Talk:Jackal
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs. |
|||
 |
Jackal 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. |
I removed the bat-eared fox, it is not a jackal. The simian wolf is not one either, but I left it there in case the taxanomy we use wikipedia still sees it as such...Sabine 06:17, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Any info on what species of jackal Anubis would have been?--Sonjaaa 00:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Genus, "in part"
Can anyone explain to me what the "in part" after the Genus in the taxobox means? --Iustinus 17:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- It means that jackals are part of the genus Canis but there are others that are Canis but not jackals (the wolves). Sabine's Sunbird talk 18:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- OK, I guess normally when you see that Genus=X on a page you assume that that genus is exactly equal to the common name, so fair enough. And I also suppose that this is necessary because there is no smaller taxon to which all jackals, but not wolves et al. belong? --Iustinus 19:08, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
- it means someone tried to say the jackals were spread accross two or more genuses, which is inaccurate. So I took the liberty of fixing that. --TaeKwonTimmy 00:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Behavior
The jackal is one of the most cunning animals in the animal kingdom. Here some examples for this: If big mammals get children, the jackals wait for the moment of the birth to capture the "kids" or eating the afterbirth. They accompany the big predators too, in hope to "take away" some meat of their prey. They "organize" hunting societies with other beast of preys. They "playing dead animal" and suddenly they attack the prey. Tey are wqaiting by ill big animals, in hope they will die. --Fackel 21:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
- That's cool. Perhaps you should add this stuff to the article somewhere. Oddity- (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Jackal/Wolf?
'The Simian Jackal is actually a wolf that is thought to have taken on the appearance of a large fox or jackal through convergent evolution (by adopting a similar diet of small rodents)...'
But what about the new type of dog developed in Russia to sniff out drugs, known as the 'jacksy' (a cross between a jackal and a husky)? - I will try to find the reference as soon as possible. If husky (not far from a wolf) + jackal = viable offspring, would this mean that wolves (or at least huskies) and jackals are the same species? Or at least, not as far away from each other as the quote above seems to imply? And what exactly are the distinctions between wolves and jackals that allow the Simian Jackal to be classified as a wolf? WolfieInu 10:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- Wolves, jackals and coyotes are all in the same genus Canis, and many species are capable of some interbreeding (for example Red Wolves and Coyotes in SE USA). The ability to form hybrids with other species does not mean they are not species. The distinction (these are wolves and these are Jackals) is a large part human (as is all taxonomy and systematics), as you suggest, but researchers place the Ethiopian Wolves with the wolves because they split from the closer to the wolf (particularly the Grey Wolf) than the three Jackals.Sabine's Sunbird talk 11:38, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks... do you think I should add something on the 'jacksy', or would that go too far beyond the scope of the article? WolfieInu 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- Is there enough info on this new breed to create an article? A new breed of dog, especially one with interesting heritage might be worth an article, which can be linked to from here. Why don't you check at Wikiproject Dogs? Sabine's Sunbird talk 19:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
- OK, thanks... do you think I should add something on the 'jacksy', or would that go too far beyond the scope of the article? WolfieInu 10:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ETYMOLOGY
| “ | 1603, from Turk. çakal, from Pers. shaghal, from Skt. srgala-s, lit. "the howler." Fig. sense of "skulking henchman" is from the old belief that jackals stirred up game for lions. | ” |
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition , Via BARTLEBY.COM:
| “ | ETYMOLOGY: Turkish chakl, from Persian shaghl, from Middle Indic shagl, from Sanskrit gla. | ” |
- As it can be seen , the Persian word is not derived from Sanskrit: both of them are of Indo-Iranian languages . Iranian languages are part of the Indo-Iranian Language group which includes the Indo-Aryan languages such as Sanskrit, and old Persian, then both Indian and Iranian names are genuine. The Turkish word is perhaps is from the Iranian word, because Turkish is not an Indo-Iranian language, and it has more in common with Persian than to Indian.--Alborz Fallah 06:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanskrit is not considered a language giving birth to Persian. Although they are akin just like they are to English or Russian (they're all Indo-European languages), they are considered different languages. And the Persian word derives from the Sanskrit, that's what both references say, if you read it carefully. Etymological dictionaries generally use this syntax to give the etymologies of the words, such as From French xxx, from Spanish yyy, from Arabic zzz, this is followed until the known end of the etymology.
And let me explain to you the ultimate etymology of this word. European languages took the word from Turkish. And the Turkish word is a loanword from Persian. And the Persians took the word from Middle Indic. Ultimately the original word stemmed from the Sanskrit.
Lastly, we shouldn't use the exact wording of the references we utilize due to copyright infringement issues. Thanks.
--Chapultepec 07:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, it's perfectly possible that an etymological dictionary would list a Persian word, and then a related Sanskrit word for comparision, without meaning to say that the one came from the other. But if that were the case here, the phrasing would be somethign like "from Persian shaghal, akin to Sanskrit sṛgālaḥ." But in fact, both of the dictionaries cited pretty clearly say "from." --Iustinus 15:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
That's what I wanna mean without any hesitation. Both references are very clear about the point, they say "from". --Chapultepec 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
- Whats the dispute here? Over the words "from" and "via"? Guys, this is nothing to fight about, just see what the sources say and put it that way. Simple as that.Azerbaijani 21:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
No, the argument is not about "from" or "via". All in all, they will give the same meaning in the sentence. The matter is that I don't wanna use exactly the same wording as the one in the reference. Chapultepec 07:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
-
- Um, I can't speak for what anyone else is say, but I'm just responding (I wouldn't even say "arguing") to Alborz Fallah's statement: "As it can be seen , the Persian word is not derived from Sanskrit: both of them are of Indo-Iranian languages ." It is true that Persian and Sanskrit are both in the same language group, but that doesn't prevent borrowing. English and German are both Germanic langauges, yet we have words like "ersatz" and "Angst" that were borrowed from German into English (not to mention Computer and Sandwich borrowed from English into German). And the etymological dictionaries do seem to be saying that we have a similar situation here. Is my argument necessary? Probably not. I don't see Mr. Fallah pushing his point. But I just felt like I should at least say it. --Iustinus 09:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Born of a Jackal
Who was born of a Jackal? Was it something to do with the bible? Ryan4314 (talk) 21:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
- Damien Thorne - see The Omen for more details. (SammyWrae, who doesn't have an account) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.243.198 (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
