Talk:Moose

Template:Vital article

Fact check: However, like all ungulates known to attack predators, the more aggressive individuals are always darker in color.[91]

Can anyone check this source? This sounds like a very odd claim; possibly tampered sentence? MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:59, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

It says it right there in the source by Valerius Geist, on page 237. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)thank you fart

I might add that it seemed like an odd comment to me too, but who am I to argue with the world-renowned deer-expert Dr. Geist. The oddity of it made it seem interesting enough to add to the article. Zaereth (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

That is weird. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Range:

The range in the lower 48 states is listed as "New England", but Rocky Mtn states are not. I'm not a moose biologist but do believe that they are common in Wyoming and perhaps other Rocky Mtn states? 156.33.241.37 (talk) 18:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

As always, we must go with what realible sources on the subject say. If you have one that backs this assertion, by all means add it to that section. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Björklöv

"While there has been documented cases of individual moose being used for riding and/or pulling carts and sleds, Björklöv concludes no wide-scale usage has occurred outside fairytales." That's nice for Björklöv. In what way is this relevant or significant? No other mention of this Björklöv is given, and it isn't explained why his/her say-so has any value at all. It's a random name and nothing more. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 23:49, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I can't tell you his (or her) importance other than being the author of the source. I can't read the source since its in Swedish, but, since the paragraph is about Sweden, I guess I'm willing to take his word for it. (I think a more plausible explanation is found in the "diet" section of this article, however. One of the greatest and little studied inventions in the world was the storing and stockpiling of hay, a cheap food for livestock that grows fast and keeps well through the winter. It didn't exist during the time of the Greeks and Romans, people just let their animals graze, but appeared sometime before the middle ages. Unfortunately, not all ruminants can digest it.) Zaereth (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's just it. It's a random name, with no introduction. "X conclude that..." There is no mention of any research, there is no introduction of this person, nothing. If it had been "research indicate that", sure. But you could just as easily have replaced that name with "Mary, Queen of Scots" or "Donald Trump" or any other. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because you've never herd of him doesn't mean the info is not valid. I did some searching. Sune Bjorklov was an author, political advisor, PhD, etc... He is very well known is Sweden. The source is a snippet from one of his books, Älgen in our history and everyday life. In the book he details the historical attempts to domesticate moose in the 18th century, during the reign of Karl IX. There were apparently a lot of rumors about using moose in place of horses, rumors which were exaggerated over time. In his book he quite thoroughly examines those rumors and the real historical context and information, concluding that they were just that, old rumors and wives tales. He notes that there are farms that raise moose for food and milk, stating: "In the Pechero-Illycher reserve in the northern Ural Mountains there is an elk farm where about 450 animals under five moose generations are domesticated for milking and meat production. On the other hand, [they] have not been successful in dressing any moose to do a heavier utility job. If that were the case, our ancestors would have used that opportunity a long time ago."

It's not necessary that all sources be English or all experts be famous in English-speaking countries. A few minutes on google can usually clear it up. Zaereth (talk) 18:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, let's see. First and foremost, there is no indication that the text is by this Sune. At all. It's a name, nothing more. The argument that the info isn't valid is null. That isn't the point. The point is that the info is attributed to a nebulous "Björklöv" without making any points about who that is or why this person is any sort of authority. That he was Swedish, and not native English isn't really relevant. I wouldn't take the word of "Smith" or "Petersen" or anyone else either, be they Swedish, English, Japanese or from the deepest dark of Africa, based just on their name. And finally, "He is very well known is Sweden." No. He is, and was, not "well known", except maybe by people deeply interested in Swedish wildlife, and even that would be doubtful. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 18:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There most certainly is. Take a look at the source. To those who don't know, Valerius Geist is just a name, but we mention him in this article. For those who do a little research, you find that Geist is a well-known expert in the field. Same with Adrian Lister or Augusto Azzaroli, also mentioned in this article. It's not uncommon to use an author of the source's name in the text to attribute the information to them --especially in matters of opinion-- such as this line from the BFM article, "According to author Mike Spick, "Disengagement from a vertical rolling scissors is best made with a split-s and a lot of hope."" Zaereth (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I might also add, for your assistance, that over 50% of the most common words we use in English everyday are Scandinavian, so, etymologically speaking, Swedish and English are even more identical than English and French. It's fairly easy to parse through, but because of this google-translate is actually able to give a really good translation of the sources and background info. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

