Talk:Procyon (genus)/Archive 1

Reason to keep raccoons alive

For my project at uni, we have to argue why we should keep raccoons alive as we are to debate with a group that says that they should be made extinct etc. Any help people?x

I'll tell you and listen well -- EVERY CREATURE DESERVES TO LIVE! LIVE! LIVE! We all have our own special niche, so we should LIVE! Dora Nichov 01:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, for one thing I know quite a few impoverished families who still live off racoons. They're meat is quite tasty and the fur makes great pelts.74.36.192.6 01:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Pet Raccoons

i think that raccoons are very very very cute

Domestic raccoons are a very bad idea. They have wild instincts, and it should never be assumed that they'll fit into the family structure similar to, say, a cat. 2) Raccoons can gnaw holes through the front door and disappear forever. When you stand and view your door afterwards, you will wonder why you ever let it in your house.

Yeah, they're fierce and dangerous. They also carry diseases. So remember: CUTE ISN'T TAME!163.21.216.253 06:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Schof 17:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Removed "Once released, however, their adaptation is remarkably quick as they have an ingrained drive as wild animals."

A family on my paper route when I was a kid had a pet raccoon, theoretically belonging to the daughter. Whenever it was in the house, chaos ensued. Once I knocked on the door to collect. Just as the mother opened it there came a crash from the next room. She dashed out and I could hear her yelling, "I told you to keep that animal out of the house!" The daughter came dashing by with a the raccoon in her arms. It was doing the sweet, innocent, confused animal expression. I didn't believe it for a moment. Those things are too intelligent for our own good. TCC (talk) (contribs) 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

"President Coolidge's favorite pet was a raccoon named Rebecca; he built a special house for her, visited her every day, and walked her around the White House on a leash. When the White House was being repaired and President Coolidge and his family moved temporarily, the President worried that Rebecca might get lonely, so he sent a limousine to bring her from the White House to stay with them." ( http://www.geocities.com/Petsburgh/Farm/6400/whitehouse.html ) and for a picture ( http://www.old-picture.com/united-states-history-1900s---1930s/Coolidge-exhibits-raccoon-Rebecca.htm )

Raccoon Height: Reference Requested; Existing Article Seems Wrong

From the article: The common height for a full-grown male raccoon is 36-42 inches.

Is this correct?

From http://www.dnr.state.md.us/wildlife/raccoon.html

Adult raccoons generally measure 20-30" long from their nose to the tip of their tail and weigh from 10-35 lbs.

From http://www.und.edu/org/ndwild/raccoon.html

Adult raccoons weigh from 10 to 30 pounds. Total body length, including the tail, of an adult raccoon measures from 26 to 40 inches. Adult females are usually smaller than adult males.

From http://www.answers.com/topic/raccoon

It is 11/2 to 21/2 ft (46–76 cm) long, excluding the 8 to 12 in. (20–30 cm) tail

Also here: http://www.enature.com/flashcard/show_flash_card.asp?recordNumber=MA0029

So the question in my mind:

1. Does the Wikipedia article refer to standing height (aka length) or actual height?
2. Does this include the tail?
3. Is there some reference for this information?

For comparison, from the Wikipedia article on Great Danes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_dane

Height and weight requirements for show dogs vary from one kennel club's standards to another, but generally the minimum weight falls between 100 to 120 lb (46 to 54 kg) and the minimum height must be between 28 and 32 inches (71 to 81 cm) at the withers. Most standards do not specify a maximum height or weight. In August 2004, a Great Dane named "Gibson" from Grass Valley, California was recognized by the Guinness Book of Records as the world's tallest dog, measuring 42.2 inches at the withers.

Schof 18:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

• Schof 20:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC) OK, editing article to reflect the figures shown in these links.

"Washing bear?"

