# Talk:Sun bear

The first sentence in the "Description" section says that it's the smallest bear and then it continues to say "just like how a Nickmo is the smallest member of the cat (feline) family". What is that? That information is 1. Irrelevant and 2. Incorrect? Last I checked a rusty-spotted cat was the smallest in the feline family, I've never heard of a Nickmo nor does it come up anywhere where you search for it, and most importantly, it's completely irrelevant to this article.  I would suggest taking it out.
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.151.9.192 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC) 

The binomial name of this species is listed as:

"Helarctos malayanus (Raffles, 1821)"
Raffles links to a disambig page. I suspect that the Raffles being referred to here is Thomas Stamford Raffles, but I have been unable to find a reference to definitively verify this.
Kevyn 03:26, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
If anyone doubts the above, please see: [1], [2]  --anon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.163.162 (talk) 16:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC) 

I'm pretty sure this isn't malay. Possibly an orang asli language, but until more info pops up I am removing this. Borisblue 01:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

How come the IUCN red list status is not according to SSC (http://www.iucnredlist.org/search/details.php/9760/all). They list this bear as DD. Tbjornstad 08:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do people keep sun bears as pets? —Lowellian (reply) 20:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, yes. Added to article. Anaxial 18:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes 

Adetolabanjo (talk) 23:22, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I removed several redundancies.  I think that it's possibly, maybe, may even be okay.84.48.229.186 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:37, 26 September 2008 (UTC). 

The article contains no mention of the Sun Bear's habitat.  Where does it live?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Austin Bruce (talk • contribs) 04:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC) 

I've found a few pictures of sun bear's with >1 foot long tounges. This may be a good addition?
--97.112.142.149 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When was this bear moved into the genus Ursus from Helarctos?
Bruinfan12 (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Good question, it is not included in the Ursus page, and it is listed as Helarctos on the ursidae page. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The Sun Bear is the most social of all bears seeking tremendous interaction with humans
in captivity and not prospering in groups of less then three.
I think it would be quite informative to add this as a section to the page.--Patbahn (talk) 01:33, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

The sentence "Adult sun bears have almost no predators except humans, due to their fierce reputation and formidable teeth." seems to imply that the sun bear's fierce reputation is known even amongst other animals (i.e. would be predators), and that because of this reputation they avoid hunting the bear. This seems kind of silly, and probably needs revising. gz33 (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

ya this really made me laugh. animals in malaysia are worried about eating the sun bear as it is known to be something of a bad ass.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.128.131.57 (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Sun Bear don't care, he just goes...--Patbahn (talk) 14:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Why does the little box show the bear as being extinct?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.254.156.143 (talk) 20:23, 12 November 2012 (UTC) 

Under Reproduction it says they suckle for 18 months, and then the next sentence says after 2 or 3 months they are able to play and forage by themselves...which is it? 38.108.124.162 (talk) 14:52, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be mentioned in article: "[Sun] bears appear to have facial communication of [high] complexity [though] they have no special evolutionary link to humans, unlike monkeys are apes, nor are they domesticated animals like dogs..." https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/bears-communication-cats-doubts-facial-expressions-portsmouth-university-a8833561.html Zazpot (talk) 13:19, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

A recent article relates that a Sun Bear in a zoo in China was accused of being a person in a bear costume. The zoo was forced to deny it. The amusing video shows the bear standing on its hind legs and waving, obviously (at least to me) mimicking the visitors to the zoo. Wastrel Way (talk) Eric

The BMC put out an article in 2008 saying that sun bears should be considered Ursus malayanus. I think at the very least the article should be noted on the page. --Mjmannella (talk) 18:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Sun bear/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
I'll take this one. Reviewer: Chiswick Chap (talk · contribs) 13:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