So, the argument you try to apply is not only complete nonsense, it's also completely and utterly irrelevant, in several ways? That's not a good sign. How about you try and address the point at hand, that a name with no more information isn't a source or an authority? That "Björklöv" says something on the subject of moose is no more authoritative than "Robinson" would be speaking about practically any subject you care to name. He isn't well known IN Sweden, much less OUTSIDE of it, except PERHAPS to people studying the subject of native Swedish wildlife, and even that would be a stretch. 85.229.60.74 (talk) 18:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Your beginning assertion is a logical fallacy known as argument from incredulity, followed by argumentum ex silentio.

Wikipedia works by citing information found in reliable sources. In matters of opinion, Wikipedia maintains a neutral point of view by attributing those opinions to somebody specific. In this case it is the author of the source. If you disagree with the opinion, that is your perogative. The opinion is well sourced and you've provided no reason why it should be removed other than "I don't believe it." If you believe the name should be removed because you personally don't think he is worthy of being named (perhaps because the name just looks strange to English speakers, you've provided no other reason than what appears obvious) then that leaves the opinion in Wikipedia's voice, and we can't have that either. Either way, you're going to need to give a better demonstration of why it should not be included. Zaereth (talk) 18:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sune Björklöf (note the spelling!) was an economist who worked in the public sector (as director of a major hospital, among other things). His PhD was in industrial economics. His writings on folklore and culture are probably well worth reading and I do not doubt that he based it on thorough studies of existing research on the subject, but he was not actually a historian. (I know this because I have read his obituary and reviews of his books for the purpose of participating in this discussion - I had not heard his name before, and I can't really find anything that suggests he was a well-known person in Sweden.) That being said, the claim that moose have never been domesticated on a larger scale is factual and well-attested, it is not difficult to find sources for it, and I believe Björklöfs book could be one such source - it is a hefty tome and according to reviews it is well-researched if a bit dry and boring for a popular scientific work. I notice that an unusually large number of university libraries in Sweden have it in their catalogues, which is a good sign. (It is late and I have to get up early tomorrow but if necessary I can dig up a couple of good sources later.) I wouldn't phrase it in terms of "only in fairytales", but maybe that's just me. --bonadea contributions talk 21:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the IP about the need to rewrite the sentence a little. Using a last name in that way without any introduction would only work with someone like Einstein - even most Nobel Prize winners would need some kind of introduction/attribution. In this case I see no need to mention him by name at all; the article in the reference is a nice and factual summary of existing research, and so a phrasing like "there is no evidence for any wide-scale use" instead of the clause starting with "Björklöf concludes..." would work, I believe. --bonadea contributions talk 10:53, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

As I was interpreting the IPs problem, they either disagreed with the statement or disliked the name, or both. In reading your statements, perhaps I was misinterpreting the IP. My general point was that there needed to be attribution of the line. It would make sense to add more information about who he is, if that's what the IP was aiming for. I have no problem with rephrasing it or even removing it entirely on the grounds you state. Expressed as an opinion, it does need an attribution, but ignoring the opinion in the source and summarizing the factual information, like you suggest, may just be a better way. It might be worthwhile to keep clear that (although it likely applies worldwide) his book is only about the moose in Swedish history and does not get into other countries. Zaereth (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Habitat

Added section on habitat to put in context the discussion later in article about heat stress. Also added this citation of trade offs in selection of habitat by moose: Dussault, Christian, Jean‐Pierre Ouellet, Réhaume Courtois, Jean Huot, Laurier Breton, and Hélène Jolicoeur. "Linking moose habitat selection to limiting factors." Ecography 28, no. 5 (2005): 619-628. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 23:04, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