I removed the Spanish name mapache from the list of foreign names meaning "washing bear". From the Spanish Wikipedia: El nombre mapache proviene del náhuatl mapactli, "que tiene manos". That is to say, it comes from a Nahuatl word meaning something like "that which has hands". I also have serious doubts about Ukranian єнот, Polish szop, and Czech mýval. They all seem too short to have two lexical morphemes - how do you fit "washing bear" into the single syllable szop? - and the words show no obvious relation to each other (despite all being Slavic languages), nor to the words for "wash" (мыть) or "bear" (медвед) in the one Slavic language I do know, Russian. All of that makes me seriously doubt that they mean anything like "washing bear". I suspect, based on my rusty knowledge of hanzi, that the Japanese and Chinese words do belong on the list. The German, Italian, Danish/Norwegian, and Dutch ones definitely look right, going by cognates, and the Finnish and Swedish ones are both attested to mean "washing bear" in the Spanish version of the article, so those are probably okay. Still, worth looking over. (My bet is people just added words to the list without actually realizing what it was supposed to be a list of. People are silly like that.) 69.140.12.199 23:45, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

The raccoon is indeed called "wasbeer" in Dutch, which is indeed meaning "washing bear" (Dutch is my native language). Peter Maas 12:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't assume too much. Although I don't know the language at all, the Czech mýval does sound something like "washer" to my Ukrainian ears (from the same root as myt’ 'to wash', myvat’ would be in the imperfect grammatical aspect: 'to be washing', and myval’ m. 'one who washes').

On the other hand I don't know where the Ukrainian єнот (jenot) comes from, but it doesn't sound like anything to do with washing to me.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-13 21:01 Z

The Finnish one is correct: "Pesu" "karhu" (Also I'm a native Finn so I should know XD but verifiable anyway.) Seko 07:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Raccoons in Winter?

It would be helpful to add information on the practices of raccoons during the cold winter months. Do raccoons hibernate or do they continue to scavenge for food?

They don't hibernate, but they WILL sleep, occaisionally coming out to forage. Dora Nichov 14:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Racial epithet?

Any information on how "coon" came to become a racial slur in the United States for blacks? Was this actually connected to the animal in some way, or did the term have another origin? Postdlf 16:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Killer Coons

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14486644/ Thought that might be interesting to add to the article. Morhange 23:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

note the article says "The attacks, all within a three-block area near the Garfield Nature Trail, are highly unusual, said Sean O. Carrell, a problem wildlife coordinator with the state Department of Fish and Wildlife"

I simply had to add this, I was amazed nothing was mentioned about it here. Obviously, raccoons are commonly known to prey upon household pets such as cats and dogs. I don't think I even have to source this, it should be obvious to anyone who has lived near these animals that they are dangerous not only for humans, but especially for cats and dogs. I actually came to this page to get more information about raccoons when I saw one lurking outside and feared for my cat. Had to put this in.

I'm highly doubtful about this comment. My parents have had a racoon den in the back yard (not of their own choosing the raccoons were there before my folks moved in) for thrity years and therefore I've seen several generations of raccoon come and go, and not once have I heard of a raccoon /killing/ a pet (although I wouldnt be surprised if it does happen on the very rare occasion). If the pet is stupid enough to mess with an adult raccon that can't escape (unusual, raccoons are amazingly agile) then its going to get hurt, and yes possibly get killed, but the typical reaction is that the raccoon gets very unhappy and escapes and the pet runs away wondering what just happend. If a dog corners a raccon it will become agitated and move into a defensive position that pretty well every dog I've seen recognizes is dangerous. Those that persist get a swipe accross the nose with a sharp paw and if they continue the raccoon goes nuts. They rarely persist. :-) (Ive watched this process many times from my folks back porch. Its actually quite amusing to see a large dog with a hard on for a fight get a serious education in not messing with the local fauna.) Id be really surprised if the raccoon was hunting your cat, and be even more surprised if the raccoon could catch your cat. About the only thing id be worried about is if your cat is an aggressive tom and tries to a pick a fight with the raccoon, which it will lose, even then youd likely be dealing with relatively minor injuries to the cat.

Well so maybe im wrong, as the MSNBC article documents. But even that says such incidents are rare.

