Talk:Pteropus

message: The first paragraph of this article has a lot of info on megabats in general.  I'm moving it here, and also copying to Talk:Megabat.
Easily discernible from their smaller relatives, the Microchiroptera, they are clearly recognizable by their long muzzle and are often described as having a dog-like face. Most megachiroptera species are harmless, feeding on fruit and pollen. Despite their dog or mouse like facial appearance they are more closely related to humans than rodents or canines. Their wings in particular have many similarities to the human hand. In fact the word bat comes from the Greek term for 'hand wing'. By contrast the smaller Chiroptera sub-order typically has a flatter face.
--Allen 03:48, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  general info on order and suborder 

message: http://www.uq.edu.au/nuq/jack/consensus.htm this is the proposer of the theories responce to the dna evidence and I think its should be noted in the page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.51.60.62 (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Bats aren't actually close to primates, they aren't even in the same superorder: primates are euarchontoglires while bats are laurasiatherians.  Recent genome mapping has discredited this hypothesis entirely while strengthening the monophyletic relationship between microchiroptera and megachiroptera, the latter of which includes pteropus.  I suggest we remove this particular section, or at least reword to clearly note that it is discredited. 193.132.145.151 (talk) 15:22, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a bat but a primate? 

message: Can anyone say why all the "XXX Flying Fox" articles are capitalized?  Why not "XXX flying fox"?  Dicklyon (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When the pages for flying fox species were started several years ago by Polbot, it followed IUCN and they use caps. That's the only reason. It's the same in almost all bat articles. It will take a long time to move them all. RN1970 (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  And sorry about the redlinks I accidentally left; thanks for fixing those.  I started a query elsewhere (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Mammals_help_needed) to see if someone could make a semi-automatic way to fix the Polbot articles, but didn't notice that these were among those.  Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is Flying Fox capitalized? 

message: The flying foxes are soo cute!!!  - Vera 02/04/13  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.21.189.5 (talk) 02:53, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great..., that's really going to contribute to this article… 80.2.83.81 (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as they can cite a reliable source where an expert says they are "cute," I don't see a reason why that can't be included.  But otherwise it's a violation of WP:OR. 75.71.194.124 (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bats 

message: Quoting from article, "Characteristically, all species of flying foxes only feed on nectar, blossom, pollen, and fruit, which explains their limited tropical distribution. They do not possess echolocation, a feature which helps the other suborder of bats, the microbats, locate and catch prey such as insects in mid-air.[3] Instead, smell and eyesight are very well-developed in flying foxes."
I am in Pattaya, Thailand, on a high floor in a condo, and I just witnessed a very large *something* execute a maneuver typical of a bat when it encounters a bug that it wants to eat.  It was 10PM at night.  This thing easily had a wingspan of 3 feet if not 4 and I could hear its wings flap and it was maybe 20 feet away from me when it did this.  The only bird I know of that hunts at night are owls, and they go after stuff on the ground like mice and snakes, yes?
So I'm going to propose that, sure, these big bats are primarily about eating fruit, but that they nevertheless possess echolocation and will use it when they have to.  Pattaya is an urban area.  Not a lot of fruit to be had unless it wants to cough up 40 baht to one of the sidewalk vendors here.  So maybe it got lost and had to resort to "old" instincts in order to fuel up for the trip home.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.180.7.106 (talk) 15:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think article is wrong 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pteropus. 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/20131019094829/http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/u/mairas/pubs/echolocation_in_bats.pdf to http://www.acoustics.hut.fi/u/mairas/pubs/echolocation_in_bats.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:10, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Is there any reason why the article's not called "Flying fox" or should I just go ahead and request a technical move per WP:Common names?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Acerodon and Desmalopex spp. are also known as flying foxes. This article is only about the Pteropus species. Enwebb (talk) 03:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: The first paragraph of Description; External characteristics currently states: "The large flying fox has the longest forearm length and reported wingspan of any species". I assume this means any bat species, as many birds are bigger, but does it include known extinct bat species? If someone knows, could you please change the sentence to say "of any living bat species" or whatever is appropriate? Cultist O (talk) 22:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: in context, I don't think there is much confusion about what this sentence refers to. The whole article is about flying foxes only, not bats as a whole or flying animals. In context of the preceding sentences,  I think it's implied that it's the longest forearm length and wingspan of any species of flying fox, giving the subject up until this point has been "flying fox species". As far as extinct species, there are very few fossil Pteropus, and none of the recently extinct species are as large. I just put what was in the RS. Enwebb (talk) 22:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are semantic concerns arising from terms that overlap, and the common name as taxon is muddying the sentence by appearing to be descriptive, especially as lower case is enforced and one has to remember 'large' is part of a name in one man's classification. Using the actual names of the taxa would resolve this instantly. However, within context, this all reads okay, once you know wikipedias own rules about folk taxonomy. cygnis insignis 02:41, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest wingspan statement is misleading 

message: *An uncited addition refers to some matters in Australia, I'm guessing, justifiably removed There is no rabies in country, but there are rabies-like diseases that have been attributed to a couple of deaths. Being a carrier of several viruses, Pteropus is identified as a possible vector for disease, but I think it is only microbats that have a demonstrated causal link. If this is worth noting more here, I can gather up the references where I noticed it elsewhere, but I hadn't noticed a problem with this better than good article. cygnis insignis 03:09, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  virus vector, colony sizes 

message: Hi. I'm not sure if others have already had this discussion, but I'm wondering if it would be better to give the article a name people are more familiar with. Outside of bat experts, bat lovers, or taxonomy experts, the general public would not know to search for Pteropus when they are looking to read about the flying foxes. I know the search for 'flying foxes' redirects here, but I just feel it would be better to use that as the "title" and then have "Pteropus" in the lead. Do others have an opinion in favor or against? Battykin (talk) 19:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you read the thread #Name above? --David Biddulph (talk) 19:54, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

text: I did read that, but it did not contain enough responses, or had a valid reason for keeping this name. There are always exceptions when dealing with taxonomy. It still does not change the fact that wikipedia is not a taxonomy/latin encycopedia. It uses titles that are well known as opposed to latin names that are mostly only familiar to those who study it. The majority of the audience would not search for this name. If the article will always redirect here. Why not just use the popular and accepted term by bat experts, if the majority are going to use "flying fox" to search for those species, regardless. Battykin (talk) 21:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , Hi, we have naming conventions for articles about fauna that you can find here. It states, in part, "Do not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers (see WP:Article titles#Precision)" In the interest of having a precise title that cannot be confused with other genera of bat, this article is titled at Pteropus. One of the best known "flying foxes", for example is the Giant golden-crowned flying fox, which is in Acerodon, not Pteropus. Hope that helps explain the current article title. Enwebb (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I understand. It is not a problem for me, as I am familiar with bat species and taxonomy, but I just felt that the majority of people who will search for these type of fruit bats will do so with the search - Flying Fox. Thank you for the reply! Battykin (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of article