Talk:Woolly mammoth/Archive 1

Archive 1

Question

Shouldn't we say how big these bad boys were when they were alive?--Mr Fink 03:37, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you have a source than please put it in, but please reference the imformation. Enlil Ninlil 03:47, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

D&D reference

Someone with a little more knowledge on Dungeons & Dragons should probably either cite the quoted misspelling ("Wooly") or adjust the item, as I just did with the Transformers reference. Aurax 04:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Copy/paste from Mammoth article

The Mammoth article contained lots of material pertaining to M. primigenius, not surprisingly, since the image of the woolly mammoth is the one that naturally comes to mind (and was actually the one featured there). However, assuming that it would be better to have that material here, I copy/pasted part of it into this article and deleted it in the other one. I felt my action was needed because I found the emphasis on M. primigenius in Mammoth potentially confusing, as it blurred the distinction between the mammoth in general and the woolly one in particular and obscured the fact that there also existed a separate article on this subject. I also replaced this image in Mammoth; perhaps it could be reused in this article. There was a section with much overlap called "Preserved remains, genetic evidence", which I initially placed in this talk section. When I merged its contents with those of Woolly mammoth, I did not preserve the reference tag that had been on it in the original article, but instead placed fact tags in the text wherever a source seemed to be needed. All of the images were preserved, except the aforementioned black-and-white gravure that was formerly used in Mammoth. I hope everyone here will agree with this rather bold action. Iblardi 20:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Big problem

The article does not mention why and how these creatures got extinct! It just says that last one of them died of hunger!--18jahremädchen 06:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Well they could have died out the same way as the dinosaurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aslan10000 (talk • contribs) 00:45, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

There are many theories on why the woolly mammoth went extinct, and in all likelihood, it was from a variety of reasons. Certainly, they went extinct shortly after the last Ice Age ended, so changes in climate and vegetation were probably important. But, hunting by primitive man certainly must have also played a role. Like all elephants, they would have had a slow reproductive rate, so even limited hunting, combined with climatic changes could have wiped them out.

Larry E. Matthews (talk) 16:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Popular culture

Can we add in a section were the mammoth was used in fiction. Docter trio vortex 12:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Great idea! Hard to forget the scene in "Quest For Fire" where the hero holds out the hay to the big woolly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.192.199.190 (talk) 04:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Not very Scientific

the article is not very scientific... It starts by saying that it lived in alaska and in siberia with no metion that they were linked to beringia. No mention of LGM or even its population dynamics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.86.154.190 (talk) 15:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

According to all the evidence I seen most frozen mammoths corpses are not as woolly as depicted in art, and illustrations.--Standforder (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Cross Section Through A "Tooth"

The cross-section of a tooth that is shown in the article should be more correctly identified as a cross section through a tusk.

Admitedly, a tusk is a modified tooth, but the average reader would be better informed if that was labeled as a cross section through a tusk.

It would be nice for someone to add a photo of a woolly mammoth tooth. They are very interesting. Beside their tusks, wooly mammoths only had molars, for grinding plant material.

Larry E. Matthews (talk) 16:52, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

small dick vandalism

The small dick vandalism we've been seeing is apparently in response to this. One assumes it is going to continue for a while yet. Hesperian 06:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Study links mammoth extinction to comets

Something to add... Study links mammoth extinction, comets A swarm of comets that smacked North America 12,900 years ago wiped out the wooly mammoth and early Native American cultures, according to a soil study released Thursday. Morphh ^(talk) 13:58, 05 January 2009 (UTC)

MERGE SUGGESTION

The main page to "mammoth" is extremely lacking, and this one seems decent. They ought to be merged together until the article is large enough to have "wooly mammoth" as its own separate page. Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Mammoths in prehistoric art

I'd like to see us expand on the very brief mention of depictions of mammoths in prehistoric art. It's very rare and interesting when we have life depictions of prehistoric animals by people who saw them alive. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 01:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

4-tusk mammoth species?

What exactly was that? I saw a blurb about it in a magazine a while back. I'm not sure whether it came before or after the woolly mammoth. Probably before. --RyanTee82 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like one of the gomphotheres or mastodons, which were in a different family.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Popular misconceptions

Should this section be removed?

The statement that mammoths are most "often pictured living along side dinosaurs in a tropical rainforest" is easily falsified by Googling images of woolly mammoths. Nowhere in the first couple hundred images is a mammoth pictured that way. Even the "Ice Age" movies make clear that dinosaurs in the Pleistocene were out of place.