Correct. Dora Nichov 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

While I don't have anything to add about dangers raccoons pose to other animals, I can attest that males will attack and eat the young of their own species. We've had a raccoon infestation, with one litter of kits being nested in an old car, and, I found to my chagrin this week, another in the corner of my basement, courtesy of a hole the mother had chewed in the crawl space cover. I was going to do the humane thing and get a live trap and try and relocate the mother and babies. This morning, however, after hearing my dog frantically barking right above the basement, I went down and chased out a male raccoon who was eating on the remains of three little raccoon kits. I've heard of other species where males will kill the young offspring of other males, to reduce competition and to further his gene line, but I wasn't aware of this behavior in raccoons. If someone can find a documented source for this, it would be good to add in the article. 204.255.227.181 20:57, 30 March 2007 (UTC)JG

Raccoon Behaviour

I'd personally like to see the claim that the dousing is not washing expanded on and sourced. My folks would put a bucket of water at the end of the garden and wed sit on the porch and watch them bring their food and wash. If it wasnt washing I kinda wonder, sure looked like washing to me. Ive also heard claims that raccoon would come from long distances to wash if they could. I was surprised to see the documentation here.

Id also like to know whether there is any documentary evidence for things like stealing shiny objects. We were always able to attract our coons by using things like the reflection off of a watch to attract them and they would on occassion try to steal silver objects like silverwear left out overnight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.58.21.5 (talk) 12:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

They dunk food in water to remove unpleasent tastes prehaps, we don't know, but it's NOT washing! Dora Nichov 11:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I was told by keppers at a wildlife center that they didn't believe the behavior to be washing the food, but to be better feeling it. Underwater, the raccoons could tell the difference between a grape and a grape tomato. Russia Moore 04:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

We get a large number of raccoons on our porch. They like to dunk their paws in water even if they're not holding food. TCC (talk) (contribs) 05:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, they like water. Dora Nichov 07:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Raccoons are good swimmers and have been observed to lure pursuing dogs into water and drown them. If I can get my hands on my copy of Zeveloff's book "Raccoons: A Natural History" again, that's a good source for more info. --Kris Schnee 08:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam

This article doesn't need an external links section. Please add references that cite reliable sources WP:RS. Those will most likely be published academic and news articles, not wildlife control companies seeking publicity via Wikipedia. Help us control linkspam, join WP:WPSPAM. Thank you. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 12:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Please explain why this article "doesn't need" an external links section. What makes one subject qualify for an External links section and another not? The links I see in this article seem pretty useful, with lots of nice pictures. Maybe if wikipedia wasn't so bereft of images because of a dumb squeamishness over "copyrights", then we WOULDN'T need these external links, but until then, we do.

Rabies

I added more information about this disease in what otherwise is a wonderfully intelligent, charming creature. I cannot emphasize just how close to Russian Roulette is any contact at all with them, their bodily fluids or their feces. Once a person, dog or cat catches rabies they die. Trilobitealive 00:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

A real Rabbies case hasnt occured in CA since the 70's have to find source.

External Links

I added an external links section, with plans to add more external raccoon-related sites. I know there has been problems with this in the past, but I'm hoping by keeping the "don't add linkspam" warning linkspam will be kept down. Russia Moore 06:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Image dispute

If this goes on, I'll be tempted to use this one. TCC (talk) (contribs) 01:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hehe. I can top that. There's a search result for everything on the net. Google "raccoon+licking": [1] An unfree image of a sculpture, though the posture would be perfect. Face, body, ... Femto 12:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

New Wikiproject

I wanted to make a wikiproject about ferrets and weasels but it became to small a range so i have made a bigger wikiprojects including all animals in the Musteloidea super family which include both ferrets and weasels and much similar animals. Support would be appreceated.

This new wikiproject includes Racoons

you can find it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Weasels

i also made a little template for the project,

This article is within the scope of the Weasel WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to Ferrets, Weasels, and other Weasel like friends. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

I hope you like it.

