Talk:Bovinae

Taxonomy

Bovine redirects to Bovinae, but Bovidae redirects to Bovid. According to [1]], common names should be used when well-known and unambigous; hence this article should be renamed Bovine. Geira (talk) 10:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The taxonomy of this group is about as messy as it gets. I think I'll leave it as-is for the time being (anyone wants to jump in and sort it out for me, go right ahead!) but make a mental note to come back to it. In particular, the recently extinct members need to be added. Tannin 10:58 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I like the BOVINE!

Corrected some spelling: Pseudoryx (lacked the e), Saiga (was Sagia), genera are always italicized, higher ranks never (the tribes were).

Is there a phylogeny somewhere? Phylogeny is real, taxonomy is not... do I have to go to the Tree of Life?

David Marjanović david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at 1:50 CET-summertime 2005/8/6

I think you have vandalism on the page - have a look, -jkb- 07:50, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Bovine should more properly redirect to Bovini page. Most (but not all) dictionary definition specify that the term refers to cattle, and this is how the term is used commonly. In fact, we have other words for other members of the family. Antelope are never indicated (in practice) with the term Bovine. Drsruli (talk) 07:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bovine status?

Is pig considered as bovine?

It depends on what you mean by pig. If you were talking about a wild bore that yes, but if you were talking about a farm pig, then no.

Now a wild bore would be interesting to see :) But no, both pigs and boars belong to family Suidae. Bovines are a subfamily of family Bovidae. --Stfg (talk) 21:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Geier hitch link?

Does this article really need a 'see also' to the geier hitch? I think there would be lots of other articles more relevant than this.

Not etymology

The following is listed under Etymology : "The term "bovine," in some cultures, is considered extremely vulgar when used as an insult (i.e., "You bovine!")."

While this is a true statement, it has nothing to do with the etymology of the word "bovinae"--154.20.43.25 04:14, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

I noticed some obvious vandalism on this page - i deleted it accodingly. Hope this ok.

Kansas

Kansas is constantly rated second and third place in beef/bison produciton (swapping with Nebraska on a yearly basis). A hint to the Buffalo's importance to Kansas, Kansas personalised liscence plates feature a buffalo covering the plate, and the Kansas Quarter is a buffalo. I have added Kansas to the list of featured bison producers.Kcuello (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the first para say 10 species and the list have more

It would really be helpful to me if this topic included links to GMO plant articles

Discuss....or remove the number as unneccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Primacag (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bos Indicus?

Shouldn't Bos Indicus/Zebu be included under Bos? MurfleMan (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually just considered a form of Bos taurus. Ucucha 06:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution section

The text of this section was

"The closest relations to this subfamily are the Boselaphini and Tragelaphini tribes. There are 13 extant members. These species appear to have evolved over the last 5–8 million years.^{[Maceachern2009 1]} The first clade to diverge was the buffalo clade (Bubalus and Syncerus species). This was followed by the banteng/gaur/mithan clade and the domestic cattle clade. A fourth clade leading to the bison and yak species may also exist."

and the reference is

^ Maceachern S., McEwan J., Goddard M. (2009) Phylogenetic reconstruction and the identification of ancient polymorphism in the Bovini tribe (Bovidae, Bovinae). BMC Genomics 10(1):177

which can be found online here.

This is misplaced because the reference is to a paper about the evolution of the Bovini tribe, not the Bovinae subfamily. Also, the reference has been misunderstood in that it says that 13 extant members of the tribe were studied, not that it has 13 "members" (whatever that might mean).

So I have copied the text to the Bovini article with that correction, and deleted the text from this article. I've left the header in to protect any anchor links there may be and in case someone has knowledge of bovinae evlution to offer here. --Stfg (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Range map

It's insane to think that cattle roam the Sahara and African rain forest freely but are absent from South America, Australia, and the Eastern United States. This may be an accurate map of something, but not of modern bovines. — LlywelynII 06:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indigenous range? Drsruli (talk) 07:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Bovine" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Bovine and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 February 17#Bovine until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Maceachern S., McEwan J., Goddard M. (2009) Phylogenetic reconstruction and the identification of ancient polymorphism in the Bovini tribe (Bovidae, Bovinae). BMC Genomics 10(1):177

[Maceachern2009 1]