Talk:Moose/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Overview and clarification of taxonomy and naming of the genus Alces, its species and subspecies desired

Presently the taxonomy and naming of the genus Alces, its species and subspecies, varies in different articles at Wikipedia in a confusing way. Also, some of the links between different Wikipedia pages are confusing. Neither taxonomy, nor language, are precise sciences and they also evolve with time. Though, clarification of taxonomy and naming used, is desired to avoid unnecessary confusion. Since these subjects seems to be a bit sensitive, I will not do any editing, but I urge for a review of the articles and will address some points.

1. Two different taxonomy systems are used.
Most Wikipedia pages uses the taxonomy used by most of the major scientific sources, including Mammal Species of the World, ITIS, Encyclopedia of Life and GBIF. It recognizes two species (A. alces and A. americanus), each with two sub species. This taxonomy is also used by Wikispecies.
The (US) English page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moose) as well as some single other (for instance the German) uses a rarely used taxonomy used by for instance IUCN. It recognizes only one species (A. alces) and a number of subspecies.
Due to the above inconsistency, some links between Wikipedia pages are confusing.

2. Only in some languages, there is a page at Wikipedia for the genus. Such a page is desired in all languages and a proper place to put an explanation of the taxonomy.

3. The formal Torbjörn Sunde (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)naming (in English) of genus, species and sub species depends on the taxonomy system used. In English it's further confused by the differences in everyday language used in US,and some other parts of the world, and UK and some other parts of the world. The usage of Moose and Elk (Cervus canadensis) in US English do make things complicated.

Due to the above I suggest:

1. The same taxonomy should be used in all Wikipedia pages. It should be clarified which taxonomy that is used and preferable pointed out that there are other taxonomies.

2. The taxonomy should be consistent (the same) as the one used by Wikispecies.

3. It should be clarified what version of English that is used (US, UK etc) to avoid the confusion between moose and elk as well as elk and wapiti.

4. If the taxonomy used by Wikispecies (ITIS et al), a number of subspecies used in other taxonomies, are synonyms to A. americanus americanus, and to be regarded as local populations. For instance: andersoni, buturlini, columbae, gigas, lobatus, meridionalis, muswa, pfizenmayeri, shirasi and yakutskensis.

My suggestion is, with respect to the different versions of English, that the formal (not everyday language) names should be:

Genus: Alces -
US English: Moose,
UK English: Elk

Species: Alces alces -
US English: Eurasian Moose,
UK English: Eurasian Elk

Subspecies: Alces alces alces -
US English: European Moose,
UK English: European Elk

Subspecies: Alces alces caucasicus -
US English: Caucasian Moose,
UK English: Caucasian Elk

Species: Alces americanus -
US English: Ameroasian Moose,
UK English: Ameroasian Elk

Subspecies: Alces americanus americanus -
US English: American Moose,
UK English: American Elk

Subspecies: Alces americanus cameloides -
US English: Asian Moose,
UK English: Asian Elk

Still, there is an issue with Elk, that in US English is used for Cervus canadensis, which most of the rest of the world denotes Wapiti (or similar). That issue is not to be sorted out now. Torbjörn Sunde (talk) 18:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Lofty goals, but I think they might be unattainable. I do think we could do better --in this article-- about explaining the taxonomy, how it works, and why some sources like the ITIS may not match our article. (For more info, please see the section up above titled "Two Species".) Trying to change all articles across English Wikipedia would be more than a bit of a challenge, and people at those article will always have the problem of people coming along and saying, "But that's not what I read". I think it's better to just explain it right here, so that people will understand why some sources say something different.

I think we've done a very good job of doing that here with "moose" and "elk". The etymology section explains that quite nicely, in my opinion.

As for other languages, each language Wikipedia is its own, separate entity, with their own rules and ways of doing things. Making everything uniform across the world will likely be an impossible task. Plus, I doubt we can convince everyone in other languages to start calling them moose, just as people in North America, much of Britain, and much of the English-speaking world is unlikely to just start calling them elk.

Language changes in illogical and often unpredictable ways, determined by society. No encyclopedia or dictionary has ever been able to control the language, or else we'd be speaking Old English right now. It's futile to try. I think it's better to explain it than to try to make it logical or uniform. Zaereth (talk) 20:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the moose/elk is well handled. But the single species article is simply wrong. There are 2 species; that is acknowledged in Wikispecies; confirmed in ITIS; but hey, don't feel bad, Britannica has it wrong also.

See discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Moose/Archive_5#Two_Species . Generally, we go by things like books based on the taxonomy of scientists who are eminent experts in their field, such as Lister or Azzaroli. It may not be on the cutting edge, but we're not a newspaper and we get what we can from secondary sources. Wikispecies is not a reliable source. The ITIS is a US government agency run by lawyers, not scientists. This is a primary source and is done for legal reasons, such as drafting laws or contracts, where it may be more convenient or legally attractive to have 2 species. Other countries have similar agencies, but their taxonomy may be very different, also for legal reasons. The reality is that taxonomy is a highly subjective science, based upon intuition and guesswork, trying to connect or differentiate species by the most minute and subtle similarities or differences. These small handful of scientists often disagree adamantly; for example, Lister believes that even the fossil species are one and the same genus, based mostly on the teeth, whereas Azzaroli differentiated them based mostly on size. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Reordering of sections

I believe this reads better. Please review and comment. Not sure where to put paleontology, so I left that section where it was. sbelknap (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2021

In the the Heraldry section, I would add: “In the US, the moose appears on the Great Seal of the State of Michigan.” I would site the wiki page. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seal_of_Michigan 2601:14D:8503:C6A0:618B:4697:C02F:FD7E (talk) 03:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:18, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Reorganizing the images

Can somebody with more expertise/talent help with organizing the images? They don't align very well with the text. Plus, although the article has a lot of great images, the current scheme results in a ragged, difficult to read presentation. Thanks! sbelknap (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Weight Data of Subspecies (List of Sources)

Weight informations on Moose (Alces alces) is very common, although it is scarce for some populations. I made a extensive survey of the litterature and those are some of the studies with information on the body weight of moose. I wasn't able to find some of these studies. However, many of those that I wasn't able to find were cited in other studies reporting body weight data (of usually multiples publications). In brief, the references are a extensive list of moose studies with body weight data of moose.