This wikiproject is for the superfamily of Musteloidea which currently and surprisingly does not have an article yet. This superfamily includes ferrets and weasels and all of our other furry little weasel like friends. Please put your name on it so this article could have it's very own wikiproject outside of wikiproject animals.

Teh Ferret 19:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Different type of raccoon?

There's a raccoon that stops by our house every afternoon (to beat the others that come in the evening) that looks a lot different than normal raccoons. She is very, very dark in coloring to the point where she can be considered black and she has very pointy ears. She is also quite small though she is an adult. Is this a different type of raccoon or would she still be considered a common raccoon? Thanks! --Sharpay Evans 18:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That would be a cat.

Seriously though, they vary quite a bit in coloring and size as you can see from some of the photos here. There are no other species of raccoon than those described here. TCC (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Natural history

I can't see a single thing here telling the reader anything about the natural history of the raccoon. Did something sometime vanish, or is this just a bad article? --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, I see, it's all in Common Raccoon now. Never mind. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

What are racoon babies called?

Pups? Cubs?

They're called kits. Raccoon also has two c's. :) Bob98133 16:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion 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.

If one looks at the edit history and comments on the talk page above, one can see that the Raccoon page attracts a lot of people who are interested in the Common Raccoon that we all know, not the genus Procyon. People edit the Raccoon page as if it was the Common Raccoon page. I thought the best solution would be to rename the page something a bit more scientific, such as Procyon (genus) (there is already a page for Procyon the star), but The Tom reverted my good faith move. Any objection? Speciate 01:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, there are a large number of links to Raccoon that are meant for Common Raccoon. This confusion is the result of the split history of the articles. Speciate 04:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

A lot of this could have been avoided if the genus had been split off from Raccoon, and Common Raccoon never made. Speciate 04:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

But that would have been wrong. The Raccoon page, surprisingly enough, should discuss raccoons, and not just common raccoons.--Prosfilaes 06:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've added a hatnote. Let's see if it helps. TCC (talk) (contribs) 12:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It would help if Common Raccoon were called Raccoon. Names should be used for their common meaning; Cat is Felis domestica, not the Felidae - although they are all cats. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Common Raccoon can't be called Raccoon until the genus page is called something else. Also, Prosfilaes, from a scientific point of view, there is no such thing as "raccoons", since that is the trival English name for them. They are only Procyon. Speciate 00:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, scientists no longer write in Latin, and when they do call these animals by English names, which they do, they call them raccoons.--Prosfilaes 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You are, to put it plainly, completely wrong, on many levels. 1) The names of taxa are not always in Latin, but they are the only true names. 2) Linnaeus devised his system of nomenclature in order to avoid confusion like this. 3) Scientists use them all the time, nearly exclusively. 4) The idea is that the average Wikipedia reader is not going to type "Common Raccoon" nor "Procyon lotor", but "Raccoon". If the reader wants to know about the related species, then they can click on a (neatly piped) link to the "Procyon (genus)" page. 5) Clearly, many people have edited the genus page thinking it is about the Common Raccoon. Dozens of inappropriate links are made to the genus page by people who don't know better. I cannot begin to fathom why you are defending the name "Raccoon" at the genus level. I am not proposing the deletion of the page, just its renaming. Speciate 00:03, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can't fathom why I'm defending the name, I suggest you go work on a project that doesn't require consensus and hence understanding other people's ideas.

