say that! GeneCallahan (talk) 19:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Beefalo

There are, and wikipedia has an article on them: Beefalo 99.100.184.106 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Then what about examples of bisons and domestic cattle mating in the wild? Komitsuki (talk) 09:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Time range of the species

The infobox says Pleistocene to present (for this particualr species) but down in the article text it says: "Bison antiquus appeared in the North American fossil record approximately 250,000 years ago. Bison antiquus in turn evolved into the Bison occidentalis, then into the yet smaller Bison bison—the modern American bison—some 5,000 to 10,000 years ago."

Both of those sentences are properly sourced, and IIRC the same statement about Bison bison appearing only about 5.000 years ago is in the article on the Bison genus; this would make the time range mid-Holocene to present - and make the modern American bison one of the youngest of all major land-living species. Anyone care to check if the statement that modern bison emerged around 5K years ago is in tune with modern scientific consensus? 83.254.154.164 (talk) 12:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the bison occidentalis article "Around 5,000 years ago, B. occidentalis was replaced by today's smaller Bison bison." so it must be about 5000 years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by A8v (talk • contribs) 22:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Better than Cattle?

"Bison meat is generally considered to taste very similar to good beef, but is lower in fat and cholesterol, yet higher in protein than beef". That in the article. Also, Buffalo can roam free range and live in the wild, eat off poor grass and do not need to be overwintered in barns or given special feeds.

The obvious question arises; why are they not farmed instead of cattle? 213.114.30.82 (talk) 20:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism in the Buffalo Trail section

The section that contains "The first thoroughfares of North America, except for the time-obliterated paths of mastodon or muskox and the routes of the Mound Builders, were the traces made by bison and deer in seasonal migration and between feeding grounds and salt licks" appears to be plagiarized. While this wording is used verbatim in many websites (probably stolen from this Wikipedia page), it also appears in the 1985 book "Pioneer Trails West." The tone of writing in this section is much more 'floral' and does not sound encyclopedic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.137.11.56 (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Consider name change?

I don't understand why the article is headlined as American bison, when the term "buffalo" is widespread and predates "bison" as the word used to describe this animal. SandSan (talk) 00:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

section organization

I would like to suggest that the extensive discussion of gene purity in the heards should be moved out of the "as livestock" section to a more appropriate section, though I would like to see added to the "as livestock" section something about the history of american bisons transition from being listed as endangered to being back on the menu. 24.94.25.67 (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)Sandy

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on American bison. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:17, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on American bison. 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:

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) 21:54, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

What's in a name?

I reverted these changes. I believe that the bison–buffalo name distinction was already covered pretty well in the Etymology section, and the new wording in the lead section didn't properly summarize that later text. The new wording also seemed to take a prescriptive approach to usage of the word "buffalo", and Wikipedia tends to avoid that. Also, it is very much a case of "commonly", not "sometimes". The cn link isn't really desirable, either; it's one of those easily verifiable, sky-is-blue assertions (one has only to check some dictionaries) that somehow doesn't lend itself to secondary sourcing. RivertorchFIREWATER 12:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Bison in Central Ohio

I propose adding a simple sentence in Range and population acknowledging that Bison have been reintroduced successfully for several years now bringing the total up to 10.[1] Anything along the lines of: Bison have been reintroduced to Central Ohio; would be fine. Thanks -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2015/05/08/baby-bison.html
I wonder if that's particularly noteworthy. Ten bison? There are way more than that in lots of places. The article doesn't even suggest it's significant. "Just in time for Mother's Day"? It looks like a space-filler story to me. RivertorchFIREWATER 17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
Just a thought I had once I came across the mention that 23 bison have been reintroduced to Indiana as explained in cite note 45. The more detailed references would be more biased sources from park service websites so I tend to look for local papers. I'm not loosing sleep over the issue of Ohio being in the American Bison article though. -- Sixflashphoto (talk) 19:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on American bison. 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:

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) 12:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

31,000 vs. 500,000?