• Murie, A. 1934. The moose of Isle Royale. University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Miscellaneous Publication 25.
• Breckenridge, W. J. 1946. Weights of a Minnesota moose. J. Mammal. 27(1): 90-91.
• Abramov, K. G. 1954. Ungulates of the Far East. Khabarovsk (in Russian).
• Peterson, R. L. 1955. North American Moose. Univ. Toronto Press, xii + 280 pp.
• Rausch, R. A. 1958. Distribution, movements and dynamics of the Railbelt moose populations. Alaska Game Commission, Job Completion Reports, 12: 28-109.
• Knorre, E. P. 1959. Ecology of the moose, “Trans. Of the Pechora-Illych State Game Preserve. U.S.S.R.” (G. A. Novikov, Ed.), Komi Book Publishers, Syktyvkat, U.S.S.R. (translated from Russian by the Canadian Bureau of Indian Affairs).
• Peek, J. M. 1962. Studies of moose in the Gravelly and Snowcrest Mountains, Montana. J. Wildl. Manage. 26(4): 360-365.
• Simkin, D. W. 1962. Weights of Ontario moose. Ontario Fish and Wildlife Review 1: 10-12.
• Abramov, K. G. 1963. Notes on moose in Amur area. Voprosy geografii Dalnego Vostoka 5: 95-98 (in Russian).
• Atwell, G. 1963. Moose report. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Annual Project Segment Report 1 May 1962-30 June 1963, Work Plan B, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project W-6-R-4, Juneau.
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADFG). 1963. Moose investigations. Volume III. Annual Project Segment Report. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act. Project W-6-R-3, Work Plan B.
• Carter, B. C. 1964. The 1963 moose season in New Brunswick. Typewritten report, 6 pp.
• Markgren, G. 1964. Puberty, dentition and weight of yearling moose in a Swedish County. Jaktbiologisk Tidskr. 2(7): 409-417.
• Des Meules, P. 1965. The moose hunters guide. Quebec Department of Tourism, Fish and Game, Technical Handbook, 35 pp.
• Egorov, O. V. 1965. Wild ungulates of Yakutia. (English Translation, 1967), Israel Program for Scientific Translations, Jerusalem.
• Blood, D. A., McGillis, J. R., and Lovaas, A. L. 1967. Weights and measurements of moose in Elk Island National Park, Alberta. Canadian Field-Nat., 81: 263-269.
• Rausch, R. A., and R. Bishop. 1968. Report on 1966-67 moose studies. Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Division of Game, Annual Project Segment Report, Work Plan K, Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Projects W-15-R-2 and W-15-R-3, Juneau.
• Houston, D. B. 1969. Immobilization of the Shiras moose. J. Wildl. Manage. 33(3): 534-537.
• Kelsall, J. P. 1969. Structural adaptations of moose and deer for snow. Journal of Mammology, 50(2): 302-310.
• Doutt, J. K. 1970. Weights and measurements of moose, Alces alces shirasi. J. Mamm., 51: 808.
• Houston, D. B. 1970. Immobilization of moose with M99 etorphine. J. Mamm. 51: 396-399
• Stevens, D. R. 1970. Winter ecology of moose in the Gallatin Mountains, Montana. Journal of Wildlife Management, 34: 37-46.
• Verme, L. J. 1970. Some characteristics of captive Michigan moose. J. Mamm., 51: 403-405.
• Egorov, O. V. 1971. Artiodactyla – Ungulata. In: Tavrovsky VA (ed) Mlekopitayushchie Yakutii. Nauka, Moscow, pp 517-608 (in Russian).
• Karns, P. D. 1972. Minnesota’s 1971 moose hunt: a preliminary report on the biological collections. Proc. 8th North American Moose Conference and Workshop. Pp. 115-123.
• Timmermann, H. R. 1972. Some observations of the moose hunt in the Black Sturgeon area of northwestern Ontario. Alces, 8: 223-239.
• Coady, J. W. 1973. Interior moose studies.
• LeResche, R. E., and Lynch, G. M. 1973. A trap for free ranging moose. J. Wildl. Manage. 37(1): 87-89.
• Schladweiler, P., and Stevens, D. R. 1973. Weights of moose in Montana, J. Mammal. 54: 772-776.
• Franzmann, A. W., and Arneson, P. D. 1974. Immobilization of Alaskan moose. J. Zoo Anim. Med. 5(2): 26-32.
• Metelsky, A. P. 1974. Moose of the Amguny River Basin (the Khaborovsk Territory). Proc. N. Am. Moose Conf. Workshop 10: 107-109.
• Peterson, R. L. 1974. A review of the general life history of moose. Le Naturaliste Canadien 101: 9-21.
• Karns, P. D. 1976. Relationships of age and body measurements to moose weights in Minnesota. Proc. 12th North American Moose Conference and Workshop.
• Babcock, W. H. 1977. Continuing investigations of the Uinta North Slope moose herd. Federal Aid Project W-RD-22. Publication number 77-19. Dep. Nat. Res., Div. Wildl. Res., Utah, 1-76.
• Haagenrud, H., and Lørdahl, L. 1977. [Carcass weight in moose from Trøndelag, Norway.] Medd. Norsk Viltforsk. Ser. 3 No. 3: 1-27. [In Norwegian with English summary.]
• Haigh, J. C. 1977. Capture of moose with fentanyl and xylazine. J. Zoo Anim. Med. 8: 22-29
• Peterson, R. O. 1977. Wolf ecology and prey relationships on Isle Royale. National Park Service Scientific Monograph Series II.
• Ballard, W. B., and Taylor, K. P. 1978. Moose calf mortality study, Game Management Unit 13.
• Franzmann, A. W., and Schwartz, C. C. 1978. Moose calf mortality study, Kenai Peninsula.
• Franzmann, A. W., LeResche, R. E., Rausch, R. A., and Oldemeyer, J. L. 1978. Alaskan moose measurements and weights and measurement-weight relationships. Canadian Journal of Zoology 56: 298-306.
• Crichton, V. F. J. 1979. An experimental moose hunt on Hecla Island, Manitoba. Alces 15: 245-279.
• Ballard, W. B., Miller, S. D., and Spraker, T. H. 1980. Moose calf mortality study
• Crichton, V. F. J. 1980. Manitoba’s second experimental moose hunt on Hecla Island. Alces 16: 489-525.
• Franzmann, A.W., CC. Schwartz, and R.O. Peterson. 1980. Moose calf mortality in summer on the Kenai Peninsula, Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 44:765-768.
• Franzmann, A. W., Ballard, W. B., Schwartz, C. C., and Spraker, T. H. 1980. Physiologic and morphometric measurements in neonatal moose and their cows in Alaska. Proc. North Am. Moose Conf. Workshop 16: 106-123.
• Haigh, J. C., Stewart, R. R., and Mytton, W. 1980. Relations among linear measurements and weights for moose (Alces alces). Proc. N. Am. Moose Conf. Workshop 16: 1-10.
• Dunn, F. D., and Morris, K. I. 1981. Preliminary results of the Maine moose season (1980). Alces 17: 95-110.
• Franzmann, A. W. 1981. Alces alces. Pp. 1-7, in Mammalian Species, No. 154. The Ameri. Soc. of Mammal.
• Regelin, W. L., Schwartz, C. C., and Franzmann, A. W. 1981. Energy expenditure of moose on the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge: Annual progress report.
• Franzmann, A. W., Schwartz, C. C., and Johnson, D. C. 1982. Chemical immobilization of moose at the Moose Research Center, Alaska (1968-1981). Alces 18: 94-115.
• Bromley, G. F., and Kucherenko, S. P. 1983. Ungulates of the southern part of the Far East. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).
• Kozlo, P. G. 1983. Ecological-morphological analysis of moose population. Izdatelstvo Akademii Nauk Belorusskoi SSR, Minsk (in Russian).
