Talk:Bos

Untitled

• Bos - I did my best to clean it up, but ITIS conflicts with the page and other parts of Wikipedia and I am way out of my depth. Also check the redirects from the species names; do they point to the right thing(s)? grendel|khan 21:32, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC)

It might be worth to mention the origin of the word bos?
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Indo-European_roots subheading Home Animals: gwos
--58.187.36.60 12:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone has heard about the species Bos bison? --Bestiasonica (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Who's the Bos ?

Hi, compare taxoboxes of Aurochs and Cattle. How can you keep two articles whith Bos primigenius as a binomial name ? If you follow Mammal Species of the World, or "Systematics and taxonomy" section in Bos article, you should update the classification, and redirections... and maybe Wikidata links as well (it's a mess up there). --Salix (talk) 12:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bos. 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/20110922131805/http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14200668 to http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?s=y&id=14200668

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:02, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Page views

Leo1pard (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Bos longifrons

There's currently a discussion on the Benty Grange helmet talk page, about the type of horn that was used in the helmet. The 1974 authority on the helmet suggests that the horn from bos longifrons was used, but more recent literature says that bos longifrons is no longer recognized as a species. Could anyone who is familiar please weigh in, and suggest what type of species is most likely evoked by a 1974 reference to bos longifrons? Thanks, --Usernameunique (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Bos reclassification + bison

According to MammalDiversity, and as has been supported by phylogenetic studies for almost 20 years, the genus Bison is no longer valid, with its members belonging to Bos.

In addition, the subgeneric classification on the present Bos page seems to have little-to-no backing, especially the idea that the kouprey needs its own subgenus as opposed to belonging with the gaur, banteng, and their domesticated counterparts. The division into the subgenera Bibos, Bos, and Poephagus has significantly more backing, but the 2011 Ungulate Taxonomy paper, the most expansive paper I can see that tackles this issue, prefers to just group them into clades with no actual scientific name ("cattle" clade, "gaur-banteng-kouprey" clade, "yak-bison" clade), and specifically refers to the "Bos-Bibos-Poephagus" division as "erstwhile". While the ASM disagrees with parts of that paper, such as its delineation of species, it seems to follow other parts, so I'd say that paper should be followed for the division of the Bos species list.

I already edited the page to reflect this, but it was reverted as consensus would be preferred before such a sweeping edit, so I'm posting this here to field some opinions. In addition, I soon plan on editing the pages of Bison and its species to reclassify them into Bos, so I'd like opinions on that.Geekgecko (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Agree with all your edits. No valid counter arguments have been proposed. 74.68.117.176 (talk) 07:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

A continuation of the discussion is occurring at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals#Edit_warring_at_Bos. Thanks. To rebut the argument for exclusion I quote the argument I made there: There is strong support in both studies I listed that Bison is nested within Bos as the sister lineage of yaks based on nuclear DNA. Your claim that scientists seemingly haven't thought about ILS amongst the Bovini is WP:original research speculation without any basis in the scientific literature. The ILS claims in the literaure are about the discrepancies between the mitochondrial DNA of American bison and wisents, which could be explained by either introgression from other Bos species or ILS, there is absolutely no suggestion that Bison represents a separate lineage from Bos. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:02, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Cattle Taxonomy RFC

Please see the RFC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mammals#RFC: Taxonomy of Cattle and respond there if you have an opinion. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 20:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Deleted cladogram

@Justlettersandnumbers: what for? --89.206.112.14 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm sorry I didn't leave a proper edit summary there – hit the button before I meant to. What for? Words that come to mind are: accessibility, ugly, unclear, unnecessary colours, font sizes all over the place, far from certain that it's needed at all, please reach consensus here on this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2023 (UTC)