# Talk:Banteng

A guar clone was born in 2000. A healthy mouflon clone was born in 2001. The banteng clone was bron in 2003.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.92.122.114 (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2007 (UTC) 

Can somebody include? Radar O'Weighty I heard that 08:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Tembadau is a subspesies of Benteng. Different subspesies. Banteng is common family name ie. Stork. vs Milky stork.

Benteng = Bos banteng  http://nzpnewdelhi.gov.in/benteng_cattle.htm
Tembadau (ie. Benteng Borneo) = Bos javanicus http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/mamm-ahead-of-print/mammalia-2013-0052/mammalia-2013-0052.xml Yosri (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Also search for:

Bos Taurus -
Bos Bali   -
Bos sauveli  -
Bos gaurus/gayal Bos frontalis
Bos sauveli
Bos indicus
I know about them but limited time to search. Engage at other sites than Wiki. Yosri (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Bos taurus indicus  (gaur)
Bos frontalis
Bos javanicus birmanicus
Bos grunniens Yosri (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Bos primigenius namadicus (Falconer, 1859)
Bos primigenius mauretanicus (Thomas, 1881)
Bos primigenius primigenius Yosri (talk) 01:31, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Found this link http://www.academia.edu/459168/What_is_the_taxonomic_status_of_the_Cambodian_banteng_and_does_it_have_close_genetic_links_with_the_kouprey Yosri (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Banteng. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303170047/http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Bos_javanicus.html to http://www.ultimateungulate.com/Artiodactyla/Bos_javanicus.html
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050410181907/http://www.cdu.edu.au:80/newsroom/story.php?nID=149 to http://www.cdu.edu.au/newsroom/story.php?nID=149
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) 10:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Banteng. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061023235648/http://www.advancedcell.com/press-release/collaborative-effort-yields-endangered-species-clone to http://www.advancedcell.com/press-release/collaborative-effort-yields-endangered-species-clone
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cdu.edu.au/newsroom/story.php?nID=149
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 18:17, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Banteng/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 09:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I remember a night-time walk in East Java using binoculars to gather more light so as to spot Banteng in an inky-black nature reserve ... so I better review this one! Their white socks were about the most visible part! Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
It would be helpful to label and wikilink at least the root node of the cladogram, and possibly some of the other nodes too. Are we in Bos or Bovini or Bovinae ...?
Added more nodes for clarity + links. Sainsf (t⋆c) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
It would also be useful to wikilink all the species names in the cladogram. It appears that Bison is paraphyletic?
You mean the scientific names? The common names are already linked.
OK.
In fact it might be helpful to show some wider relationships ... Bovidae, node for Aegodontia (e.g. pic of Springbok), node for Bovinae/Boodontia with maybe just one member of Tragelaphini, (e.g. pic of Tragelaphus angasi) for context.
Won't it be better to stick to how far the study goes in showing relations? I have gone up to Bovinae and the cladogram seems large enough.
Yes, it's big enough. I've labelled Bovini to match Boselaphini, certainly clearer. Now it seems that Bos is paraphyletic as you have the Yak sister to American bison, but I guess that's not our concern here (though it should probably be mentioned, actually).
It is apparent but would it be fine to add it if the source does not explicitly say so? Sainsf (t · c) 11:58, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
If we were adding random extra species it would be No but since these are the major groups which are very well attested I think it's fine - we're not changing the tree, just labelling its parts. If you mean the paraphyly then I think it's weird the source doesn't mention it but it's a matter for the article on Bos not here.
"cattle-like bovid" - but it is actually farmed as cattle in Sumatra etc, so this description is contradictory. Zebu, too, are called "humped cattle", and Sanga and other breeds seem to be hybrids of B. taurus x B. indicus but they're certainly cattle too. Perhaps best to say something along the lines of "similar to Western domestic cattle, Bos taurus," given the rich scope for confusion here.
Right. Fixed these throughout the article (replaced with taurine cattle).
Maybe gloss "dhole" (Asian wild dog).
Not much info about predators, added "Asian wild dog".
Function of the white rump patch (the navigation in the dark theory seems good to me!); white rump flashes are often (other spp.) honest signals to predators that they've been detected (and their prey is running away). But I doubt there's been much research on that in this case.
Right, I found just two sources for this. This paper [1] is interesting, but does not really say anything more that we can use here.
"8,000–10,000 domesticated banteng occur in Australia" - perhaps "feral" would be closer to the mark given they've gone wilder than the goats of Llandudno.
Right, my bad!
You say the Aussie banteng are considered vermin, then go on to explain how useful they are...
Oops, I meant to show both sides of the story, but the vermin thing is not broadly discussed in most sources. I just found one and added more on their demerits, it should look balanced now.
"Domesticated banteng have been hybridised with different types of cattle." They are a type of cattle, see above.
Fixed
Well, overall there's very little wrong with this article. It's appropriately structured, cited, and illustrated, and nicely written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you so much for taking my third GA nom in a row :D Your feedback has just motivated me to work on tough articles like this one, it had a lot of material to cover and I was worried I won't do it right. I'll get to these in a day or two :) Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 10:32, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
All comments have been addressed. Sainsf (t⋆c) 10:21, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
So we're all done, I guess. Nice work! Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi, the sentence " This, coupled with possibly low genetic diversity in small, isolated populations, is a major concern in Sabah, where water buffaloes might crossbreed with wild banteng." seems completely impossible to me, as Bos and Bubalus are not closely related enough to crossbreed as far as I know. If there is a serious source stating otherwise I am happy to be proven wrong, but there is no source given.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A04:EE41:80:D292:1D5C:99BF:8686:E2FE (talk) 11:03, 4 December 2022 (UTC)