• Saether, B.-E., and Haagenrud, H. 1983. Life history of the moose (Alces alces): fecundity rates in relation to age and carcass weight. Journal of Mammalogy 64: 226-232.
• Saether, B.-E. 1983. Relationship between mandible length and carcass weight of moose in Norway. Journal of Wildlife Management 47: 226-229.
• Baidavletov, R. Z. 1984. Musk deer – (Moschus moschiferus). Moose – (Alces alces). In: Gvozdev, E. V., Strautman, E. I. (eds) Mlekopitayushchie Kazakhstana, vol 3(4). Nauka, Alma-Ata, pp 88-144 (in Russian).
• Ballard, W. B., Whitman, J. S., and Gardner, C. L. 1985. Susitna Hydroelectric Project: 1984 annual report moose upstream.
• Saether, B.-E. 1985. Annual variation in carcass weight of Norwegian moose in relation to climate along a latitudinal gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 49: 977-983.
• Saether, B.-E., and Haagenrud, H. 1985. Geographical variation in body weight and sexual size-dimorphism of Norwegian moose (Alces alces). J. Zool., Lond. (A) 206: 83-96
• Saether, B.-E., and Haagenrud, H. 1985. Life history of the moose Alces alces: relationship between growth and reproduction. Holarctic Ecology 8: 100-106.
• Stewart, R.R., E.H. Kowal, R. Beaulieu, and T.W. Rock. 1985. The impact of black bear removal on moose calf survival in east-central Saskatchewan. Alces 21:403-418.
• Nygrén, K. 1986. Alces alces – Elch. Jochen Niethammer und Franz Krapp, Handbuch der Säugetiere Europas. AULA- Verlag Wiesbaden.
• Bartosiewicz, L. 1987. Metacarpal measurements and carcass weight of moose in central Sweden. Journal of Wildlife Management 51: 358-359.
• Schmitt, S. M., and Dalton, W. J. 1987. Immobilization of moose by carfentanil and xylazine and reversal by naltrexone, a long-acting antagonist. Alces 23: 195-219.
• Schwartz, C. C., Regelin, W. L., and Franzmann, A. W. 1987. Seasonal weight dynamics of moose. Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 301-310.
• Sokolov, V. E., and Chernova, O. F. 1987. Morphology of the skin of moose (Alces alces L.). Swedish Wildlife Research Supplement 1: 367-375.
• Boertje, R.D., W.C. Gasaway, D.V. Grangaard, and D.G. Kelleyhouse. 1988. Predation on moose and caribou by radio-collared grizzly bears in east central Alaska. Can. J. Zool. 66:2492-2499.
• Crête, M. 1988. Variations regionals de mesures corporelles chez l’orignal, Alces alces, de trois reserves fauniques du Québec. – Alces 24: 102-111.
• Chernyavsky, F. B., and Domnich, V. I. 1989. Moose of the north-east Siberia. Nauka, Moscow (in Russian).
• Glines, M. V., and Samuel, W. M. 1989. Effect of Dermacentor albipictus (Acari: Ixodidae) on blood composition, weight gain and hair coat of moose, Alces alces. Experimental and Applied Acarology 6: 197-213.
• Hanna, J. S., Benson, S., Emmerich, J., and Olson, R. O. 1989. Lander moose herd unit winter range study. Wyoming Game and Fish Department. Enhancement Project BFGFSN3511, Final Report.
• Quinn, N. W. S., and Aho, R. W. 1989. Whole weights of moose from Algonquin Park, Ontario, Canada. Alces 25: 48-51.
• Wang, Y., and Liu, L. 1989. The moose. Pp. 79-93. In Ma, Y. (ed.), Fauna Heilongjiangica, Mammals. Heilongjiang Science and Technology Press, Harbin. 520 pp. (in Chinese).
• Zheleznov, N. K. 1990. Wild ungulates in the north-east of the USSR. Tikhookeansky Institut Geographii, Vladivostok (in Russian).
• Cederlund, G. N., Sand, H. K. G. Sand., and Pehrson, A. 1991. Body mass dynamics of moose calves in relation to winter severity. Journal of Wildlife Management 55: 675-681.
• Lankester, M. W., Wheeler-Smith, T., and Dudzinski, S. 1993. Care, growth and cost of captive moose calves. Alces 29: 249-262.
• Addison, E. M., McLaughlin, R. F., and Broadfoot, J. D. 1994. Growth of moose calves (Alces alces americana) infected and uninfected with winter ticks (Dermacentor albipictus). Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1469-1476.
• Jia, J., Nygrén, K., and Yu, X. 1994. Biological features of Manchurian moose (Alces alces cameloides) with special reference to comparative research. Alces 30: 137-152.
• Schwartz, C. C., Hundertmark, K. J., and Becker, E. F. 1994. Growth of moose calves conceived during the first versus second oestrus. Alces 30: 91-100.
• Solberg, E. J., and Saether, B.-E. 1994. Male traits as life-history variables: annual variation in body mass and antler size in moose (Alces alces). Journal of Mammology 75: 1069-1079.
• Adams, K. P., and Pekins, P. J. 1995. Growth patterns of New England moose: yearlings as indicators of population status. Alces 31: 53-59.
• Arnemo, J. M. 1995. Immobilization of free-ranging moose (Alces alces) with medetomidine-ketamine and remobilization with atipamezole. Rangifer 15(1): 19-25.
• Lynch, G. M., Lajeunesse, B., Willman, J., and Telfer, E. S. 1995. Moose weights and measurements from Elk Island National Park, Canada. Alces 31: 199-207.
• Sand, H., Cederlund, G., and Danell, K. 1995. Geographical and latitudinal variation in growth patterns and adult body size of Swedish moose (Alces alces). Oecologia 102: 433-442.
• Broadfoot, J. D., Joachim, D. G., Addison, E. M., and MacDonald, K. S. 1996. Weights and measurements of selected body parts, organs and long bones of 11-month-old moose. Alces 32: 173-184.
• Prostakov, N. I. 1996. Ungulates of the Central Chernozemnyi region. Voronezhsky Universitet, Voronezh (in Russian).
• Sand, H. 1996. Life history patterns in female moose (Alces alces): the relationship between age, body size, fecundity and environmental conditions. Oecologia 106: 212-220.
• Sand, H., Bergstrom, R., Cederlund, G., Ostergren, M., and Stalfelt, F. 1996. Density-dependent variation in reproduction and body mass in female moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 2: 233-245.
• Wallin, K., Cederlund, G., and Pehrson, A. 1996. Predicting body mass from chest circumference in moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 2: 53-58.
• Stephenson, T. R., Hundertmark, K. J., Schwartz, C. C., and Van Ballenberghe, V. 1998. Predicting body fat and body mass in moose with ultrasonography. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76: 717-722.
• Testa, J. W., and Adams, G. P. 1998. Body condition and adjustments to reproductive effort in female moose (Alces alces). Journal of Mammology 79: 1345-1354.
• Hjeljord, O., and Histol, T. 1999. Range-body mass interactions of a northern ungulate – a test of hypothesis. Oecologia 119: 326-339.
• Keech, M. A., Boertje, R. D., Bowyer, R. T., and Dale, B. W. 1999. Effects of birth weight on growth of young moose: Do low-weight neonates compensate? Alces 35: 51-57.
• Testa, J. W. 1999. Population dynamics of moose and predators in Game Management Unit 13.
• Boertje, R. D., Seaton, C. T., Young, D. D., Keech, M. A., and Dale, B. W. 2000. Factors limiting moose at high densities in Unit 20A. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal aid in wildlife restoration research performance report, July 1999-June 2000. Grant W-27-3, study 1.51. Juneau, Alaska. 43 pp.