I'm confused by the sentence "Recovery efforts expanded in the mid-20th century, with a resurgence to roughly 31,000[5] animals today..." This seems to directly conflict the later blurb "About 500,000 bison currently exist on private lands and around 30,000 on public lands which includes environmental and government preserves.[48]" 31,000 is a lot less than 500,000! Should the top sentence be edited to "Recovery efforts expanded in the mid-20th century, with a resurgence to roughly 31,000[5] animals today" **on public lands and 500,000 on private lands**? Aemely (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

@Aemely: Good point, i think. Along the same lines, perhaps the article might explain why their conservation status is currently at "Near threatened" ("may be threatened with extinction in the near future" [Wiki]) if there are 500,000 of them living on private lands alone and one can freely purchase buffalo/bison meat online and in some restaurants.HistoryBuff14 (talk) 19:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The link in the article is broken. I found the article at the link below, but I'm not sure what the rules are for where citations can be linked. But maybe someone else has a better place to look for articles like this.

Social behavior of the American buffalo (Bison) By Mchugh, Tom https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/51124024

S. Gartner talk 23:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I went ahead and updated the URL. I think it's best to link to a url that people can access. oncamera 00:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Horning

Cedar and Pine are commonly used as insect repellent in place of moth balls having a more pleasant and natural smell, By rubbing their horns on the branches of these trees, the horns would pick up the odour themselves rather than merely making the trees emit the smell into the general area. A perfect defence for the buffalo from being surrounded by a swarm of insects around their heads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.248.176.67 (talk) 09:33, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

American-Centric and misleading/biologically inaccurate information

This article (and many others on the internet) is/are incredibly American-centric.

The United States of America nearly extirpated wild bison populations off the face of their country (~24 or less were left in Yellowstone that escaped hunters in a remote area), and yet there is no mention of Canada's role in ensuring the survival/existence of the species and that of its sub-species wood bison (Bison bison athabascae).

Range information on 'American Bison' (Bison bison) is completely lacking in that it only gives placemarkers of American locations and none in Canada. Granted this was the extreme locations of Bison bison's range, so I suppose this is somewhat accurate, however it doesn't geographically best illustrate its northern, southern, eastern and western range extent.

The common name "American Bison" (I'm a biologist, it's a common-name, not a scientific one) is mainly used in the United States. I haven't heard it mentioned here much in Canada at all. Sure, it's your National Mammal and all, but the name is misleading.

Thirdly, Wood Bison. The athabascae in their genus-species (subspecies) epithet likely refers to Lake Athabasca in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, Canada (which is an anglicanization of a Cree word for "grass or reeds here and there", and also in reference to an indigenous language grouping in the area). I will admit Canada did have its problems with near extinction of bison as well, but the most genetically pure group of wood buffalo are located either in some remote parts of Wood Buffalo National Park (the 2nd largest National Park in the world), or in Elk Island National Park outside of Edmonton, Alberta.

Elk Island played a huge role in the preservation of the species in North America. This can't be disregarded. It seems this article only highlights points relevant to American history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DasHip (talk • contribs) 22:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not clear what specific suggestions for improvement you're making, but if you have reliably sourced information that's currently missing (and it sounds as if you do) feel free to add it. With regard to the specific point about not using the term 'American bison', what alternative do you suggest? We can't use simply bison because there's already a page at that title, and we don't use scientific names in article titles... is there some other, more common term that still distinguishes B. bison from B. bonasus? Anaxial (talk) 23:03, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

The chapter Description needs cleaning up by someone who is experienced in unit conversions. A sentence like "Typically weights can range from 318 to 1,179 kg (701 to 2,599 lb)," makes no sense from a scientific point of view, it is far too precise. This looks like the original text said "700 to 2600 lb", then someone converted to metric with far too many digits, then someone translated that back again to imperial and made it "701 to 2599 lb". What would make sense is "Typically weights range from 320 to 1,200 kg (700 to 2,600 lb)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.18.216 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Units are far too precise

(First time I wrote this without heading which made it kind of invisible. Moderator: please remove duplicate.)

