Jump to content

Talk:Douglas squirrel

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Question food

[edit]

Since the Douglas squirrels at my home raid the (bird) sunflower feeder and the Filbert trees, does this make it enough documentation to include as food sources?...TTFN Ralph--N7bsn 19:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Classification Question

[edit]

In the image on the left (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/21/Tamiasciurus_douglasii.jpg), aren't those both American Red Squirrels given the white colouring of their venters? --206.248.160.64 05:25, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the picture. I don't think they can be hudsonicus given that the picture was taken in the Sierra Nevadas (near Lake Tahoe) - as I understand it there aren't any hudsonicus there. But I'm a European and a local may know better. BTW thanks to all the editors who have had enough sense of humour to leave this picture in place despite its page layout-wrecking shape. seglea (talk) 20:33, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I liked the image. I thought it added a nice creative touch to the article. --Davefoc (talk) 16:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chickarees in the Sierra Nevada

[edit]

It's reported they feed heavily on Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) cones, in Winter. The cones of this species do not open easily, staying alive and attached to the tree for up to 20 years. Thus, chickarees are contributing significantly to seed dispersal and to reproduction of Giant Sequoia in general. I'm not sure how to plug this piece into the text. I'm not good in such things - I'll leave it to you. Greets -- Micha Here is the reference:

  • R. J. Hartesveldt, H. T. Harvey, H. S. Shellhammer, R. E. Stecker (1975). The Giant Sequoia of the Sierra Nevada. Chap. 6-5: The role of the chickaree. San José University, California. Pub: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D. C.
[edit]

Somebody has spammed many of the squirrel articles with a link to a taxidermy site. I have removed several of them. I also added a link to the Smithsonian article on this squirrel. --Davefoc (talk) 16:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

After four weeks with no comments, closed with the result, no consensus, so it stays Douglas Squirrel. Walter Siegmund (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What's in a name?

[edit]