• Ferguson, S. H., Bisset, A. R., and Messier, F. 2000. The influence of density on growth and reproduction in moose Alces alces. Wildlife Biology 6: 31-39.
• Stewart, K. M, Bowyer, R. T., Kie, J. G., and Gasaway, W. C. 2000. Antler size relative to body mass in moose: tradeoffs associated with reproduction. Alces 36: 77-83.
• D. C. Douglas, P. E. Reynolds, and E. B. Rhode, editors. Arctic Refuge coastal plain terrestrial wildlife research summaries. U. S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/ BSR-2002-0001.
• Ericsson, G., Ball, J. B., and Danell, K. 2002. Body mass of moose calves along an altitudinal gradient. Journal of Wildlife Management 66: 91-97.
• Baskin, L. M., and Danell, K. 2003. Ecology of Ungulates: A Handbook of Species in Eastern Europe and Northern and Central Asia. Springer, Berlin.
• Samuel, W. M. 2004. Invasive characteristics of winter ticks for moose. W. B. Samuel, ed., White as a ghost: winter ticks and moose. Natural Hist. Ser., Vol. 1. Fed. Of Alberta Nat., Edmonton, AB. 100 pp.
• Solberg, E. J., Loison, A., Gaillard, J-M., and Heim, M. 2004. Lasting effects of conditions at birth on moose body mass. Ecography 27: 677-687.
• Lykke, J. 2005. Selective harvest management of a Norwegian moose population. Alces 41: 9-24.
• Garel, M., Solberg, E. J. S., Saether, B.-E., Herfindal, I., and Hødga, K.-A. 2006. The length of growing season and adult sex ratio affect sexual size dimorphism in moose. Ecology 87: 745-758.
• Herfindal, I., Solberg, E. J., Saether, B.-E., Hødga, K.-A., and Andersen, R. 2006. Environmental phenology and geographical gradients in moose body mass. Oecologia 150: 213-224.
• Herfindal, I., Saether, B.-E., Solberg, E. J., Andersen, R., and Hødga, K.-A. 2006. Population characteristics predict responses in moose body mass to temporal variation in the environment. Journal of Animal Ecology 75: 1110-1118.
• Musante, A. R. 2006. Characteristics and dynamics of a moose population in northern New Hampshire. Thesis. University of New Hampshire.
• Boertje, R. D., Young, D. D., Seaton, C. T., and Kellie, K. A. 2007. Age-specific natural mortality rates of male vs. female. 1 July 2006 – 30 June 2007. Alaska Department of Fish and Game. Federal aid in wildlife restoration annual performance report, grant W-33-5, project 1.65. Juneau, Alaska.
• Boertje, R.D., K.A. Kellie, C.T. Seaton, M.A. Keech, D.D. Young, B.W. Dale, L.G. Adams, and A.R. Aderman. 2007. Ranking Alaska Moose nutrition: signals to begin liberal antlerless harvest. J. Wildl. Manage. 71:1494-1506.
• Poole, K. G., Serrouya, R., and Stuart-Smith, K. 2007. Moose calving strategies in interior montane ecosystems. Journal of Mammalogy, 88(1): 139-150.
• Solberg, E. J., Heim, M., Grotan, V., Saether, B.-E., and Garel, M. 2007. Annual variation in maternal age and calving date generate cohort effects in moose (Alces alces) body mass. Oecologia 154: 259-271.
• Dungan, J. S., Shipley, L. A., and Wright, R. G. 2010. Activity patterns, foraging ecology, and summer range carrying capacity of moose (Alces alces shirasi) in Rocky Mountain National Park, Colorado. Alces 46: 71-87.
• Tilikainen, R. 2010. The effects of selective harvesting on life history traits of moose Alces alces. Publications of the University of Eastern Finland, Dissertations in Forestry and Natural Sciences no. 4, Joensuu, Finland.
• Keech, M.A., M.S. Lindberg, R.D. Boertje, P. Valkenburg, B.D. Taras, T.A. Boudreau, and K.B. Beckmen. 2011. Effects of predator treatments, individual traits, and environment on moose survival in Alaska. J. Wildl. Manage. 75:1361-1380.
• Neumann, W., Ericsson, G., Dettki, H., and Arnemo, J. M. 2011. Effect of immobilizations on the activity and space use of female moose (Alces alces). Canadian Journal of Zoology 89: 1013-1018.
• Aitken, D. A., Child, K. N., Rea, R. V., and Hjeljord, O. G. 2012. Age, sex, and seasonal differences of carcass weights of moose from the central interior of British Columbia: a comparative analysis. Alces 48: 105-122.
• Alaska Department of Fish and Game. 2012. Moose management report of survey-inventory activities 1 July 2009–30 June 2011, P. Harper, editor. Species Management Report ADF&G/DWC/SMR-2012-5, Juneau, Alaska.
• Bergeron, D. H., Pekins, P. J., and Rines, K. 2013. Temporal assessment of physical characteristics and reproductive status of moose in New Hamphsire. Alces 49: 39-48.
• Gingras, J. 2013. Condition corporelle et fécondité des orignaux de l’Est du Québec en réponse à la variation de la densité. Mémoire, Université Laval, Québec, Canada.
• Jensen, W. F., Smith, J. R., Maskey Jr., J. J., McKenzie, J. V., and Johnson, R. E. 2013. Mass, morphology, and growth rates of moose in North Dakota. Alces 49: 1-15.
• Andreozzi, H. A., Pekins, P. J., and Kantar, L. E. 2015. Analysis of age, body weight and antler spread of bull moose harvested in Maine, 1980-2009. Alces 51: 45-55.
• Kuzyk, G., S. Marshall, C. Procter, B. Cadsand, H. Schindler, M. Klaczek, H. Schwantje, and M. Gillingham. 2017. Determining factors affecting moose population change in British Columbia: testing the landscape change hypothesis. 2017 Progress Report: February 2012–April 2017. B.C. Minist. For., Lands and Nat. Resour. Operations and Rural Dev. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-125. 34pp.
• Kuzyk, G., S. Marshall, C. Procter, H. Schindler, H. Schwantje, M. Gillingham, D. Hodder, S. White, and M. Mumma. 2018. Determining factors affecting moose population change in British Columbia: testing the landscape change hypothesis. 2018 Progress Report: February 2012–April 2018. B.C. Minist. For., Lands and Nat. Resour. Operations and Rural Dev. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR-126. Pp. 64.
• Kuzyk, G., C. Procter, S. Marshall, H. Schindler, H. Schwantje, M. Scheideman, D. Hodder. 2019. Factors affecting Moose population declines in British Columbia. 2019 Progress Report: February 2012–May 2019. B.C. Minist. For., Lands and Nat. Resour. Operations and Rural Dev. Victoria, BC. Wildl. Working Rep. No. WR127. 73pp.
• Powers, B. I. 2019. Assessing the relationships of winter ticks, weather and a declining moose population in Northern New Hampshire. Thesis. University of New Hampshire.
• Procter, C., M. Anderson, M. Schiedeman, S. Marshall, H. Schindler, H. Schwantje, D. Hodder, and E. Blythe. 2020. Factors affecting moose population declines in British Columbia. 2019 Progress Report: February 2012–May 2020. B.C. Min. For., Lands, Nat. Resour. Ops. and Rural Dev. Victoria, B.C. Wildl. Working Rep. WR-128.
• Cook, R. C., Oyster, J., Mansfield, K., and Harris, R. B. 2021. Evidence of summer nutritional limitations in a northeastern Washington moose population. Alces 57: 23-46.
• Harris, R. B., Goerz, J., Oyster, J., Cook, R. C., Mansfield, K., Atamian, M., Lowe, C., Prince, A-M., and Turnock, B. Y. 2021. Bottom-up and top-down factors contribute to reversing a moose population increase in northeastern Washington. Alces 57: 47-69.