That looks really good. Very professional. Thanks for your help in improving this article. Zaereth (talk) 00:37, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Diving moose

Is there better evidence that moose dive deep into water? It seems plausible that a fat-depleted moose at end-of-winter might be able to dive. However, moose with high fat stores float high in the water. I'm skeptical that a well-fattened moose could dive much beyond a few feet deep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 03:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Beyond having seen it myself, is there better evidence than the world-renowned deer expert Dr. Valerius Geist? I might also add that there is not much fat on a moose, most of their insulation comes from their coat, in which the thick hairs are hollow. If you've never eaten it, it's extremely lean meat with no marbling whatsoever. (In fact, to make moose burger you have to add pork or beef suet (ground fat) or it will fall apart when you cook it.)Zaereth (talk) 06:17, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

oops

I use eggs to hold my moose loaf in one piece, keeps it moist too. I ran across this unfortunate fella in the Kasilof River last year. Best guess is he fell through thin ice and was insufficiently buoyant to escape. Beeblebrox (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Good photo. My brother has one of two moose floating down the river with the antlers locked together. That's a good point, though. Many animals with very high fat stores can dive with ease, for example a seal (which is really just a dog with flippers) or dolphins and whales (evolved from horses). They have thick layers or fat and blubber, yet it doesn't seem to affect buoyancy all that much. Zaereth (talk) 08:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Come to think of it, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge visitor’s center actually has the skulls of two bulls who died that way on display. Next time I’m up that way I’ll try to try remember to stop in and snap a photo. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

That would make a good photo. I can't use my brother's (which is not just the skulls, and frankly kinda disturbing and gory). You know, I walked right upon one giving birth several weeks ago, but didn't have time to take out my camera. (Barely had time to turn my troop of German Shepherds around and hightail it outta there.) Zaereth (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Its clear that moose browse on plants that grow on the bottom of streams or ponds. They do this while wading or by shallow diving. What I'm asking is about the evidence for deep diving. Does Geist document deep diving?Sbelknap (talk) 19:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of a moose diving at all. They usually just wade in, their long legs and necks allow them to walk into water several feet deep and just lean down with their nostrils closed (they can do that for exactly this reason) and eat plants directly off the bottom. This may be my original research, but every time I’ve seen a moose in deeper water it was swimming with its head out of the water. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Geist doesn't go into any great detail. The book basically says just what is in the article (phrased differently, of course). It's like seeing a moose stand upright on its hind legs. It doesn't happen often, but when they get the notion, they can do it with ease. (And it's an impressive sight; if you think they look big on four legs...)

This is my OR, for your personal benefit. Moose are good swimmers, and have even been spotted in the ocean, swimming to or from some island presumably. But their usual hang-outs are swamps, marshes, spruce bogs, lakes and rivers. So, no, I seriously doubt they go very deep. What I've seen is similar to what they do when they stand upright. They'll be feeding from underwater plants, slowly reaching out farther and farther from shore. Then (I guess spotting something it likes or thinks would be easy enough to get rather than abandoning its spot just yet), "bloop" it just goes under, coming back up a couple minutes later a much farther distance out from where it went in. Then it will typically swim back to shore and move to a new spot. Zaereth (talk) 01:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Neat. I saw two of them stand up and “kangaroo box” for a few seconds once, it was a hell of a sight. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:35, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Moose hooves

Anybody have a public domain picture of the moose hoof? I'm looking for a multi-image photo that shows the dorsal view, the medial view, the lateral view, and the sole view. I've found a bunch, but none of them appear to be public domain. Also, any of you with hunting or photo stalking of moose want to opine on the hooves and prints info I added? Thanks! Sbelknap (talk) 23:40, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The sourcing is no good as it is mostly self-published websites and blogs. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll work on it. I think our university library has a copy of an old book about feet and footprints. I don't recall the title. I'll track it down and get better cites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbelknap (talk • contribs) 13:36, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

If you can find it, the journal Alces is the gold standard for biological information about moose. Maybe somebody watching has one of those free Highbeam Research accounts and can access it? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:27, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Contradicting information about times of moose activity

In the section "Social structure and reproduction", it is said that moose are diurnal (active during the day). The section "Vehicle collisions" cites the Newfoundland Transportation dept, which claims that "The majority of accidents occur between dusk and dawn. This is the time when driver visibility is severely limited by darkness, and when moose are most active." (emphasis mine). Should we address this disagreement somewhere?

