Talk:Herbivory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please help improve this article or section by expanding it. Further information might be found on the talk page or at requests for expansion. (January 2007)

	Herbivory is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to plants and botany. For more information, visit the project page.
Start	This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

	Ecology Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Ecology, an effort to create, expand, organize, and improve ecology-related articles.
Start	rated as start-Class on the assessment scale
High	rated as high-importance on the assessment scale

Herbivory is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.

To-do list for Herbivory:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Work on definition and scope (do we want this to be about primary consumers or just plant eating animals?) Dentition of herbivores Add section on herbivore impacts on plants (the short term impact, not the long term evolutionary pressure they create) Introduced herbivores Mutualism vs. herbivory - pollination and seed dispersal, and how they evolved. Add illustration of modes of herbivory (leaf eating, nectar feeding, root feeding, bark, stem, flower, seed, phloem feeding, leaf mining, gall forming etc.) (especially insect). Agricultural use

Contents 1 Are you a native speaker of the english language? 2 A true herbivore? 3 Merger 4 Vegtarians are not herbivores 5 Plurals 6 Consistency error 7 Changes by User:69.181.116.226 8 Dangers and other issues 9 Idea for discussion 10 Merge 11 Browser

[edit] Are you a native speaker of the english language?

I find it hilarious that someone who considers themself wise enough to write encyclopedia articles, would write things like "sheeps" and "mooses". You should see the article of "fishes" and "elks", and not to mention "deers"--ChadThomson 08:06, 5 August 2005 (UTC) you're one to talk chad because if you look at the heading you wouldnt bein talkin like that now would you. "Is you native speaker of english language?" Now that is funny!

[edit] A true herbivore?

A true herbivore, such as a cow, is unable to chew or digest meat.

Err, that's funny. Then how do they digest meat and bone meal, which is still routinely fed to cattle in the USA, in spite of the BSE scandals in Europe? Maybe cows aren't such true scotsmen after all. Aragorn2 20:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Corrected. JohnSankey 14:33, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I am skeptical of biologists' traditional classifications of particular animal species as either "herbivore" or "carnivore," because I have personally witnessed so many cases of a supposed herbivore consuming the flesh of another animal (e.g., cute little blue butterflies swarming on a decaying elk carcass beside a railway through an Oregon forest) or a supposed carnivore consuming plant material (e.g., my pet Springer Spaniel pulling bunches of grapes off a grape vine and devouring them with relish, or simply grazing on the grass in my backyard). I think it is probably more accurate to state that most individuals of a particular species tend to derive most of their dietary intake from particular food sources, but many or most individuals of most species will consume any kind of food source that they can get their lips, teeth, hands, paws, or other body part on if circumstances permit. It is difficult to imagine how various species with dietary traits that we label "herbivorous" or "carnivorous" could have evolved in the first place without presupposing that their ancestors had been generally omnivorous, or at least contained some omnivorous individuals. Ebizur 22:13, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

I merged List of herbivorous animals w this page, as the content was nearly identical, and of little length. Sam Spade 18:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vegtarians are not herbivores

Should humans really be listed under herbivores? While one might argue the origins of the human diet, etc. it's fairly self-evident that modern Homo sapiens sapiens is an omnivorous animal regardless of the dietary habits of specific individuals or even entire cultures. There are currently no healthy, living, human beings who can not metabolize animal flesh. And for the record I am a very strict vegetarian. Human vegetarianism is a sociological trait not a dietary trait. Gabe 05:52, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I left in a paragraph about humans as herbivores, but considered deleting it. I left it in because it makes a biological case, rather than being "vegetarian propaganda", but it lacks a citation and in my view is wrong. Humans, chimps, and bonobos all eat meat. Thus, outgroup comparison would lead to the conclusion that meat as an ordinary part of diet is ancestral in the human/chimp/bonobo clade. Certainly many human populations have taken meat-eating to heights not seen among the other ape species, and this may very well be reflected in our biology, but I don't regard humans as biological herbivores.--Curtis Clark 14:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the paragraph about humans being herbivores should be deleted because it has no citations and contradicts the main article about humans which contains sources to back up the position that humans are omnivores. 130.246.132.26 14:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Beware that we are not truly omnivores. Omnivore animals eat raw flesh, but, do we? And when I mean raw is raw, as there is flesh that can't be taken without being cooked but it has gone through other processes such as spice use and so on (Toni XTC, 15/01/2008)

Erhm... we are true omnivores. Being an omnivore has nothing to do with the food being prepared or not. A cocked plant is still a plant. The same applies to meat. Furthermore, we could easily eat raw meat, and many dishes do include raw meat, but the choice of preparing the food (be that meat or plants) is as much related to culture, our wish for a different tastes, and alike, as anything else, although there can be no doubts that it also is a way of minimizing the risk of getting food trasmitted diseases. That still doesn't change the fact that we're omnivores, even if people can choose to avoid certain types of food. Rabo3 (talk) 23:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plurals

The completely plural list is rather disgusting, but I don't see how we could fix that without placing "the" in front of all the animals names. If someone can fix it logically, do so. Seems very elementary the way it is. drumguy⁸⁸⁰⁰ - speak? 05:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Consistency error

"An herbivore" or "a herbivore"? Both are used here.

