Talk:Cowrie

message: Why is this article insisting on the spelling "cowry" as normative?  Most dictionaries don't even list "cowry" as a variant of cowrie, and most of the exceptions just cite it as a exactly that -- a variant of cowrie.  See Webster's Revised Unabridged, American Heritage, Dictionary.com Unabridged, the Encyclopedia Britannica, etc.  In accordance with the WP:MOS, I have looked into whether this is a difference between national varieties of English, and I found no evidence that it is.  I intend to move the page and change the misleading leading line about the word "sometimes" being spelled cowrie, unless I'm missing something. Mtiffany (talk) 20:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My dictionaries are not brand new, but OED, American Heritage, and Random House all give both spellings. The first two give them equal weight, whereas Random House prefers cowrie. I agree the article should not say that the word is only "sometimes" spelled cowrie (which is the spelling I'm used to), but I also don't think it's important which spelling the article itself uses. Richard K. Carson (talk) 18:01, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standard Spelling 

message: From the lecture notes of "Economics, 3rd Edition" (Audio course by The Teaching Company) by Timothy Taylor (professor at Macalester College and Managing Editor of the Journal of Economic Perspectives): "In the history of the world, the item used for money over the broadest geographic area and for the longest period of time is probably the cowrie, a mollusk shell found mainly off the Maldive Islands in the Indian Ocean."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by DKEdwards (talk • contribs) 07:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  as a currency 

message: Aloha!
I have uploaded a brief (~20 sec.) video of a Honey cowry (C. helvola) and a Snakehead cowry [generally named Cypraea caputserpentis Linneaus, 1758 but these are Hawaiian cowries and may be the subspecies caputophidii, a.k.a. Erosaria (Ocellaria) caputophidii Schilder, 1927]. I'm not experienced at editing these articles but I will try to make it possible for anyone to view the video by clicking on the image already in the Cowry article,... unless, of course, someone else beats me to it! (Nudge, nudge,... wink, wink!)
The video is at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Cypraea_caputserpentis.ogg (There is no soundtrack.)
Makuabob 14:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Video in Commons of two live-collected Cypraea caputserpentis... 

message: It seems the COWRY article has been demoted from semi-coherent english to near gibberish. As in,
Cowry, rarely spelled cowrie, plural always cowries, is the common name for a one group of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks. The word cowry is perhaps most often used for the shells of these sea snails.
Cowries are scientifically known as the genus Cypraea and family Cypraeidae.
(It is worth noting that a few species in the family Ovulidae are also often referred to as cowries, and in the British Isles the local Trivia species Triviidae are sometimes called cowries. These other two famlies are somewhat closely related to the Cypraeidae.)
Many people find the shiny, porcelain-like shells of cowries pleasing to look at and to handle.
I see "cowrie" rather frequently. It is not a 50-50 split but certainly much more than once in a hundred. One-in-a-hundred, to me, is rare. What source says "cowrie" is rare?
What is "name for a one group of sea snails, marine gastropod mollusks" supposed to mean? If "Invertzoo" is a native speaker of the english language, he/she shouldn't drink heavily AND edit Wikipedia. I have a half century of experience using edited American english and I am having trouble trying arrange that phrase into something sensible.
"Cowries are scientifically known as the genus Cypraea and family Cypraeidae" is redundant. It's in the Taxobox. Why not describe the entire sequence?
"...the local Trivia species Triviidae..." Is the local Trivia species named Triviidae?
"These other two famlies are somewhat closely related to the Cypraeidae." What about the Erato, or the Cypraeacassis, or Jenneria, OR Pseudocypraea? All are "closely related" to the Cypraeidae. Erato are frequently mistaken for tiny cowries. Jenneria also is mistaken for an unusual type of cowry. See the article at http://cowrys.org/archive/NSN127CY.HTM#C for more info.
I suggest that the original text be restored until something more comprehensible is available.
Makuabob 17:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did "Invertzoo" chop up the article?... 

message: The Cypraea, according to Wikipedia's own item on the Cypraeidae, is a 'tribe' in the sub-family of Cypraeinae, not a genus of its own. The deleted line asserted that the Cypraea was a genus in the family Cypraeidae. Either this line in  the 'Cowry' article had to go, or the item on Cypraeidae has to be changed. By deleting this particular reference, I am NOT saying that I agree with the Cypraeidae item (which has internal problems), only that the two statements are at odds.
Some taxonomists make finer distinctions than others when it comes to just how different one 'group' of cowries is from another. Linneaus coined the genus Cypraea to include all cowry-like shells. Times are different now and some of the animals turn out to be not so similar to those generally associated with the vast majority of cowry-type shells.
There is a standing debate between Conchologists (shell morphology) and Malacologists (animal characteristics, of which the shell is one part). If the Malacologists take over defining cypraeid species, what is to happen in the studies of extinct Cypraea? A large number of Cypraeid fossils are true fossils, i.e., all of the original material has been lost and other minerals have assumed the shells' shapes; no tissue remains, none of the original structures.
(The parenthetical paragraph in the Cowry article will be worked on next...)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Makuabob (talk • contribs) 16:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both the Cypraeidae article and this one list Cypraea as a genus. However, I think the sentence you removed was redundant to the taxobox anyway. Mgiganteus1 16:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy issues are vague... 

message: The listing of "species" is in need of some truly professional moderation. Well-known species have been found to be misspelled, or missing altogether, while many 'new' names nonetheless get inserted.
In fairness to the Users of Wikipedia, reviews need to be independent of any person, or persons, who have vested interests the listing (and, unavoidably, the appearance of 'orthodoxy') of species names.
It was some time ago, also, that the ICZN obviated the need for "-ii" ending on specific names. One "i" is considered sufficient.Makuabob (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species list needs help... 

