Talk:Mongoose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.

Start

This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (add comments)

This article is maintained by the Tamil Nadu workgroup.

[edit] Popularity Contest

As much as I loved the Chuck Jones cartoon, I think Rikki-Tikki-Tavi lost his claim to the title of the world's most popular fictional mongoose once The Lion King hit theatres in 1994. From that point on, Timon the meerkat had received a lot more public recognition.palmer --M.Neko 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Relation

Are the words mongoose and goose really related?? 66.32.252.184 01:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Likely not, goose comes from PIE *ghans, whereas mongoose comes from a dravidian word, akin to mangoos, or something.

The word should be derived from an Indic language word, (Marathi) 'mangus'. Source: The Chambers Dictionary. Googling reveals several supporting articles.

Why isn't the mongoose in the Mustelidae family?(much discription please) 64.149.37.114 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 64.149.37.114 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomists use structures (teeth, bones, etc) that they can measure and compare objectively to decide, and most recently use of genetics to group animals into species. Mongoose is a large family, and if you looked at them and mustelids (otters, weasels, badgers, skunks etc.) closely, there would be many differences. They may appear more similar to each other than other animals, but they are not the same. --Paddling bear 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brand

Shouldn't there be a dismbiguation page for this? For the bike/skateboard band mongoose. Yes?

Make a disambiguation page please.

I thought disambiguation was when there was more than two articles with similar names? Otherwise, I'd say add a link on the top of this article to the other. There's no need for a extra page to tell about a single other article.

--Vidarlo 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Plural

I thought the plural was "polygoose", compared to "mongoose".

That's a knee-slapper. (Momus)

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists both mongooses and mongeese. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary both list only mongooses. None list mongoose. Given this inconsistency, it's important to recognize these dictionaries present quite different views of the English language. Merriam-Webster takes a descriptive approach and his is a bitch, on the other hand, focuses more on the traditional rules of formal English. In fact, James Parton created The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because he felt Webster's Third New International Dictionary was too permissive in regard to non-standard usage. Compare the following usage notes for they, gender-neutral third person singular: MW AH.

Merriam-Webster and American Heritage are both useful references for a Wikipedia editor. Merriam-Webster's descriptivist treatment of the English language mirrors Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Similarly, American Heritage's preference for formal, standardized English complements Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Thus Merriam-Webster is better research tool and American Heritage a better editing aid. And since this discussion relates to the word mongeese, rather than the actual animal, Merriam-Webster trumps American Heritage. I've changed the article to lists mongeese as a rare variation of mongooses. Labeling it incorrect would not be a neutral point of view. --Ryanrs 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"The plural form of mongoose is properly written mongooses." Well, duh. Nobody seriously uses "mongeese" as plural. It's not common "usage", but a common joke. Will remove Kar98 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We had a run in with mongooses last weekend and one of my friends refered to them as mongi, like octipi... any reason why this isn't correct?--Jrader 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that's using latin declination. The "us" in "Octopus" comes from Latin. Only words ending in "us" and coming from Latin change to "i" in the plural. "Mongoose" may sound similar to "Mongus," but that's only a coincidence. Korossyl 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Octopus comes from Greek, not Latin. Anyways, the comment in the article that the -eese plural ending is incorrect because they are unrelated doesn't make sense. Their being unrelated didn't present a barrier to their singulars ending in -oose, after all, so it doesn't follow that -eese is incorrect for this reason. I would propose a change to something like this: "Though the plural of mongoose is most frequently rendered as "mongooses", it is also rendered as "mongeese", though this is variously seen as incorrect, a joke form, or a valid alternative." --Reveilled 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Ryanrs wrote a nice paragraph to support using mongooses as plural, but mentioning mongeese as alternative. BUT when I read it today, it clearly and only states 'plural is mongeese' at the top. I'v never heard anyone call it that, so I think it should be changed. It's an odd one, but remember house becomes houses, while mouse becomes mice. =D--Paddling bear 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