If asked, I could narrow the spectrum of the list to have the most relevant ones listed.Gimly24 (talk) 20:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok... What do you want us to do with all of this? Most, if not all, of these look like scientific studies, which are primary sources. Not that primary sources can't be used, but Wikipedia is a tertiary source, meaning we get most of our information from secondary sources, for example, books by reputable authors who are qualified to interpret the primary sources. As an encyclopedia, we don't really need to go into any great detail. All an encyclopedia is for is to give the reader the gist of it; sort of an introduction to the sources. So, what do you suggest we do with all of this? Zaereth (talk) 20:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. I had made this for another project of mine (not intentionally for this page). I think the weight data of each subspecies should be given with reliable sources. The only subspecies discussed in the page in "size" is the Alaskan Moose. And... adult males do not average 635 kg. Eurasian Elk in the "Subspecies" section have a random range of weight values, which lacks credibility (because they are estimates). A. a. pfizenmayeri has no weight data at all in the page. The Manchurian Elk weight data isn't gender specific and also are estimates. A. a. buturlini weight estimation has no sources for what is said in the page. Same goes for Eastern Moose. Plus, the averages given for them is plain wrong. Quinn and Aho (1989) weighed 89 moose in Algonquin Provincial Park (ONT), and adult females averaged 435 kg and adult males 453 kg. I mean those are especially big moose for the subspecies but still the average given are dubious. A lot of studies on Eastern Moose weight were done and they are way bigger than the 270 kg said to be average for females and 365 kg said to be average for males. Western Moose are the second largest North American subspecies and their weight is well documented and there a ton of studies that can be used instead of the estimated range given by the B. C. Factsheet. Alaskan moose weights are "OK" but could be much more credibly presented. Furthermore, I would use the study that is already used as source for them (Franzmann et al., 1978). Simply, on the page, they simply presented wrong information or I should say, there is contradiction. They used in the "Size" section, the average weight of 634.5 kg for Adult Males (this is extremely wrong) of the "Moose : Wildlife Notebook Series" and they referred to it in the "Subspecies" section although for some odd reasons they use the study of Franzmann et al. (1978) which does says that they are largest in the world and say this "mass cited below" when 1) it's above 2) it's not the same source and also, it is far from being in spectrum of what is presented in the study in term of averages and weight ranges. Anyways, that's just me complaining a bit for that moose population. Shiras Moose weight data presented in the page are estimates, do not specify age and gender data. That's why I feel that the page is in need of reliable sources and data for those populations (not estimates). Gimly24 (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Ok. That makes more sense. I don't have access to these sources, but you are welcome to make any improvements to the article yourself. Personally, I don't see that we need that much detail of any single attribute. I'd think an overall rage would suffice, but if you think it's necessary I won't object. One problem I'd watch out for, especially with such a large number of sources, is that you don't accidentally stray into the realm of synthesis. It's extremely easy to do, because our brains are hardwired to connect the dots we're given and lead us to our own conclusions, and that is especially easy to get caught up into with primary sources, so we have to be very careful with them. I'd suggest picking only the best one for each piece if information, taking care to give only what is found in them. Then you should have no problem. Zaereth (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I can access about 80-85% of them. There are around c. 8-15 majors studies for each north american moose.

