Talk:African forest elephant

message: War elephant says that Hannibal's elephants were Forest ones.
Is it confirmed?
Were they natural north of Sahara?
-- Error 01:48, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: War elephants

message: Important research has just been published establishing that the African Savanna and African Forest Elephants are distinct species, as far apart evolutionarily as the Asian Elephant is to the Woolly Mammoth. See Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants. See also Africa has two species of elephants, not one. Moisture (talk) 14:41, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Evidence Establishes Unequivocally That African Savanna Elephant and African Forest Elephant Are Distinct Species 

message: I've moved this article—again—to "African forest elephant". The previous capitalization is just plain wrong. Neither of those words is a proper noun. This is in keeping with the standard practice here. Please don't move the article back again. +ILike2BeAnonymous 22:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:BIRD for the rationale of why species names are capitalized on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I realise this is old now, but in case anyone is tempted to revisit it: there are various approaches on Wikipedia - see Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species. For mammals, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animals#Naming_conventions asks us to  stick with the original/primary author's usage. In this case, (s)he used caps --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moved article back to "African forest elephant" 

message: Add the reference below to the References section:
Debruyne, R., Holt, A. van, Barriel, V. & Tassy, P. 2003. Status of the so-called African pygmy elephant (Loxodonta pumilio (NOACK 1906)): phylogeny of cytochrome b and mitochondrial control region sequences. Comptes Rendus de Biologie 326(7):687-697. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paper concerning genetics of pygmy elephants 

message: The IUCN Red List Status of this article is not according to IUCN/SSC, who has faild to include this species (perhaps because it is still not fully recognized as a species of its own). Thus the correct status is NE (Not Evaluated)! Tbjornstad 10:22, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. (Please see under conservation status above for reasoning). --Stfg (talk) 18:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN Red List Status 

message: I was interested to know, how the size of Loxodonta cyclotis compares to L. africana, but there were no measurements in the article. Here's a useful link, if someone's interested in correcting this fault. The fact that L. cyclotis was considered conspesific with L. africana until recently is probably the reason why there appears to be little data on the subject. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size 

message: Autochthony writes: 'quintuple the population in six months' needs some careful phrasing, at best.  After all, another six months would have a population 25 times what we started with.
Is 'number of known individuals quintupled in six months' what is meant, rather than a population increase of four time what you started with?
Autochthony wrote on 6th March 2010 1424z 81.155.135.232 (talk) 14:23, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: seriously. 99% of the entire article talks only of the genetic distinction between the bush elephant, and the only other paragraph only talks of a conservation achievement. there is 0 in this article to actualy describe what an african forest elephant is. without any information about the forest elephant specifically, it does not need it's own article.· Lygophile has spoken 14:00, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: So go through the existing source material, find more source material, and improve the article. Don't forget to cite reliable and verifiable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is an african bush elephant? 

message: While correcting some accessdate without URL CS1 errors, I noticed a named reference conflict.  Named reference "ext2014" linked to both of the following two articles:
:*
:*
I have renamed the second reference "Weber" and at the instances in the article where "ext2014" was cited, I also cited "Weber".  Surely this is not correct but somebody with more knowledge will have to be the one to correct it.  For example, in the Allen article, I note a claimed ideal population growth rate of 8%, not the 5% shown in the Wikipedia article.  I found a URL for the first article and added it to the citation template.  The second article was poorly cited in its original form, reversing the chapter and book title as well as reversing chapter authors and book editors, so I have fixed that.  It can be at least partially read via a Google Books preview here. Stamptrader (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Malformed named references 

message: The article says it's the smallest of all elephants. The Wiki article on the Borneo elephant says the Borneo is the smallest. The Asian elephants are all of Elephas genus, while the African ones are Loxodonta. Maybe the author wanted to say initially that the African forest elephant is the smallest of the Loxodonta genus?95.37.228.142 (talk) 12:35, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference to this one being the smallest elephant is unclear 

message: There must be a more accurate map somewhere.32.211.91.16 (talk) 04:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the correct map, LoxodontaCyclotisIUCN.svg, someone replaced it with the old one which didn't recognize the WAP complex and West African populations as Loxodonta cyclotis. According to this study, pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1720554115, amongst many others, it's recognized that there is a 700000 year divergence between the Loxodonta cyclotis F population (Sierra Leone sample) and Loxodonta cyclotis A population (Central African Republic sample), and that Gabonese & Cameroonian populations (Western Congo Basin) more closely align with Sierra Leone than with Bili-Uere & Garamba NP populations (Eastern Congo Basin) of Loxodonta cyclotis. There is also admixture from Palaeoloxodon antiquus in Loxodonta cyclotis F (Sierra Leone), with vice versa admixture being apparent at 1/4th the Palaeoloxodon antiquus nuclear genome. There is more than enough evidence to avoid conflation and misstating! 100.12.240.232 (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution map is missing West African populations