None the less, I think we should stick with one form of the plural in the article itself, rather than switching between 'mongooses' and 'mongeese' every other sentence. I've edited to use 'mongooses' exclusively (except, of course, for the statement at the beginning about the alternative being acceptable), since that seems the less controversial of the two. Anaxial 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anaxial that the article should use the formal plural (mongooses) but I suppose Merriam-Webster reflects the fact that 25% of Google hits use the "incorrect" form (mongeese) so I have left this as an option in the heading.
Is this dumbing-down?
Dbfirs (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having studied the "Google Books" hits, and eliminated those which discuss the error or "mongeese" and those which are undecided, there remain just a few where the author genuinely thinks that "mongeese" is a valid plural. I conclude, therefore, that Merriam-Webster includes this alternative as a rare plural which appears to be deprecated by most authors. I have marked it accordingly, but please study the data in detail for yourself if you disagree.
Dbfirs (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nature's Assassin

Seriously? 153.104.16.114 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Removed information

I removed the following because the first reliable source I saw contradicted it clearly:

"Each female has a territory, which she defends against other females. Males defend larger territories that overlap with those of several females. Males and females rarely interact outside mating periods. Feeding on prey like mice, snakes and lizards requires stealth and is best done alone."

The source I consulted is [1], which I also added inline. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw more dubious material: "and resistance to the venom of most snakes (the vipers being a notable exception). It is said that some mongooses will actually eat the venom glands of snakes." which there was no source for. I unfortunately don't know much about the subject so I'm not the best to fix the article, but I didn't want to gloss over the problems either. - Taxman ^Talk 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Mongooses do not have an immunity to venom in the form of snake bites, and that their ophiophagy is accomplished because of speed and aggression. I have read, however (I believe it was from encyclopedia.com or msn encarta) that Mongooses do consume the venom glands of snakes with the rest of their meal. My educated guess would be that the venom does not enter the bloodstream in this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.164.68.176 (talk • contribs) .

The point being a reference is needed to be sure. More like a textbook or journal article, not another encyclopedia. And please just respond, don't delete other comments. - Taxman ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

A lot of links on the mongoose page (like "herpestinae," "hespestes") just redirect back to the mongoose page. What's the point of them being links at all?

[edit] Popular Culture

Do we really need that many references to the word "mongoose" appearing in movies and television? I have removed each entry in which it is simply a character's name.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "They will eat your flesh"??

"However if approached by humans they will eat your flesh."

This sentence seems colloquial. First, the voice changes to "your flesh" as if the reader is involved. But more importantly, this seems conjecture.. Shouldn't it say something more like that mongooses have been known to eat human flesh? Perhaps it should be removed all together.

Sneeper

Yep, it is inappropriate. I reverted the edit. Taranah 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed reference to eating human flesh but left, "They are habitually vampiric animals. Draining the blood of animals whilst resting or unattentive. The victim animal awakens with the strange craving of hemoglobins and an intense sensitivity to sunlight." ?? I've never heard of this, and it sounds like chupa capra. Next line is a list of normal foods it eats. I think if we don't have a citation for this, it should be removed. BTW, how would one know an animal has a craving for hemoglobin?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dental Formula

Do we need to have repetitions of mongoose' dental formula? I would like to have one of them to be removed. --Lucifer 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable request! It must have been duplicated by mistake at some point (possibly by me!) Anaxial (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so, kindly remove one of the formula. My obvious choice would be to remove the first one as we don't need to have that in the very introduction --Ankithreya! 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did... Anaxial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great :-) --Ankithreya! 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Mongeese" Totally Incorrect

The plural of Mongoose is Mongooses. It is not, neither rarely nor EVER, Mongeese.

Sixthcrusifix (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided in the text says you are incorrect. The plural is deprecated, certainly, and relies on a false etymology, but if Miriam-Webster says that it can sometimes be correct (even if it isn't preferred), we kind of have to accept that. At the very least, you'd need to change the citation to one that clearly states Miriam-Webster is wrong. Anaxial (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)