Talk:Frugivore

message: #Repeated deletion of original quote, and added inline citations from primary research.  Please see history, and first editor SummerPhD's similar behaviour at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Fruitarianism . 00:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Content is written in an unencyclopaedic-style and appears to be plagiarized from a non-reliable source. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: No, I deleted a link to a radical, pseudoscientific Fruitarian website. Please read WP:RS for more information on reliable sources. Uncle Dick (talk) 00:46, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at your first source  I don't see the journal that's it's published in.  I see its cited by one other author.  Have you take a look at  ?  At least I see it was published in the journal of human evolution. "Throughout the various time periods, our human ancestors could have mostly consumed either vegetable, or large amounts of animal matter (with fat and/or carbohydrates as a supplement), depending on the availability and nutrient content of food resources."--Work permit (talk) 02:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I just glanced through your first source.  He concludes  "Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets."  You own papers are not supporting your edit--Work permit (talk) 03:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: This is referring to the flexibility of the unspecialized frugivore's gut anatomy (plant foods can range from high nutrient density, e.g. nuts, seeds, to bulky foods, e.g. fruits).  The fact remains: '.. in humans, a clear-cut adaptation to meat eating would imply that the gut allometric relationship coincides with that of the "faunivores", with the lowest absorptive area. This is not supported by the measurements of human gut size that are plotted in Fig 1, all these measurements being grouped on the best fit line of the frugivores (Hladik et al., 1999). http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf There is no contradiction in these papers. Pearl999 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an interesting observation.  I think his conclusion is easier to digest and more to the point.  "Consequently, meat eating certainly played an essential part in hominid history, but the hominid flexible gut anatomy permitted adaptation to various diets--Work permit (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm looking at http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=1667679 .  I take it from the study that chinese people who eat alot of meat are at greater risk of coronary disease then those who don't eat alot of meat.  To take that observation and conclude that primative man was a Frugivore is wp:synthesis.--Work permit (talk) 03:06, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern man is still a frugivore.  :) Pearl999 (talk) 14:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  :) Peace.  Its been fun working with you. --Work permit (talk) 23:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Frugivore debate

message: Hey~
So as a class project, my teammates and I have updated the page to include more references and expand the information presented about frugivores.  We removed the comment about humans as frugivores because an important role that frugivores play is being seed dispersers.  Since we, humans, are not seed dispesers, we felt it important to take that bit of information out.
Please, read over and make any comments or edits as you see fit!
You can message me if you have any other additional comments.
THANKS!
--Raneve08 (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Surely humans would have been seed dispersers though? I mean they ate fruit, moved on, defecated... Richard001 (talk) 09:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

text: As far as I know, humans have dispersed the seeds of say wheat over a very wide area :) eug (talk) 09:44, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated Information with new sources! 

message: I came here following a link requesting unbiased assistance with resolution, from the third opinion page.  What I have seen appears to be Pearl999 wishing to present a personalised perspective rather than a representative overview of material on a now fashionable subject. 
This is a place for representing all informed opinion on a matter, and if you are truly unbiased, you should welcome WP:REL accredited information both indicating a given conclusion and an opposite conclusion, and present both for the reader to make up their own mind. If you want to prove that humans are/should be/could be/were/will be Obligate Frugivores ie. Fruitarian, then you are better off editing or building a one-point-of-view site, not using this open-access resource as a platform. If such a site presented that information very credibly, it might even hold onto a citation from here! I notice very similar arguments going on on the Talk:Fruitarianism page. The difference with this page is that Frugivore is a scientific term, whereas Fruitarian is a description people apply more liberally to (their own) lifestyle.
Regarding attention to order in this page, I have put effort into keeping my posts neat and concise to make the discussion followable, but the flow has become fragmented several times by commenting within existing posts (rather than referring to statements from a new post) and overburdened by screen-fulls of pasted text, where references would do.  If you wish to be credible, please work methodically. I have enjoyed learning here but will now move on. Thank you.   Trev M   ~   20:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personalised perspective 

message: The introduction makes it clear that frugivores can disperse seeds or they can not disperse seeds, but then the rest of the article seems to imply that seed dispersal is the most important aspect of the topic. And some statements imply that disppersing seeds is a requirement of frugivores. It makes me think maybe most of the seed dispersal stuff should be moved to a different page.
:I think the thing is, the concept of frugivore is very useful for the discussion of seed disperal, but not much good for anything else.  
Yes, it seems to me now that you can't really speak of many animals as frugivores because fruit is seasonal so you've almost always got to be able to be able to eat something else besides fruit, so most animals that you could call "frugivores" are mostly omnivores.  But if you're talking about seed dispersal, you don't care what the animal does when the fruit is out of season.  Thinking back of all the articles I've read, there are some "obligate fruigores" to coin a term, maybe the tropical fruitbats eat fruit only, and maybe some tropical birds can also travel the amazing distances necessary to locate ripe fruit 365 days a year, but I think most monkeys and such as I recall eat a lot of bugs, eggs, other plant parts.  
On the other hand, probably only those carnivores that are very specialized eat only meat.  Their closest relatives and ancestors probably wouldn't have passed up any fruit they could find.  Most bears, civets, raccoon family, skunk family, and so on eat fruit whenever they can.  Casey and the puppy both like bananas.  Cats are the only land mammal species I can think of that just no way will eat fruit.  So with mammals, we're pretty much all frugivores because we eat fruit, but none of us can depend on it because we've got to eat every day and there just is no way to find fruit every day.  And it doesn't keep.  
Insects, I don't know so much.  They're more of a problem for seed dispersalist plants than friends, but some of the larvae are specialized to just eat one apple or whatnot, and then go dormant, grow wings and such, and fly to lay an egg on the next apple.  But I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any insect scientists using the word "frugivore".  They have their own words for this lifestyle, I think.  Maybe, I don't know.
So it's a botanical term.  Chrisrus (talk) 02:01, 18 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is this page about frugivores or about seed dispersal?