Talk:Giraffe/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Image location

To Adrian re the lefthand image location. The lower location looks silly on my screen. The higher location looks silly on your screen. I assume this is a screen res thing :(.... Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2004 (UTC).

== Color variants vs. subspecies == color blind

Using color varient to descibe subspecies is a bit odd to my eye. (Googling giraffe "color variants" turns up very few hits; and most of them are Wikipedia or derivative.) I'm updating to include the nine generally accepted subspecies, plus a note about other classification breakdowns Carter 20:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Creationist bent of evolution section

I just adore that evolution section. It seems it was written by a creationist who doesn't know he is. ^_^ He comes SO close to saying "come to think of it, giraffes are pretty good evidence against evolution" without quite getting there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.230.154 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah, I noticed that part, something about a sage following every giraffe and noticing what happens, all leading to the conclusion "giraffes are the way they are because someone designed them". This was NOT written by an "intelligent design person who didn't know it." This must have been written by a concious and aware ID person. That part should be removed. Of course scientists did not directly observe evolution in action but it is the accepted theory and ID is not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.210.170 (talk • contribs) .

the evolution section

Quoting the article:

While the ecological niche which at least male giraffes utilize is only used by a single other species, the African Elephant, there has been no selective forces to maintain the length of the giraffe's neck.

I think that does not make much sense. The conservation of a trait is not maintained mainly by competition between different species for the same niche, but rather, by competition among individuals of the same species. In fact, if there are two species competing for the same niche, one is likely either to go extinct or to adapt to another niche. The following phrase is no much better:

It may be that the long neck originally evolved when the benefit of filling the ecological niche was more pronounced due to the presence of other giant ungulates in Africa, which are now extinct.

It is the same logic. Species are not willingly trying to compete against each other, to take away a niche that's already taken. A niche is more likely to be filled when it is empty, rather than when there's more competition for it. Under the assumption that what drove the evolution of giraffe's neck was the ability it gives to reach more food, that would more likely have happened because all the lower food was already being taken by smaller animals, not by giant ones. Then would be an advantage to reach higher, when there's plenty of food with no one else to eat.

I guess that the giraffe's neck evolved and is still maintained mainly by sexual selection. I do not know for sure, I'll research a little bit in the subject eventually and post here. But it has the usual characteristics of a trait evolved by ss. It exaggerated, and apparently, not that necessary to survival, if not a hinderance or nearly.

Also, the mainteanance of the neck size is not something that requires an extraordinary explanation. The giraffe is adapted to its niche. And its niche, at least for now, requires long necks. It would only "shirnk" along evolution if gradually shorter necks for some reason were being more reproductively advantageous than longer ones. --Extremophile 23:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Everything you say is quite reasonable. I'm a bit concerned, however, that the whole 'evolution' section is a single editors speculation on the neck rather than the scientific consensus. I think we need to insist on sources, as most of the section is quite speculative and probably doesn't belong in an encyc article. Ashmoo 04:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thats what this is for, we are speculating with logical arguments, thats the only way to really prove anything with evolution, without asking a very intelegent scholar giraffe or some higher being :)

Long Or short necks

I just read this artice from the Nature Institute [1]. Do you think its relavent? Nadiasama 02:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Very much so, yes. I think it will be tough to integrate its points, though. :-/ Ruakh 16:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Why the capital 'G'?

Why does this article spell "Giraffe" with a capital G? Is that just a mistake, or is there a reason for it? Ruakh 21:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, no one responded, so I changed it. Ruakh 16:31, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Seven or 8 Vertebrae?

On this website http://www.awf.org/wildlives/118 it says that there are only 7 vertebrae. Look at the very bottom of the page. 86.131.11.126 11:13, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


ALL mammals have SEVEN vertebrae (except manatees and sloths). http://wwworm.biology.uh.edu/evodevo/lecture11/galis99.pdf

Ossicones

The article states: "They also have slightly elongated forelegs, about 10% longer than their hind legs. These bones produce bud-like horns called ossicones." To me that says that ossicones grow on foreleg bones. But the ossicone article and some other articles I Googled say ossicones grow on a giraffe's head. Should it be foreleg or head? Art LaPella 21:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Resolved.

Art LaPella 19:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Horns

What are they for? DavidFarmbrough 12:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

breaking each others necks in fights for mates or food, [2] (i really wanted to respond with 'for beating the living ---- out of each other, cos its brutal, this is a friendly dispute [3])

Proposal to merge out the Evolutionary perspectives section and cut the WP:OR.

As I read it it's been sitting around uncited for quite a while. From the 1st para, 2nd sentence on starting with "However" etc I call it WP:OR. The 2nd paragraph is already done in the article and cited with the ref to "Robert E. Simmons and Lue Scheepers: Winning by a neck: Sexual selection in the evolution of giraffe. The American Naturalist, 148 (1996): pp. 771-786.". Wikipedia would go to the dogs if every animal article had some evolutionary commentary unless it is related to a current controversy between notable commentators (a very rare situation indeed). I don't see this with the giraffe. It does contain some snippits but these are already referenced and cited so it's an empty section really. Ttiotsw 16:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)