The citation (currently #155) can be found here: https://web.archive.org/web/20080513202718/http://www.roads.gov.nl.ca/moose.htm --Jmlpgh (talk) 14:39, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

In my experience, moose are not nocturnal, meaning they like to bed down somewhere and sleep for the night. However, being prey animals, moose are very leery about coming out of forest cover, where there is a lot of underbrush and other obstacles to predators (the reason moose have such long, spindly-looking legs), during the hours of broad daylight. So, while I would describe them as diurnal, I would also say that they're most active (most "on the move") during the twilight hours of dusk and dawn, when they can still see but it's harder for predators to see them, because that's when you're most likely to see them darting out from one cover to reach another, which often takes them across roadways. (So in that case their natural defense becomes more of a liability.) As I recall, you can find this info in Valerius Geist's book, Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology. Zaereth (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

It might be worth clarifying that a moose's day is not especially active, as they often move very sloth-like, leisurely browsing and expending very little energy. Surprisingly quick and agile when provoked, when no predators are around, they're pretty much the kings and everyone else better damn well step aside. (As I heard a mother once asking her child, where does moose go? "Where ever moose wants." What does moose eat? "Whatever moose wants.") They may often take naps in the day, or if in an area where predators abound, they may just lie in the forest and wait until everybody leaves. (There is a number of them who will do just that at the local dog park, patiently awaiting access to the lake.) They're not territorial, but they tend to roam in the same circles (which can cover as much as a hundred miles), so you see the same ones in the same places about the same times every year, but they do most of their traveling (thus expend most of their energy) under the cover of darkness. Zaereth (talk) 19:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Calves stay with cows until estrus

I was hoping to find a good secondary reference for this. I modified the text in the lede to cover cow/calf relations, but we need something in the body of the article as well. We could add something old (1950s), but most of what I see published doesn't seem grounded in systematic observation. Does anybody have a high-quality secondary reference?

I don't know if that's quite right. Moose rut in the fall, which is when the cow is in proestrus (the deer version of menstruation). They breed once the cow goes into estrus (heat) shortly thereafter. After that is anestrus (normal state), in which the moose remains until the following fall.

Calves are born in the spring, and are pretty much full grown by winter. (Amazingly fast growth for such a large animal, but it's needed to survive the winter.) They winter with their mothers, likely to learn foraging habits, the routes she takes and familiar areas with lots of cover and escape routes. There has been quite a bit written about the extremely strong bond between mother and calf. (In fact, as I recall, calves raised in captivity form such a strong bond to the human handlers that it is like imprinting, and they can become very distressed if separated from their human "mothers". This bond can become so strong, especially with females (and especially if they've been handle or milked by the same handler over long periods of time), that later in life they may reject other moose sexually in favor of humans.)

A moose will generally drive away her calves when she reaches the time to give birth. At this point she will become very aggressive toward other moose, including her young (not to mention dogs and people) and will drive her calves away. The calves usually don't stray too far, though, at first, and if mother fails to give birth she may tolerate their presence for another year, but never more than two. Female calves may stick around that long, but rarely males. Once she gives birth in the spring it's game over, and she get's really mean and won't tolerate them anymore; they suddenly become a potential threat.

I could list a few sources, like The Importance of the Cow-calf Bond to Overwinter Moose Calf Survival by Marilyn Sigman, but most of them cite Deer of the World: Their Evolution, Behaviour, and Ecology, by Valrius Geist, so I would recommend starting there. (Somewhere around page 250 or so, as I recall.) Zaereth (talk) 00:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Plural form

"The fact that the word was a loanword borrowed after Middle English's Great Vowel Shift was determinative in its highly irregular plural form, which is also moose (as in, "Nine angry moose are chasing me right now")."