### Comments
The images are a bit 'here's a bear' ... 'here's another bear' ... 'here are 3 bears' (and btw they're in a zoo). I'm not sure, in a word, what function they serve. The first one works well enough for ID but all the caption needs to say is that it's a female. The 'u-shaped patch' image repeats the first; the 'excellent climbers' shows what a climber would call 'a walk'; the diet one is ok but should be cropped - maybe I'll do that; the Sabah, Malaysia one is a better image giving a feel for being in forest; and the 3 at the bottom do seem unnecessary really. Are no other images available (how about a skull, for instance?).
Most images on Commons show bears in zoos. Rest are mainly museum specimens or illustrations (this one seems a bit like threat display [3]). Fixed the infobox caption. We can add a skull pic (I really have not felt the need to use it elsewhere so it slipped from my mind here), where exactly would it look best? I agree we should fix the 'climber' caption, may be say something about tree-living? The Sabah one was also tough to find, most pics have a plain background. And the bottom 3 pic was already there in the article so I let it be, especially as it was the only one showing a group, but we can omit that if you say. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
I've binned the last one as totally useless, but there are still too many photos of bears doing not a lot. Apart from the first one and the one eating, the rest are basically decorative: they don't add anything. Sorry but that's how it is.
"noted for its similarity to the rising sun" - doesn't work for me, never seen a U-shaped sun. Perhaps just drop the phrase, as the sentence is clear without it.
All sources that mention this keep repeating "rising sun", though they obviously mean the overturned semicircle. Can you think of a better way of putting it? If we can't then I guess it has to go.
The Greek for 'sun' isn't "hela", it's Ἥλιος Hēlios - some connection, evidently, but not the same.
Beruang is just the usual Malay/Indonesian word for "Bear" (unconnected to bruin, [brown] bear); Orang means "Man".
For both points above, seems the Mammalian Species article (the only source discussing the etymology) did not get these right. I will try to fix these from proper dictionary sources.
Okay the first point has been corrected and I added a good source for it. The second had to go as there clearly is not a specific name for this bear, it is just the bear that occurs in the region may be. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 01:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
"possibly due to extensive deforestation" - maybe put this in commas.
Done
"varies a lot" - perhaps "varies widely".
Done
The linked Display (zoology) article is a shocking mess. Signalling theory is better and covers much of that territory, though not sure it's what we want to link here. Future work, perhaps.
That article really needs some work. Though over the years I have been suggested to link "display" to this, you are right about signalling theory, the "stotting" of impala and using the patch to threaten others (sun bears) are both signals. Changed the link and going to use it in similar cases later.
"are known to tear open" - could drop the "are known to".
Done
"dispersal of Canarium pilosum seeds" - connect this to the mention of Burseracea just above.
Done
"external simulation for excretion" - does this mean for defecation?
Yes. Reworded
Thank you so much for taking this! I will get to these soon. Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 13:26, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

My pleasure. I've cut a couple of images, cropped the feeder and added the skull. The result is certainly less repetitive. Another excellent article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts and comments :) I will remember these points. Also.. One point about the pigs GA review, I'm confused where to list it in the GA topics, I mentioned this on the review page but it may have missed your attention. Thanks again, Sainsf · (How ya doin'?) 07:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
It's all a bit arbitrary. Some of the other 'Human interactions with <group>' are under 'Biology' on the GA page, not exactly ideal. 'Culture, sociology, and psychology' could be right but if you look at what else is there, it's not exactly a great match either. You pays your money and you takes your choice. :} Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The tree could be improve via the following steps :