For Eastern Moose, Important Studies are :

- Blood et al. (1967) which presents data for Western Moose and compared them with the other north american populations

- Kelsall (1969) - Gives a lot of information on Nova Scotia and New Brunswick Moose

- Schmitt and Dalton (1987) - Ontario

- Quinn and Aho (1989) - Ontario

- Jia et al (1994) - An all around study of every subspecies with particular attention to A. a. cameloides.

- Adams and Pekins (1995) - Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire

- Ferguson et al (2000) - Maritimes

- Musante (2006) - New Hampshire and US East Coast

- Bergeron et al (2013) - New Hampshire and US East Coast

- Gingras (2013) - Québec

- Jensen et al (2013) - All around north american and scandinavian study (+ Finland)

- Andreozzi et al (2015) - Maine and New Hampshire

For Western Moose, Important Studies are :

- Blood et al. (1967)

- Timmermann (1972) - NW Ontario

- Crichton (1979, 1980) - Manitoba

- Haigh et al (1980) - Alberta and Saskatchewan

- Jia et al (1994)

- Lynch et al (1995) - Alberta

- Aitken et al (2012) - British Columbia and also compares extensively with other populations

- Jensen et al (2013) - North Dakota and all around north american and scandinavian study (+ Finland)

For Shiras Moose, Studies aren't that common, but notably :