message: Does Wikipedia allow external links to commercially-oriented sites where the item/s in the Wikipedia article is/are for sale? One of the external links in this article does just that while all others lead to educational/not-for-profit sites. Should it be eliminated?
Makuabob (talk) 17:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links to commercial sites

message: Added a link to an on-line article that gives the earliest period (Shang Dynasty) that cowries were used as money.
Makuabob (talk) 03:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference/external link added

message: I continue to find omissions of long-standing, undisputed species names. Also, the change of case to the authors' names and dates of publications made me look around WP to see how similar groups of animals were handled. No other group that I could find has author/date information.
Cones shells were the closest, both in popularity and availability, to the cowries. At best, it equates specific names to popular names,... fraught with peril for any group. What's to stop adding the popular names from all areas of the globe?
At the least (not my preference), the list should be stripped of authors and dates; better would be to eliminate the list altogether. Having the data in the article smacks of authority to include and exclude. I have no such authority and claim none. Find an "authority" to set the list's contents and someone will find another "authority" to oppose it. This doesn't sound like what WP is about (not to say it doesn't happen).
This is not a zoological reference item, just general information. The average user doesn't care about "authority" or "date of publication." Look at other WP items about genera with many species; it is not included. A poorly constructed list of names is not of much use, unless confusion is the object of the list.
I think the Cowry article will be better without a list of species names.Makuabob (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll eliminate the authors and dates on the first of February (or ASAP thereafter). Barring some reasonable and coherent argument to have the Cowry article become a zoological authority on the genii of the Cypraeidae, the list itself will be squelched at some point thereafter.Makuabob (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

text: After carefully checking other gastropod entries (conchs, cone shells, murex,... etc.), it can be seen that no other group includes author and date with the specific binomial. Cowry should be no worse than these others but the authors and dates are unnecessary for an article that is fundamental in scope.Makuabob (talk) 22:20, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

text: If whitespace is a concern, the list itself should go or could be formatted into three columns. Also, the Contents box creates a large blank space, should that be reformatted?No other major genus in Wikipedia gives long lists of species with authority and date. See explanation above.Makuabob (talk) 13:58, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  See Conus. The inclusion of binomial authorities is a personal style preference of some editors (many fish articles include them, for example). This was the original format of the list and should not be changed unless there is a compelling reason to do so, as such an edit removes relevant information which some readers may find useful (as I do myself). mgiganteus1 (talk) 14:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

text: It is clearer now: a personal style preference of some editors. The question was raised previously about whether this item presumed to be authorative. Apparently, it does. I will observe and see just how that plays out.Makuabob (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Species list may need to be eliminated

message: I found the index (only) online of ACTA CONCHYLIORUM NR. 10 and saw nothing that could reasonably be considered as 'novice' or 'beginner' subject matter. There appear to be numerous color plates, but the full issue itself is not available online and seems to be of limited print circulation. How does this "Further reading" enhance a curious web surfer's understanding?Is this an advertisement for that particular club? How does it tie with the Wikipedia article "Cowry?"With no reason for being part of this article, it begs to be Reverted.Makuabob (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain why "Further reading" was added 

message: And removed the commercial URLs...Makuabob (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed redundant comment at top of Discussion page

message: I think this article needs some information on Anatomy and general behavior of the Cowries. I don't know if the behavior is widely varied or relatively constant from species to species but it should at least be noted if it is variable. Some general information on anatomy, like average life span, life cycle, Senses, and so on should be included as well. I think diet should be included as well. As far as I know they are almost all opportunistic omnivorous. Most sites say they are scavengers but there are a few (sketchy) claims of them also being predators to small slow moving animals.--Tsar bomber (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this request. See my comment below. Dough34 (talk) 21:08, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior and anatomy  

message: Should Cowry and Cypraea be merged? -- Basilicofresco (msg) 00:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be better to merge Cowry and Cypraeidae since most cowries are not now considered to be members of the genus Cypraea.Therealsleepycat (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

text: I have removed the content that was completely duplicite with Cypraea, moved one of its section to the Shell money article. The article may redirect either to the Cypraeoidea or more likely to the Cypraeidae and then merge to them. Or it can stay as a short article about the vernacular name (I would suggest this option). --Snek01 (talk) 14:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cowry and Cypraea 

message: As noted above, "cowry" exists. It's also not the   form of the word in any dialect. Cowrie's been more common since the 19th century at least; and remains more common than "cowry" at Google Scholar. The page is and has been in the wrong place. — LlywelynII 18:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Move

message: Thisกปรฺทwas placed agrammatically at the end of the Etym section without explanation. I removed it as presumptive vandalism, but if it's somehow connected to the etymology, kindly add it back and flesh that part out. — LlywelynII 18:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Thai

message: Various forms of cowrie-shell divination are used throughout West Africa and the African diaspora.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowrie-shell_divination  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.25.157.161 (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:   Cowrie-shell divination 

message: I propose merging Whiteshell into Cowrie. The former is only two sentences with one source on a specific use of cowrie shells already mentioned in the Cowrie article, and seems like it would fit in more naturally here.  — Moriwen (talk) 19:32, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Klbrain (talk) 11:34, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: etym online gives the other way around definition of porcelain, not the shells name from itbut porcelain from the schells name.don't know how to change it here, sorry
here's the link https://www.etymonline.com/word/porcelain#etymonline_v_18472 89.209.173.63 (talk) 22:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  etymology  

message: This article focuses almost totally on the uses of cowrie shells and has very little info about the biology of the organism. Maybe the missing biology should be in one article (Cowrie) and the shell content (Uses of cowrie shells) should have it's own separate article? -- Dough34 (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacks biological content