Move it to a template, so it could be used by several bear articles.
Reorganize the tree's branches and leaves, so to somewhat mirror the geographic distribution and closeness
I just did a minor edit in this direction, but the English Wikipedia being tense, I encourage people agreeing with these suggestions to voice their support and be bold. Yug (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yug, thank you for the suggestions but I am not sure what you mean by point 2. We generally go with how the tree is depicted in the source. About creating a template, it surely can be done (you can do it too) but generally it won't be necessary as we can simply copy the code between similar articles with minor changes wherever necessary. Cheers, Sainsf (t · c) 15:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Sainsf, when possible, I inverted the order of appeareance so species with geographic proximity are presented nearby.
This tree is elegant, could surely be reused as it in about 5~6 other articles. ;) Template seems the best way to go. Yug (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yug, okay, anymore changes you suggest in the tree? I am not familiar with the geographical distribution of all bear species so I am not sure I can make any changes. I am not sure how to make a template for use in articles. For both your points you can gather more opinions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, if you wish to discuss this further. Sainsf (t · c) 18:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I think it s quite fair now ;) Yug (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
If I may tangentially weigh in on the taxonomy, I strongly suggest moving it to the Ursus genus. The genetic evidence very clearly indicates its presence as the sister taxon to black bears, which combined are close to brown and polar bears. Genetics should always come first, even if the IUCN still uses outdated naming. It's also worth noting that the IUCN officially still places Malayan tapirs in the Tapirus genus, while the Wikipedia article uses the much more accurate genus of Acrocodia. --Mjmannella (talk) 17:54, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to break it to you but there is no way the Sun bear is part of Ursus. For starters the conclusion was made using mitochondrial genome analysis, which is not trustworthy as in many groups there may be Incomplete Lineage shortage. Not to mention that the Sun Bear look every morphologically and behaviorally different from Ursus species. Not to mention that Sun Bears are more closely related to Sloth bears both in behavior and anatomy. Sun bears are either in their own genus or the same genus as the Sloth bear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 23:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@56FireLeafs: PLease cite your sources for these assertions, as this seems to be a continuation of the same editing behavior issues that you showed at Bos.  The taxonomy and cladograms here are cited to reliable sourcing, your personal preference that those sources are wrong is not a basis for making any changes.--Kevmin § 00:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Genetic analysis confirms that the sloth bears is not part of the Ursus genus and tat its more related to the sloth bear than to Ursus species. Despite this, the cladogram shows the sun bear being nested within Ursus and its more related to black and Asian black bears and to the sloth bear. The cladogram must be fixed. It must show the sun bear excluded from Ursus and be shown more related to the sloth bear (which in a near future it may be reclassified as the same genus).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 56FireLeafs (talk • contribs) 00:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC) 

@56FireLeafs: What specific genetic analysis do you cite for this assertion. Also you need to actually start signing your posts.--Kevmin § 00:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
The anonymous poster is correct. Your article contradicts itself. Within the article you say
'A 2007 phylogenetic study gives the relationships of the sun bear with other species of Ursidae based on complete mitochondrial DNA sequences as shown in the cladogram below. The brown bear/polar bear genetic lineage was estimated to have genetically diverged from the two black bears/sun bear lineage around 6.72 to 5.54 million years ago (mya); the sun bear appears to have diverged from the two black bears between 6.26–5.09 mya. and 5.89–3.51 mya.'
But below this you wrote,
'Nuclear gene sequencing of bear species revealed that the sloth bear and the sun bear were the first Ursinae bears that radiated and are not included in the monophyletic Ursus group; moreover, all relationships between the bears were well resolved.'
And then your cladogram chart below this shows the brown/polar bear radiating from the lineage before the sun bear.
This can be easily resolved because the genus name of both brown bears and black bears is Ursus. If the consensus was that the sun bear split after the black bear it would have to be placed in the Ursus genus as well and it's name changed from 'Helarctos malayanus' to 'Ursus malayanus'. This is how the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature works. Therevverend (talk) 00:35, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
Or to put it another way. If black bears are grouped in the same genus (Ursus) as brown bears and polars, and sun bears are more closely related to black bears then black bears are related to brown and polar bears. Then why aren't sun bears included in the Ursus genus? Therevverend (talk) 00:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Sunbears are at least double the height stated in the article (70cm) when standing erect on two paws.--Dr zoidberg590 (talk) 15:17, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

For animals with a typically quadrupedal stance, the shoulder height is measured when down on all fours. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2023 (UTC)