I removed this sentence because, as another user pointed out, it was not found in the cited source. It also sounded fishy to me, because the Great Vowel Shift had little to do with pluralization. The GVS took place in the Middle Ages, and concerns a shift in the way vowels were pronounced. Prior to the shift most vowels were long, but afterward many shifted to short vowels. Thus led was pronounced "leed". The plural form lede was pronounced "leedee". In some cases like this (especially with verbs) the singular became the short sound and the plural the long, but in other cases, such as child/children, the opposite occurred. However, "moose" entered English long after the GVS.

English came from the Germanic languages of the Angles and the Saxons. In Old English there were five different suffixes that could denote a plural word, each having a slightly different inflection. These were -a, -an, -as, -ar, and -u. Thus, "led" was pluralized as leda, which became lede, and eventually morphed into "lead". Steorr (star) was pluralized as steorran, which became steorren, morphing into steorres, and finally dropping the "e" to form "stars. Likewise, childr was pluralized as childru and eventually became "children".

Then the Normans (French) conquered the land, and frankly did their best to squash the Germanic from the language. The French had many suffixes to denote plural words as well, but many of these were silent, so, while spelled differently, the words were pronounced exactly the same as the singular form. This tradition carried over to many English words. In Old English you would say "I love" but "they loven". "I caught five fishen." or "I saw eight deeren when walking through the wild." Most of these suffixes were dropped during the Norman conquest, so the plural of "wolverine" is "wolverine", the plural of "deer" is "deer", and the plural of "elk" is "elk". (The suffixes were at first replaced with the letter "Ø" to denote a silent suffix, but then were eventually dropped altogether.) This tradition was likely just passed along to "moose" when it entered English.

There really is no reason or rhyme to how this all turned out. There are no "rules" that anyone can devise to make some sense of it. The Old English -an eventually morphed into today's "-es" and "-s", which became the primary method of pluralization, but these other so-called "irregular" (not "highly irregular") suffixes still exist in English --even in modern words like Kelvin or Torr. (What happened is that English changed from a highly synthetic language, relying heavily on prefixes and suffixes (similar to German, Welsh, or Tlinkit), and became a highly analytic language, like Chinese, in which suffixes and other morphemes were dropped and the inflection is determined by analyzing the context.) Zaereth (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

We do the same with the plural of deer, reindeer, elk and caribou so I propose that the real reason is that it's a deer. Seriously though, I think you could've stopped at "not found in the cited source" and "sounds fishy". Seems like classic WP:SYNTH. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:44, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

That part, about the word "moose" in specific, is exactly what I said. It's not synth at all but pure speculation on both our parts, which is why I phrased it as I did. ((eg: It's not found in any source.) The rest on the etymology and morphology of the English language (which I included as a reason why it sounded fishy, but only for those who are interested) is easily sourced. See, for example, the book A History of the English Language. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Elk?

Elk are a seperate species, in my experience Eurasians don't refer to moose as elk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ETBA1999 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

That's a mystery, ain't it? Come to think of it, I think I read something about that in this very article, just a little further past the first sentence. Try the section called "etymology and naming". Zaereth (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Name Change from Moose to Alces

In the French entry–where there is a moose/elk (orignal/élan) naming issue–the solution they used was an italicised Alces as the title of the page. This makes sense to me for English as well, especially as they are known as Alces Alces and having "Moose" be the title is a bit unfair to "Elk"-sayers, no? (Danachos (talk) 08:32, 29 December 2018 (UTC))

Sorry, missed this comment at the time, but I'm gonna go with WP:COMMONNAME on that. I would suggest that millions and millions of English-speaking people recognize this animal as a moose, even if they might also know it as an elk. I don't see anything inherently unfair about that. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Two Species