81.129.125.249 15:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well spotted. I have looked this up and I believe "a herbivore" is more correct. The example given by Merriam-Webster is "a herbivorous animal". That should settle it. AstarothCY (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Changes by User:69.181.116.226

User:69.181.116.226 stated, "I have corrected substantial errors to the definition of herbivore as it relates to a completely fallacious 'food chain' concept." I've reverted, because (1) human acculturation to eating meat is not supported by outgroup comparison (chimps eat meat as well), and "primary consumers" is a valid ecological term which ought not to be omitted.--Curtis Clark 04:16, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

And I have re-inserted corrections that were done to overcome cultural biases. Naming herbivores as primary consumers is nonsense. Most herbivores in nature do not have the role of providing meat for carnivores. This is a cultural myth and does require correction.

I wrote the following in response to an email from Cheryl:

The evidence for hominid omnivory is abundant. It is well documented that some chimps eat meat. Although it seems to be in part cultural, I think it is a leap to call the chimps biased. Processed animal bones are a common part of Homo erectus, Homo neandertalensis, and Homo sapiens middens, and I seem to remember that they exist for Homo habilis as well. Among modern humans, the meat-rich diets of pre-European contact Inuit and Yupik are well-attested, and their conversion to "western" diets has caused health problems. I think discounting their aboriginal diet is truly a "cultural bias".

None of this is to say that modern "western" meat-rich diets are especially healthy (although the large amounts of refined carbohydrates are at least an equal problem). And certainly modern meat-raising has a harmful ecological footprint (although I would contend that the American short-grass prairie is better used to raise bison than monoculture corn and soybean). But it's actually an insult to the vegetarian movement (IMO) to have to make up "scientific facts" to support it, as if its health benefits weren't enough.

(http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp, cited in her email) All this proves is that humans are not dogs or cats. We are clearly also not cows or horses, and in some important ways we are not gorillas, who have far better adaptation for an all-plant diet than we do.

And as for the food chain, yes, it’s a lot more complicated than that, but "primary consumer" is a valid ecological term, and your replacement was basically meaning-free.

--Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Humans are not chimps but they are herbivores both anatomically and physiologically and though by Judeo-Christian tradition they are singualrly outside ecological classification, this is not supported by scientific inquiry. Please refer to one of the discussions on this issue: http://goveg.org/naturalhumandiet_physiology.asp. Cheryl Maietta http://www.allinharmony.com

This is not a religious issue, it is a scientific one, so I don't understand why you cite "Judeo-Christian tradition"--Curtis Clark 06:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dangers and other issues

Nice bit on the misconception about all herbivores being gentle. A more obvious example would be the hippopotimous (Spelling) that is generally considered to be the most dangerous animal (after humans) in Africa if not in the world. Oh and humans are omnivores, they are physiologically adpated to an omnivorous diet. That is the definition. Physiological adaptation, digestive system and dentition. I may pop by to insert some sources and bulk out once I've done the omnivore article next week. AlanD 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Idea for discussion

I've an idea... Howsabout we roll herbivore, ominvore, carnivore and insectivore into one article with redirects from those terms? One article, animal feeding. Might be better than trying to pad out these terms seperately. If the sections fill out properly then they can be split off at a later date. This will also allow comparisons to be drawn between different feeding groups.AlanD 11:41, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Discuss:

The problem calling it 'animal feeding' is that, for example, some plants are carnivorous. The existing article predation should cover the whole subject reasonably well though. This subject itself is more than large enough to warrant not only its own article, but the sub-articles that already exist. What I find concerning is that they are much larger than this one, which is barely more than a stub. They need to be summarized here, and this article further expanded upon. To shift the focus from the herbivores somewhat I would suggest renaming the article herbivory, much as predation is named so instead of predator, which is more one-sided. Herbivore could then redirect here. Richard001 09:30, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Heck, it doesn't seem at all controversial, I'm just going to move it.

Nevermind, can't move over a redirect. I'll wait for some feedback then we can get some assistance if needed. Richard001 10:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the page. LMK if there's any controversy, but seems good to me. --DanielCD 13:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Suggest we merge folivore here. Little content and herbivory and folivory are often taken to mean the same thing. Richard001 10:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Why don't you merge nectarivore instead? Kappa 22:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't considered that case, though nectivory and frugivory are often considered separately. Feel free to present the case if you like. What do you think about folivore? Richard001 08:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think if you merge folivore you should merge frugivore, nectarivore, granivore, palynivore and xylophagy. Kappa 10:48, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think frugivore should be merged but there others are possibilities. You still haven't said if you are in favour of merging though. Richard001 11:24, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I think summary style would be better for all of them. In-depth discussion of what animals eat what and why doesn't belong on a high-level page like this. Kappa 20:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The page here isn't exactly too much reading at the moment though, and there's little point using summary style if the main article will be no bigger than the summary. Richard001 00:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any of these merges. Each is a separate and large topic, even though they can be subarticles of herbivore. Hadrianheugh (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the merger. The activities of birds are a bit different than other Herbivors. David Straub (talk) 15:25, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Strongly oppose any of these merges. They may be subtopics, but they are large enough ones to be worthy of their own entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.162.66.197 (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose as per Kappa. If Folivore is merged, so should all the others Kappa mentioned, and this article would become way too long. I wouldn't be averse to summaries, though, or even just a list of subtopics. Since there seems to be no consensus for merging Folivore, I've removed the tag. -kotra (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Browser

I was directed to this page from Mastodon. It says that the difference between Mastodons and Woolly Mammoths is that one is a grazer and the other is a browser. But then there's no distinction on this page. And then the link at the point just points to the Browser disambiguation page. I would love to add something, but I really can only guess what the differences are. I would think that cattle are grazers and giraffes are browsers? Please, someone help a poor guy understand the difference between 2 very similar and very extinct species. marnues (talk) 18:39, 22 May 2008 (UTC)