Talk:Guanaco

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED by Bkonrad per discussion below. The templates are {{subst:polltop}} and {{subst:pollbottom}}, by the way. -GTBacchus^(talk) 08:16, 3 October 2006 (UTC) Guanaco (animal) → Guanaco – Primary meaning of the term Yath 06:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Speedy support per nom. Duja 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Strong support per nom.--Húsönd 18:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. No-brainer. --SigPig 19:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support km5 16:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

I was bold and went ahead and moved the page since there is little doubt that the animal is the primary topic. But I'm not familiar with the templates used to close RM discussions. older ≠ wiser 15:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

half billion guanacos?

"When the Europeans first arrived in South America, there were an estimated half billion guanacos..." This seems unlikely. Vandalism?212.149.186.77 18:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Doing censuses of wild animals living high in the mountains was top priority for those first Europeans. Those estimates are what they are: someone's estimate. Redland19 (talk) 20:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

This [population estimation] statement has been removed by now. The issue is moot. 77th Trombone (talk) 11:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Licking nutrients?

I know that they obtain water from dew, but I have never heard of them obtaining nutrients from this. The referenced articles do not mention nutrient gain either. This "fact" needs to be properly referenced or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.78.222.237 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

You are unaware then that the dietary intake of minerals [nutrients] is primarily through water consumption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_water

"In terms of mineral nutrients intake, it is unclear what the drinking water contribution is. Inorganic minerals generally enter surface water and ground water via storm water runoff or through the Earth's crust. Treatment processes also lead to the presence of some minerals. Examples include calcium, zinc, manganese, phosphate, fluoride and sodium compounds.[10] Water generated from the biochemical metabolism of nutrients provides a significant proportion of the daily water requirements for some arthropods and desert animals, but provides only a small fraction of a human's necessary intake. There are a variety of trace elements present in virtually all potable water, some of which play a role in metabolism. For example sodium, potassium and chloride are common chemicals found in small quantities in most waters, and these elements play a role in body metabolism. Other elements such as fluoride, while beneficial in low concentrations, can cause dental problems and other issues when present at high levels." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.199.195 (talk) 01:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Domestic Counterpart"?

The section on behavior has this curious sentence: "To protect their necks from harm, they have developed thicker skin on their neck, a trait still found in their domestic counterparts, the llama, vicuña, and alpaca." But the vicuña is not a domestic animal, it's a wild species. I would change the article, but I would first like to know if the vicuña shares this trait with the guanaco. Does anyone know? (It might help if we had a reference.) —MiguelMunoz (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

"Lamma glama guanicoe"

there is no mention of this synonym which is apparently preferred by some authorities. 75.41.110.200 (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The Guanaco's Other Predator

Foxes prey on Guanaco also <South American fox confronts prey eight times its size>

See Also Section?

Any particular reason why the parasite genus "Skrjabinema" is listed under "See Also?" There doesn't seem to be a particularly noteworthy connection between the two (the other article briefly mentions that the one species in the genus is a Guanaco parasite); if anything belongs in See Also, I'd say it'd be a relative of the Guanaco or a similar animal, such as the Llama or Alpaca. I've added those to the "See Also" section for the time being, feel free to undo it if you disagree. Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 12:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

300 in Captivity = Domestication?

The article states that there are roughly 300 domesticated guanaco living in captivity in US zoos, as well as approximately 200 registered in private herds. While I don't doubt the accuracy of those numbers, do these animals really meet the criteria for true domestication? (Note: I used the "" template because, to my knowledge, there isn't a template for challenging diction.) Cheers, Zaldax (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

An ip has removed the disputed language, and since it hasn't been objected to here I'm assuming this was a non-controversial edit then. Yay! Zaldax (talk) 13:27, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Torres del Paine National Park (Chile)

In the next phrase it seems that Torres del Paine National Park is in Argentina, but this is a chilean National Park:

"In Argentina, they are more numerous in Patagonian regions, in places like the Torres del Paine National Park, and Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego"

Also Isla Grande de Tierra del Fuego is shared between this two countries. I suggest change this to "In Argentina and Chile, they are ...."

Garrapatilla (talk) 20:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

To say, "In Argentina and Chile," would be redundant since "Patagonian regions" is found in Argentina and Chile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.142.199.195 (talk) 00:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Population and Distribution

The article says-

>>The guanaco is a vulnerable animal native to the arid, mountainous regions of South America<<

-either this, or the conservation status, listed as of Least Concern, is inaccurate.

99.155.194.129 (talk) 01:13, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

This [vulnerability] statement has been removed by now. The issue is moot. 77th Trombone (talk) 11:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Guanaco. 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/20110304004355/http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=42654 to http://globaltwitcher.auderis.se/artspec_information.asp?thingid=42654

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Defenses Suggestion

This topic is sparsely discussed. The Population and distribution section states, "The male usually runs behind the herd to defend them." I suggest this subtopic for expansion by any intrepid guanacophiles wishing to contribute.

Here are some starter questions to consider.

• Among defensive habits, the article mentions only the solitary fact, "Guanacos often spit when threatened." This point can be expanded:
  • How is the saliva: Toxic? Irritant? Viscous (gooey?)
  • Do they direct spitballs at the vulnerable parts of the predator, or emit a general spray at them?
  • Are the salivary defenses of the Atacama guanaco less robust than those of the Patagonian peers?

• In the absence of any other defenses mentioned, I wonder: Do the males actively defend, or do they really just screen the rest of the herd?

77th Trombone (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Further reading worth integrating into text

I don't have the time right now, but for anyone interested in integrating content, the chapter:

• Moore, Katherine M. (2016-05-01). "Early Domesticated Camelids in the Andes". In Capriles, José M. & Tripcevich, Nicholas (eds.). The archaeology of Andean pastoralism. Nicholas Tripcevich, José M. Capriles Flores. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 978-0-8263-5703-8, 9780826357021. LCCN 2015-31759. OCLC 944156234.
  

from Further reading has lots of material that is worth integrating into the text for sheerly how much useful information (not currently included in the article) on guanacos it has. I found it using ProQuest Ebook Central, so it should be there. Tyrone Madera (talk) 21:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Guanacos are one of two wild South American camelids?

I don't believe that the second sentence of the article, "Guanacos are one of two wild South American camelids; the other species is the vicuña", is correct. Unless I am missing something, llamas and alpacas are also wild South American camelids, no? 173.77.182.223 (talk) 14:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Two different max running speeds mentioned

the article mentions to different medical running speeds. One might refer to males but this is left unclear. Does anyone have a better source to use only one consistent number? 190.82.201.153 (talk) 14:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)