I'm curious why the article treats Eurasian and American moose as one species? Here are secondary sources that make the distinction clear: https://www.encyclopedia.com/places/united-states-and-canada/canadian-physical-geography/moose https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=180702#null It's misleading as written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:19B:C600:EA51:CD1C:A32E:5E49:78D6 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a complicated issue, so bear with me here. Taxonomy is a highly subjective science, and classifications tend to vary dramatically, depending upon which scientist is making those classifications. It's all about deciding which minute traits are more similar than not, and where to draw the line between the subtle differences. There were huge debates upon which fossil species should be classified as Libralces (Literally: free moose) or Cervalces (stag moose). These differences were based more upon size than anything else. Other scientists felt these differences were too minute in comparison to the fundamental similarities (especially those of the skull and teeth) that they should all be classified under Alces (plural, Alcinae). For example, Augusto Azzaroli was a proponent of the former while Adrian Lister a proponent of the latter.

When reading books you can find them classified as any, either or all of these things, so Wikipedia should make that known. Usually these things are decided by a handful of thorough experts in their particular field who often disagree adamantly.

For the purposes of drafting legal documents, to maintain consistent and clearly defined language within those documents (avoiding ambiguity in a court of law), it became necessary for countries like the US to form boards such as the ITIS. These are not boards of scientists but lawyers, taking the words of people like Lister and Azzaroli and turning those into legalese. These classifications are more country-specific than scientist-specific, but it became necessary when it comes to drafting laws or contracts and settling disputes.

Unfortunately, ITIS is a primary source, and most of Wikipedia is built using secondary sources (often written by scientists or people covering their work), many of which predate the changes in the legalese definitions. Not to say that primary sources can't be used, they can, but should be in conjunction with secondary sources that back them up. This has been brought up before, but the last person was only intent on changing the lede and leaving the rest of the article so it didn't match. If you want to change the article to match the current ITIS classification, you are welcome, but be sure to use RSes and change the whole article to match. Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, bear with you I will. Thank you for a thorough explanation of moose; taxonomy; scientific consensus; and the way Wikipedia works. IUCN, itself an important source of taxonomic information, comes down on the single species side but provides valuable sources on each side of the debate. What a fascinating we are as we debate the finer points of classification of another fascinating species. Thank you again! https://www.iucnredlist.org/species/56003281/22157381#taxonomy

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.80.64.216 (talk) 18:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I think a valid solution is to simply add a section on taxonomy, explaining all of this ... that is, if anyone feels up to it. Zaereth (talk) 03:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

(restarting indentation) According to mitochondrial DNA, moose around the world are a single species, whose oldest populations are in eastern Asia. More on moose evolution and migration would be a good addition to the article. I got interested in this because several articles about winter ticks mention that moose have not had time, in their 15,000 years in the Western Hemisphere, to evolve strategies to cope with these ticks. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

That's interesting. I'll have to read up on that when I get a little more time. Is this saying that all moose originated in Asia, or that all American moose originated in Asia? The latter makes more sense to me, since modern moose are thought to have crossed the Bering land bridge about 15,000 years ago or so (Cervalces scotti much earlier), but from what I've read the oldest relative fossils were found in France and date to about 2,000,000 years ago. I think that would be good info to add to the paleontology section, once I know how it all fits in. (I find evolution to be fascinating. In the 25,000 years dogs have been with humans, they have evolved into one of the most diverse species ever to exist, tailored to some specific job or another, yet they're all classified as one species).

Taxonomy, on the other hand, has little to do with DNA (so far). It's all about deciding which physical traits and features more resemble each other than not. It's really hard-wired into the brains of any animal with an amygdala, which acts as a filter of information before storing it as memories in the hippocampus, (ie: when walking through a forest you don't remember every single tree, your mind simply categorizes them as generic "spruce trees" or "birch trees", etc... This can also be the neurology leading to psychological phenomenon of racism, prejudice and stereotyping; all forms of categorization.) The problem, as I see it, is that we have many different sources that categorize both modern moose and their ancestors differently, so no matter what we do, people will come here and say, "that's not what I read". If we simply add a section showing: at one point they were categorized this way, then like that, and now like this in the US but like that in other countries..., then it would be less confusing to people whose sources don't match ours. Zaereth (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2019

moose also eat mice 192.206.244.18 (talk) 14:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)