Talk:Masked palm civet

It is undetermined whether the animal is native to Japan or an import

Resolved

 – Article corrected on this point, with source.

This article, as read on Oct. 13, 2009, states categorically that the palm civit "is not native to Japan, but it was brought there at the beginning of the 20th century."

In fact, whether it is native or introduced has not been determined yet with certainty. See:

Title: Genetic variations of the masked palm civet Paguma larvata, inferred from mitochondrial cytochrome b sequences

Authors: Ryuichi Masuda, Yayoi Kaneko, Boripat Siriaroonrat, Vellayan Subramaniam and Masaharu Hamachi

Publication: Mammal Study, Vol. 33, pp.19-24 (2008)

Abstract:

It is still unclear whether the masked palm civet (Paguma larvata) is native to the Japanese islands or introduced from the outside via human activities. In the present study, we sequenced the whole region (1,140 base-pairs) of the mitochondrial cytochrome b gene for 29 masked palm civets from Japan and Southeast Asia, and investigated their molecular phylogeography. Nine haplotypes were identified from the animals. Five halpotypes identified from 24 animals of Japan were clustered and separated from four haplotypes from five animals of Southeast Asia, showing clear differentiation between Japanese and Southeast Asian lineages. Sequence differences within Japanese haplotypes were smaller than those within Southeast Asian haplotypes and those between Japanese and Southeast Asian haplotypes. Within Japanese animals, all haplotypes found in eastern Honshu (Kanto district) were different from those of central Honshu (Chubu district). The present study highlighted the problem whether the Japanese Paguma larvata is an introduced species showing multiple original routes, or whether it is a native species genetically differentiated from Southeast Asian populations and even within Japan.

TimJ2009 (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)TimJ2009

References

Source reliability or conflict of interest issue

Resolved

 – No evidence presented of a problem, no Wikipedia policies/guidelines violated.

"Janies and his colleagues are not the first scientists to suggest bats were the source of SARS – two research teams identified several species of Chinese bats as the natural viral reservoir in 2005 using a couple of genes from a few viruses."

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/SARStree.htm

Since this "reference" is to an article written by the researcher's own university, I'll assume that this nod is legitimate. If you want to reference a paper on this subject, reference the first discovery, not the third. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.76.220.45 (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless the "university" is a small, local school, especially one run by a religious institution or other organization pushing a particular institution-wide point of view, there is generally nothing suspect about a graduate or student of a university or major college citing a source published by or authored at the same institution, absent any evidence of any personal connection between the Wikipedia editor and the author of the cited work. If you have an issue with that, take it up at the Wikipedia guideline discussions about reliable sources and about conflicts of interest. Many universities have tens of thousands of students, so the odds of a citation to an academic journal source being coincidentally made by a student/alumnus of the same institution as one of the authors of the published paper are actually fairly high (enough that it happens frequently).

While I agree that the original publication of the the bats–SARS theory should certainly be cited, I also have to observe that in an encyclopedic context (versus an academic journal one, which is all about credit), it is actually far more important for our readers to be provided verifiable references that show that the theory has weight behind it, and is not a novel, untested idea or something off-kilter. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 14:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Masked palm civet. 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/20110623030258/http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/SARStree.htm to http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/SARStree.htm

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) 22:10, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Kopi luwak

Note to the editors @Kcuadr2: and @BhagyaMani: I believe edits referencing Kopi luwak are not appropriate on this page, as they refer to the Asian palm civet not the Masked palm civet. If you have sourced information which states otherwise, please feel free to include it. As far as my understanding goes, this is not the correct civet to add information about Kopi luwak to. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Mxtt.prior (talk) 20:05, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Fully agree that this statement is erroneous. I never read about masked palm civet used for this coffee. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Three mammae

Emphasize you don't mean three pairs. Also mention where the third one is, on its tail? Jidanni (talk) 03:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Some studies on morphology

The morphological section who has a tag of citation needed do corresponds to the weight ranges given in these articles. 3-4 kg seems the usual weight of adults and 6.2 kg is the biggest individual of this species featured in the 3 studies below (being in Chutipong et al. 2015).

Basic morphometrics values of adults Paguma larvata geographically

Attribute	Japan (Kase et al., 2011) (Females; n = 4)	Japan (Kase et al., 2011) (Males; n = 2)	China (Zhou et al., 2014) (Females; n = 17)	China (Zhou et al., 2014) (Males; n = 16)	Thailand (Chutipong et al., 2015) (Females; n = 2)	Thailand (Chutipong et al., 2015) (Males; n = 1)
Weight (kg)	2.5 - 3.3	2.9 - 3.4	4.20	4.24	3.4 - 5.2	6.2
Total Length (cm)	94.0 - 101.0	99.0 - 102.0	-	-	-	-
Head-Body Length (cm)	53.0 - 58.0	56.0 - 57.0	53.60	53.88	-	-
Tail Length (cm)	-	-	47.89	48.68	-	-

Gimly24 (talk) 17:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally... do testing in your sandbox.... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Gotcha ! Gimly24 (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

the query was good... the table is experimenting, per your edit summary... - UtherSRG (talk) 18:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

References