Talk:Buru babirusa

A fact from Buru babirusa appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 November 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Ambelau, Buru, Kayeli and Lisela people; their Ambelau, Buru, Kayeli and Lisela languages; the Rufous-throated White-eye, Buru Lorikeet, Black-lored Parrot and a hairy variety of the babirusa pig (pictured) are unique to the Indonesian islands of Buru and Ambelau?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2010/November.

Wikipedia

Spelling curiousity

From [1]:

Babyrousa babirousa (Jardine, 1836) ()
Babyrousa babirusa (Guillemard, 1889) ()
Babyrousa babirussa (Quoy & Gaimard, 1830) ()

Assuming that the source is 100% correct: Why did these gentlemen change spelling of one word (species) and left the other (genus)? East of Borschov 07:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Simply typos or unjustified modifications. It happens all the time in scientific names. • Rabo³ • 15:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Species confusion

Virtually all info provided in this article is for the north Sulawesi babirusa. This is by far the best known species and the only that, until now, has been subjected to detailed ecological studies. Unfortunately the split into multiple species of babirusas was only proposed in 2001. There's obviously also a delay from something is proposed until it gain widespread recognition. For example, the ref. listed under "Bambang Pontjo Priosoeryanto" is entirely about the babirusas from Sulawesi, as they mention several times in the text. In the very headline they also use the scientific name Babyrousa babyrussa celebensis (= Babyrousa celebensis following the split). Though not specifically mentioned, it is also highly doubtful the info provided in "Asdell's patterns of..." (from 1993, i.e. well before the split) is for Babyrousa babyrussa rather than Babyrousa celebensis. I do not have the full version of that ref. and do not plan on checking it, but the citation number they provide would likely confirm this. Consequently, in cases where it may be similar in the Buru babirusa, I have left the text in a modified version to make it clear the text refers to the north Sulawesi babirusa. In places where they are known to differ, I have removed the sections:

"about 0.5 cm [long hair]" – wrong species. Longer in Buru babirusa.
"The adult male Buru babirusa are about 1 meter long from snout to buttocks and about 70 cm tall at shoulder height; the length of the front legs, hind legs and head is about 60, 60 and 30 cm, respectively; the chest circumference is about 75 cm, and weight about 100 kilograms." – this info is for the Sulawesi babirusa. The Buru babirusa differ in structure and size (see e.g., Groves 1980, Groves 2001, Groves and Meijaard 2002).
Removed the photo (with text "Head of uncertain babirusa species illustrating the tusk structure"). The photo shows a north Sulawesi babirusa, and the various species of babirusas differ in their tusk structure and size (see e.g., Groves 1980, Groves 2001, Groves and Meijaard 2002), i.e. misleading to have it on this page. You can compare the tusks of a real Buru babirusa here and a Togian babirusa here

Finally, I have removed the comment on it being considered vulnerable by the IUCN since 1986. I do not remember when the IUCN first recognized multiple species of babirusas (after 2005, at least), but the period before is not comparable, as this status refers to all babirusas. • Rabo³ • 15:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - the additions are mine and I likely mixed up and messed up the information on this already unclear species. The photo was added only to show difference with non-babirusas. The links above don't elaborate on difference from individual to individual (age?) but I won't argue on this. Materialscientist (talk) 00:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]