- Peek et al. (1962) - Montana

- Blood et al. (1967)

- Houston (1969, 1970) - Wyoming and Montana

- Stevens (1970) - Montana

- Schladweiler and Stevens (1973) - Montana

- Babcock (1977) reported in Jia et al (1994) - Utah

- Jia et al (1994)

- Aitken et al (2012)

- Jensen et al (2013)

For Alaskan Moose, studies on free-ranging adult moose are somewhat rare, but those on captive ones are not (I didn't include the Kenai Moose Research Reports because there are like 20 of them, and they mostly (c. 95% of them) focused on the captive population that is studied and handled since the beginning of the 1970's. Anyways, here are some of interest :

- Rausch (1958)

- Atwell (1963)

- ADFG (1963)

- Blood et al (1967)

- Rausch and Bishop (1968) - Fort Richardson

- Coady (1973) - Alaska and compared briefly with other populations

- Franzmann et al. (1978) - Obviously

- Franzmann et al. (1982) - Moose Research Center Immobilizations from 1968 - 1982. Great data samples

- Jia et al (1994)

- Aitken et al (2012)

- Jensen et al (2013)

For Eurasian Elk, most studies tend to focus on carcass weight more than anything else, but some important ones :

- Haagenrud and Lørdahl (1977) - Norway (Carcasses)

- Saether (1983) - Norway (Carcasses)

- Saether and Haagenrud (1985a) - Norway

- Cederlund et al (1991) - Calves

- Jia et al (1994)

- Sand et al (1995) - Sweden

- Lykke (2005), Herfindal et al. (2006a and b), Tilikainen (2010)

- Aitken et al (2012)

- Jensen et al (2013)

For Russian and Asian populations, important studies are mostly those doing reviews of weight litterature since the studies in russian are hard to find and read :

• Abramov (1954, 1963), Knorre (1959), Egorov (1965), Meltelsky (1974), Bromley and Kucherenko (1983), Kozlo (1983), Baidavletov (1984, Kazakhstan), Sokolov and Chernova (1987), Chernyavsky and Domnich (1989), Zheleznov (1990), Prostakov (1996)

^All of these studies data are reviewed in Coady (1973), Jia et al (1994) and/or Baskin and Danell (2003). They present information on each.

I count on working on this slowly and taking it easy. I would use my personal draft or whatever the name (sandbox ?) to do the stuff I count on doing. Then i would post it here for general consensus or for just putting the data stuff here as a first step, and then, replace the current page stuff with it (with people having time to comment and suggest). In brief, I know what I am doing, and I won't change anything in the main page without having it posted here.

Furthermore, if you can't access some of the studies that I listed above and would like to read them, I could link the particular study(-ies) that particularly interest you. Have a nice day ! Gimly24 (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

For me, that would be "putting the cart before the horse", so to speak. I don't particularly have the time or desire to read through all of these. My particular field of expertise is in writing encyclopedia articles, which far predates the invention of Wikipedia. Most of my personal knowledge of and interest in moose comes from being a lifelong Alaskan, and from books from the local library. I'm the opposite. I'll work it out in my subconscious for weeks or months, and one day out of the blue I'll sit down and figure out how to work it into the article.

The only problem I have is that I don't know what specific changes you'd like to make. Sometimes the easiest way to see that is just to make them, and then we'll all know exactly what you want done. (The worst that can happen is someone may revert you, but then we'll have something to discuss.) Your alternative is also perfectly fine. Just be specific about what changes you want made, cite your source for each, and if necessary we can review the specific sources then. Until then, good luck and have a great day. Zaereth (talk) 23:02, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

lead image

Tje lead image of a bull was just changed, a change I have reverted. I recalled discussing it before, and found that discussion at Talk:Moose/Archive_5#Lead_image_of_the_bull, but that was six years ago so we can discuss it again if there's any appetite for that. I happen to really like the current image, I think it gives a suitably impressive idea of how large an adult bull is. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I remember that discussion. Good ol' Dr. Chrissy. I miss seeing him around. I agree that I like this image better for the reasons I stated there. I'd prefer a better image of the cow, to be honest. To recap, in general, lede images should be a profile or portrait-style image of the subject. Always best if the subject is facing the camera and looking right at you. None of the body is really cut-off either, it's just a front view. The shot has some flaws, but not very noticeable at article size. The angles are really good and gives the impression of him looking down at you, which is how it is in person, and I really like that too. It helps emphasize the actual size of the animals. Zaereth (talk) 20:24, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

error on diet calories - cited wrong

this part - The average adult moose needs to consume 40.9 megajoules (9,770 kilocalories) per day to maintain its body weight.[44]

its not kilocalories, its just calories, and 40.9 megajoules would be 9,768,797.31 calories so that should probably just be taken off, or written as 0.0409 megajoules — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.3.218.56 (talk) 00:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

You're right. That entire ref was full of wrong information, such as saying that moose eat any kind of plant, or have a gestation period of nearly a year. I updated the numbers from a better source, which says that on average of 343 moose surveyed, an animal weighing 900lbs needs about 23,000 kilocalories (96 megajoules), or about 42 pounds of willow, per day. Zaereth (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I mean, they eat a lot of questionable stuff (stripped the bark of an elderberry in my front yard this winter) but it's clear to even a casual observer that there are some plants they won't eat. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I had never looked at the source before, because as I recall that was here when I arrived. But it really didn't give much info beyond what is written right here on talk, which is all contradicted by other sources already in the article. Besides, 9770 calories is like one willow shoot. So it's a safe bet to say that the old source is not reliable. The source I found to replace it is a primary one, and fairly old at that, but gives far more info and is very reliable for simple numbers like these. Note that they're calculating in a moose's typical digestion of about 50% of the calories, which puts the actually digested calories fairly close to our original numbers. Zaereth (talk) 02:35, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