Once that is removed, all that is left is a single statement that mammoths and mastodons are often confused. While true, it hardly seems worth a whole section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by McKayJohn (talk • contribs) 05:16, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Links not available

it seems to me, that the Link #21 doesn't work anymore. The *.pdf isn't able to load here. Somebody else can still load it? -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

in the meantime it changed - now it is Reference #23 and still not able to be downloaded -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 10:37, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

to keep it in memory -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 21:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

In Cryptozoology?

How can the Mammoth still survive after all these years, I thought our species wiped them all out? unless those reports were accounts of last living herds before they died out on their own.(Crypto457 (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC))

coat colour

Mammoths are typically shown as having reddish fur as that's how they looked when defrosted but I've heard that this is an artefact of time and cold (or some other preservation factors) and it was originally black.

Can anyone comment? 92.24.195.128 (talk) 11:23, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Added to article. Wayne (talk) 09:55, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

New info in this BBC article suggests coat colours may have been much paler - this mammoth said to have 'strawberry blond' hair (though it looks like blond and ginger to me in the image in that article). EdwardLane (talk) 15:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why is this article titled Woolly Mammoth and not Mammuthus primigenius, the scientific name? Other extinct animals articles are titled by their scientific name, even though they have commonly used names (cave bear, saber-toothed cat etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.89.216.222 (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

For the same reason that its closest living relative's article is titled Asian Elephant instead of Elephas maximus. Laypeople know most animals by their common names, and using those names in the articles make them easier to understand. The only animals that most laypeople refer to by their scientific names are very long-extinct species such as dinosaurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 05:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

In some cases, like this, the common name is just far better known. And another problem is that "sabertoothed cat" and cave lion, etc., can refer to several species, not just one. Woolly mammoth is only M. primigenius. FunkMonk (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Possible sighting and video of live woolly mammoth in Siberia (could just be a hoax or mistake though)

This article from the Sun has what it claims to be a video of a woolly mammoth.

The article says "Its hair matches samples recovered from mammoth remains regularly dug up from the permafrost in frozen Russia." But it doesn't cite any independent verification of this claim.

The article also states, "others reckon it is an elephant lost in the Siberian wilderness. The third theory is the sighting shows a bear eating a huge fish."

Having watched the video, I think it's a bear with a fish.

If it really was a woolly mammoth or a lost elephant, I think it would hold its trunk above the water. But the animal in this video doesn't do that, which adds to my belief that it's a bear carrying a fish.

I don't know if this is notable enough to include in this article, but I thought I'd point it out just in case.

ThFSPB (talk) 20:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Imo, this claimed spotting is not notable at all, and should not be included. I've already removed it once. The Sun is a tabloid, 'nuff said :) jonkerz ♠talk 20:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that it should be in the article, but under a new section called "supposed sightings" or something similar, and also making clear that it could be a hoax for the reazons that the first contribuitor states, i'll see if i can found other supposed sightings to make the section notable enough. after all, it's valuable information related to the mammoths (on a "popular culture" way). Nicrorus (talk) 03:04, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

If a live woolly mammoth has been sited, it will be found and coughed up on the pages of the New York Times, ASEAN, Science, etc. We can wait until a reliable source publishes. I'm pretty sure this is the same beach where Big Foot was spotted in the 70s. Maybe it's something in the water! Pseudofusulina (talk) 03:22, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia deals with "supposes", unless the "suppose" is particularly notable in itself. In this case it's a blurry film of a bear with a fish. The rest is silly tabloid nonsense that no-one is taking seriously.--Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 19:58, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably a hoax, looks just like an ordinary elephant to me. It is very unlikely that mammoths are still around. I find it hard to believe that an animal so large could go so long without being officially discovered by man. Even assuming there are still mammoths hiding in the woodlands and tundra of North America and Eurasia, the rarity of sightings suggest that there are only a handful in existence today. If they're not extinct already (which they almost certainly are), then they're definitely going extinct in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Of course it's a hoax, or even less considering the source, but it's kind of fun. And, not just an elephant, but clearly an African elephant. Or a brown bear guzzling a beer. Pseudofusulina (talk) 07:49, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

This was proved to be a hoax last week. [1] Somebody pulled the footage of the river from YouTube, as disocvered by the guy who filmed it. The hoaxer then inserted a CGI mammoth and added a blur layer. Somebody in the article comments has it right: any video filmed in the year 2012 that's that blurry is a fake. A cheap cell phone camera takes clearer video than that. The fact that the hoaxer had to digitally add in the blurriness is very telling. It's not the 1970s anymore. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)