It's Douglas' squirrel, not Douglas squirrel. When an animal is specifically named after someone possession is applied to the common name, ie. Skilton's skink. It's Jefferson's ground sloth, not Jefferson ground sloth, Allen's coral snake, not Allen coral snake, Hardwick's sea snake, not Hardwick sea snake, Townsend's ground squirrel, not Townsend ground squirrel, and so on and so forth. I don't think you'll find any exceptions. Also, Douglas' is not a variant of a common name, it is the common name- note, it isn't Douglas's like the example given as a variant in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windustsearch (talk • contribs) 06:47, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing about common names is that they are, well, common: the scientific community doesn't own them as we do the systematic names. And being part of common language, they have a life of their own and develop irregularities. Certainly if it was regular - according to rule - it should be the Douglas's Squirrel (or the Douglas' Squirrel, depending on how you feel about ' or 's to indicate the possessives of names with terminal sibilants, a matter on which the best authorities generally agree to disagree), and both those forms do occur. But the brute fact is that it generally isn't (try a google count on each of the three forms and see what you get). John Muir called it the Douglas squirrel, and so do most people. So here you are - the exception you couldn't think of. The interesting question etymologically is why this is an exception; possibly because Douglas's squirrel was just too sibilant for words, or possibly an apostrophe error from Douglas' squirrel. Anyway the article as it currently stands is correct to give the commonest form as the root name as the article, and both the others as full status (bolded) alternatives. seglea (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Ample support exists for Douglas squirrel. WP:NC#Controversial_names says, "Editors are strongly discouraged from editing for the sole purpose of changing one controversial name to another. If an article name has been stable for a long time, and there is no good reason to change it, it should remain." Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it is perpetuated does not mean it is correct. Can anyone find a single other example where possession is not applied? Just one?--Windustsearch (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have to advocate for Douglas's Squirrel. It's grammatically correct. It is derived from the specific epithet douglasii. It is what MSW3 and IUCN use. What argument is there for the non-possessive form? --Aranae (talk) 04:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Aranae, Canadians will advocate for "Douglas's Squirrel", Americans for "Douglas' Squirrel"; both are grammatically correct and we've both seen that argument before. Shall we move it to Tamiasciurus douglasii? I think we can all agree on that spelling. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Windustsearch, please see the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture web site and the Oecologia journal article.[1][2] The latter is the first result on Google Scholar (search string "Douglas Squirrel"). The former is the first non-Wikipedia result on Google. Far more "Douglas Squirrel" instances are found with Google Scholar as compared with "Douglas's Squirrel". The discussion here suggests that the name is controversial; hence the name should remain "Douglas Squirrel" per WP:NC#Controversial_names. Walter Siegmund (talk) 16:38, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean look for examples of people perpetuating the incorrect use of Douglas as applied to Douglas' squirrel (we already know that is widespread), I mean a single other example of a common name for any fauna or flora where possession is not applied to the common name when it is specifically named after a person, and that person's name is included in the common name.--Windustsearch (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try Douglas fir. And anyway, "correct" is incorrect. For common names, common usage is correct. Trying to impose rules on everyday speech, in defiance of what people actually say, is pedantry. seglea (talk)
Or see under Lilian Gibbs for an entertainingly flagrant case of apostrophe abuse. I suspect that if there was an easy way of looking up explorers with names ending in s (or even more so sh or sch) we'd find quite a few parallel cases. seglea (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I misunderstood your question, Windustsearch. It is common to drop the possessive in proper names that are eponymic. It is almost the rule for geographic names, e.g., Pikes Peak, Donner Pass, Puget Sound, etc. For plants, Garry Oak comes to mind immediately. Less well known are Menzies Banksia, Engelmann Spruce, Engelmann Oak, etc. These are titled with their scientific names on Wikipedia, and I think that is a fine solution for this article, as well, if the current title is unsatisfactory. Walter Siegmund (talk) 06:22, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd mildly oppose renaming an article for an animal as well known as the Douglas squirrel by its systematic name. But then I'm against this in general, because in the present state of taxonomy, common names are actually more stable than systematic names. Continuing the discussion above, we have now come up with a number of non-possessived names of plants that are named after people. But although I am defending an apostrophe-less "Douglas squirrel", I must say that I can't think of another animal that goes like this - can anyone else? Possibly more likely in North American than in the European fauna (which I know better), where recent discoveries are fewer so common names tend not to involve discoverers - notably, all the cases we have been discussing are North American. And then there is the interesting question of why most animal and plant names do take the possessive, when most geographical entities (and a lot of other things, like chemical processes) don't - though there are exceptions to that generalisation, too, like Taylor's Mistake, though I guess a mistake is a relatively unusual geographical feature. seglea (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear me, no article on Taylor's Mistake. Must write that one sometime. seglea (talk) 23:26, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really want to revive a discussion that has died a well-deserved death, but honesty compels me to record that I have just looked at Bachman's original description of this species (it's on line - link now in article) and he calls it Douglass's Squirrel; while Audobon & Bachman's famous book of paintings of American Quadripeds (1845-54) goes for Douglas' Squirrel. Humph. Well, with luck we can all agree that priority notwithstanding, Douglass's Squirrel is awful. seglea (talk) 21:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Images

[edit]

I've just uploaded two decent images of Douglas squirrels, in case someone wants to add them to the article. - Illustratedjc (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Douglas squirrel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:55, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nesting habits and other habitat specific topics need to be covered.

[edit]

I looked here to find out how and where Douglas's Squirrels, we see lots of them here in the trees around our apartment complex, nest. The article needs to contain lots more detail. I'm not really qualified to add those things or I'd do it. 73.25.124.39 (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2017 (UTC)John Reagan[reply]

I agree.. so little information is given! Imangiomo (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.. so little information is given! Imangiomo (talk) 02:50, 21 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Douglas_squirrel&oldid=1199605414"