The chapter Description needs cleaning up by someone who is experienced in unit conversions. A sentence like "Typically weights can range from 318 to 1,179 kg (701 to 2,599 lb)," makes no sense from a scientific point of view, it is far too precise. This looks like the original text said "700 to 2600 lb", then someone converted to metric with far too many digits, then someone translated that back again to imperial and made it "701 to 2599 lb". What would make sense is "Typically weights range from 320 to 1,200 kg (700 to 2,600 lb)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.18.216 (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.119.18.216 (talk)

Inaccurate Map

The map completely misses the populations living in Oklahoma. There are several thousands living in Oklahoma. 021120x (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the map is 10 years old, I assume a lot has changed in revitalization efforts. Here's new data (for the US) if someone can make an updated map Bison by the Numbers, Center of Excellence for Bison Studies, South Dakota State University, August 2021. They even have a State Data csv if that could be utilized to generate maps?  oncamera  (talk page) 02:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Genus

Surely the article needs to be edited to refer to the species being part of the genus Bos and not Bison due to recent studies showing that bison are nestled within Bos? I ask here instead of editing the page itself because surely this has been asked before but I think we really need to decide what binominal name to use because the current one is inaccurate! Maykii (talk) 18:54, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maykii: First off, stop edit-warring now. WP:BRD still applies, and not getting a response to your initial foray does not imply that no one objects. I do, and am herewith reverting to the prior state. It is now your business to demonstrate why your change should be implemented.
Second, the taxonomic study in question is already covered in the article, and it should give you some pause to consider why over the course of four years no one of the many people watching this and the other bison articles has seen fit to change the taxonomic framework used. The reason is not because you are the very first to hear of this, but because regular taxonomy editors are aware that in these articles we do not institute classification changes following every study that comes up with a new interpretation. We follow the broad consensus in the literature, where from what I can see the usage is still overwhelmingly Bison and not Bos. To whit, three of data sources most frequently used here: Mammal Species of the World, IUCN, ITIS.
You will have to make a case for why replacing Bison with Bos reflects current scientific consensus, and please do so on a talk page and without further edit-warring (which will be reported). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:41, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
To add: also it appears that the help of someone else would at the least be needed to edit the taxoboxes - doing a blanket replace of terms in the text while leaving the box unchanged is not an option. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
Calling it edit warring after a single undo is harsh, and yes I assumed this hadn't been discussed because looking through the archives there hasn't been any solid debate on this at all so forgive me for assuming that keeping the genus as Bison was consensus, I had assumed that it just hadn't been changed due to a lack of will in editors or it was an oversight.
As for the taxonomy, is using the IUCN as a basis really that solid? A lot of the names they use are outdated (they didn't even accept the African elephant split until last year though Wikipedia had them listed as separate species long before then)... HMW is already accepting that Bison is a subgenus within Bos. Is anybody actually disputing that Bison falls within Bos? All studies show it is deeply nestled within the genus, it feels much more like a case of things not being updated rather than people believing this is bunk. I'd like to hear what other editors have to say about this. -- Maykii (talk) 19:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)
A new conclusion doesn't need to be bunk to not be adopted, often it is just lag as you say, but it is not our position to decide who is right and who is wrong. None of these databases are infallible guides (and IUCN in particular sometimes sticks with superseded taxonomy or goes off on what others consider synonyms), which is why it is generally necessary to scan the field to figure out what seems to be the current accepted state of opinion. As a rough metric, when searching Scholar for publications published 2018 or later for "Bos bison" I get 539 results [4]; when searching for "Bison bison" I get almost exactly 10x as many [5]. That indicates to me that switching genus here would not reflect current consensus in the field. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:09, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @Elmidae:. These kinds of changes need to be done only once the level of acceptance has reached a reasonable threshold. While it is clear the two species currently assigned to genus Bison are clearly not as related to each other as they are to other members of Bos in Bovina, it is yet unclear how the scientific community will settle on the naming. Currently, the Bison name is still being used for those two species, and Bos for the remaining species. The current suggested renaming puts everything in Bos. Time will tell if this suggestion will become the standard, or perhaps that full list will be split into multiple genera. Either way, the article makes it clear that this is in flux and currently unsettled. If you feel that the article doesn't clearly state this, perhaps work on that section of the article (and others) to make it more clear. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
That's totally wrong. There's a discrepancy regarding their mitochondrial genomes, but their full nuclear genomes clearly place the two bison species as each others closest relatives. Looking solely at the Mitochondrial genome as full truth of their ancestry is too reductive. Nobody disagrees that Bison is itself nested within Bos, the question is, is this prevalent enough to change Wikipedia's formal taxonomy. I would agree that this shouldn't happen for the moment. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:American_bison/Archive_1&oldid=1132249817"