""meese"" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect "meese" and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 July 20#"meese" until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 14:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Predation By Coyotes

I dont have the time right now, however could somebody perhaps add to the Predators section that Coyotes very rarely hunt Moose during Winter? They dont do it frequently and I'd imagine only old/young/ailed individuals, as well in snowy regions are the only times its happened with any kind of frequency likely, but It indeed is possible and has been done before.

here's a citation of where my claim comes from. https://cdnsciencepub.com/doi/full/10.1139/cjz-2013-0160 - WL Enthusiast (talk) 20:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't know. To me, this demonstrates one of the problems with primary sources like scientific studies such as this one, because we have no really good secondary-source interpretations of the data. I read the source, and to clarify, they never actually saw the coyotes kill any moose. They're actually talking about a mix of "Eastern coyotes" and "Coyote/Eastern-wolf hybrids, which they note are a good deal larger than western coyotes that haven't been interbreeding with wolves. They declared it a high probability that the moose hadn't been killed by wolves and just eaten as carrion by the coyotes, mainly due to the kills happening deep within the coyotes' territories, and their research strongly suggests that the territories are well-marked and don't overlap very much. Yet they can't say with 100% certainty and they neglect to mention other possibilities such as bears, poachers, auto collisions, trips and falls, or so many other such things that may inflict life-threatening injury with or without killing the moose right away. Nor do they mention just how a canid like a wolf or coyote actually kills a moose, which generally involves a long chase that can last several days as they tag-team the animal to exhaustion. Such chases can easily cross territory lines without a second thought.

That's one of the problems with using primary sources such as new research, which is why we have such strict rules about them in over in the MEDRS articles. Now, don't get me wrong, because it not outside the realm of possibilities. Coyotes have been well-documented harassing moose, but to my knowledge no one has ever documented an observed case of coyotes bringing down a moose as they have with other animals like wolves and even wolverines. I think there is just too much room for doubt and interpretation from this study, and I'd personally feel more comfortable seeing it in a high-quality secondary source instead. Zaereth (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably “oldest” and not “youngest” bones in Britain?

Probably just a typo but the page is locked 2601:603:4E80:A00:B4B3:1F8C:43BE:407F (talk) 15:47, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

That does seem incorrect however this is what the source says. I verified the source and in context this is relevant. The point being made is about the date of extinction. The most recent time the moose inhabited Britain. There is only verification that it was alive as recently as 3900pb. Probably the oldest are far older. Invasive Spices (talk) 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Polygamous?

When did moose start getting married and have multiple wives? 2603:6000:D700:194D:1892:2DD:C5C9:5691 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

According to our own article on the subject, "In sociobiology and zoology, researchers use polygamy in a broad sense to mean any form of multiple mating." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moose&diff=1130934464&oldid=1129974152 Humorous but hard to understand so I needed a few seconds to understand what you meant. Our lek mating is very different from polygamy. Invasive Spices (talk) 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Aggression section needs serious work

The writing in this section is clumsy and unscientific, but much worse it is dangerous. The author does not understand the use of basic punctuation like commas and semicolons, and it is full of misinformed blanket statements like "more aggressive individuals are ALWAYS darker in color" misconceptions that are not only unscientific and inaccurate, but dangerous to the public. The whole paragraph about aggression needs re-written or deleted. "they attack more people than bears and wolves combined, but usually with only minor consequences." No, not with "minor" consequences. Bull moose in rut are extraordinarily aggressive and dangerous, even compared to large predators. 24.20.168.19 (talk) 04:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

That's according to the sources. The source for coloring, for example, comes from the book Deer of the World : Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology, by Dr. Valerius Geist. It's a very in depth and exhaustive book by a world-renowned expert on the subject. Not only does he say that the more aggressive individuals are darker in color, but that they are darkest in those areas facing their opponents during the rut, serving as sort of a visual warning to other ungulates that they're not likely to back down. Your other observation is also well-documented and found in the sources. Moose are very dangerous, I agree fully. The most dangerous animal in Alaska, in fact, and I know that from personal experience. (I've been charged, chased, cornered, and on one occasion even had to bail off a cliff and slide down the ice on my butt.) But in terms of raw numbers, there are a lot of moose attacks yet they are rarely fatal or result in serious injury by comparison. They usually don't go looking for a fight unless someone really pisses it off, but they don't usually back down or run away if they feel threatened. That said, if you have better sources and would like to improve section you are most welcome to give it a shot. Zaereth (talk) 04:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

IPA transcription should be added

The article should have the IPA transcription for the word "moose" (probably /ˈmus/ or something) because it's a standard thing in Wikipedia. The Old Macintosh (talk) 12:01, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

It is a fairly standard thing, but I personally don't find it useful as most readers don't know how to interpret IPA. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Rabies

Just saw this [1]. Rabies has been detected in an Alaskan moose for the first time, apparently there have been a few cases elsewhere as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)

Draught, not pack, animals shown in picture?

The picture next to "domestication" is labelled "moose kept as pack animals", whereas the picture definitely shows moose being used as draught animals.

In English as I know it (UK) a pack animal is carrying a load, while a draught animal is pulling one, and it is actually incorrect to exchange the two words. Of course, it is perfectly possible that the animals were kept as pack animals and only incidentally trained to pull sledges so they could do so on rare occasions - working animals are sometimes trained for both - but it is still not the most helpful of picture captions! (A screen reader reading a caption should give an accurate impression of what the picture shows, and this one doesn't).

Unless this is a result of regional variations in English usage, could I suggest it be changed to "Moose trained as draught animals" or some similar phrase?  :-) FloweringOctopus (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2023 (UTC)