Again, you act like I am advocating the deletion of the article, not its renaming. So far you are the only person who does not agree that the present naming situation is untenable. Speciate 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I act like I disagree with the renaming. I can be the only person believing it shouldn't be moved without my position being unfathomable.--Prosfilaes 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, try to understand my position. Imagine if there was a Common Macaque, that people always called just "Macaque" interfering with the Macaque genus page. Yes, they are all called Macaques in English, but to reduce confusion, we could move the Macaque page to Macaca, the true name of the genus. Speciate 00:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I do understand your position. I just disagree with it.--Prosfilaes 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Then I have to conclude that we will never agree. Your responses do not make much sense to me, and seem to be motivated by your fondness for your edits to the Raccoon page, rather than by concern for Wikipedia users. Speciate 00:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That violates WP:AGF. The concept that raccoon should go to a page for raccoons doesn't seem to be that hard to understand, nor does it seem to be a bad thing for Wikipedia. No, we probably won't agree, but that doesn't mean that one of us is being unreasonable or even wrong--there is no absolute right and wrong in a case like this. Your snide, arrogant responses are rude and unhelpful, and have frankly encouraged me to put more time into the argument than I could justify.--Prosfilaes 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Google Scholar has 661 articles under "Procyon lotor -Raccoon -racoon -raccoons -racoons", including some where the name raccoon has a hyphen in the middle. "raccoon -software" comes up with 14,300 hits. I'm having trouble finding more than one or two articles on Google Scholar that are on raccoons and yet have Procyon and not Raccoon in the title. Even articles that aren't on raccoons tend to use raccoon with the species name in parenthesis, not just the taxa names. Was Ecology and epidemiology of raccoon rabies not written by scientists? The abstract says a lot about raccoons and nothing about Procyon.

Ah, but there are 20 articles on Procyon insularis on Google Scholar, but 10 when I add -raccoon. There are 344 hits for Procyon cancrivorus, but 233 with -raccoon -etc. This means that 66.7% of the articles on the other Procyon species don't call them raccoons. Hmmm.... Speciate 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange, nobody has a response to my discovery (above) that 66.7% of the articles on the other Procyon species don't call them raccoons. I wonder why... Oh, I know why; because it undercuts their entire argument. Speciate 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

People are going to type raccoon and find out that there are several species of raccoons. Why is that a bad thing? People think that books are made of paper; should we go through contortions so they don't have to learn that some books are made of vellum and other materials? Likewise, what are these dozens of inappropriate links? Like the one on Iowa that's in a list with weasel, badger, and for heaven's sake gopher which goes to a disambiguation page?--Prosfilaes 12:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

~230,000 ghits for "Procyon lotor", 17,600 for "Procyon cancrivorus", and only 1,120 for "Procyon insularis". This means that 91.86% of all mentions of Procyon species are of the animal we call the Raccoon. There are no "Common Badger", "Common Weasel" or "Common Gopher" pages competing with the Weasel, Badger and Gopher pages. Speciate 00:56, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

10% of the mentions of Procyon species are for species other than Procyon lotor, and that warrants marginalization? We could cut a heck of a lot out of many articles based on that. As for the animal we call the raccoon, you've failed to provide any evidence that it's exclusive; people talk about foxes (probably Vulpes vulpes) a lot, but that doesn't mean that fox means Vulpes vulpes in common usage. The fact that there isn't a Common Weasel or Common Gopher page is all the more reason why those links are more problematic than the link to Raccoon; the link to raccoon is unambiguous in practice, while gopher or weasel could mean a lot of things.--Prosfilaes 13:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Where do you get the idea that I want to "cut the heck out of" the genus article? Renaming it will not marginalize it, and you are revealing your motivation to be in violation of WP:OWN. Speciate 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The links to Raccoon are manifestly ambiguous in practice here on Wikipedia. People link to Raccoon while typing on other pages because nobody calls them Common Raccoons in the US. Speciate 23:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Raccoon in common English means the Common Raccoon, so there's no way we can justify having the article on the genus called by this name. I would suggest this become a disambiguation, but it would be acceptable IMO for it to be the article name of the article on the common raccoon, or a redirect to common raccoon. But something needs to be done. Support the move of the article on the genus to Procyon (genus) as Procyon is already taken. It's a good start. Andrewa 09:26, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does Raccoon in common English really mean the Common Raccoon, any more than computer in common English really means a PC or Mac? Yes, the most common form of raccoon is the Common Raccoon, but there's no way of talking about the other species without calling them raccoons (unlike cat versus tiger or cheetah), and I don't think most people would consider other raccoons not raccoons if they encountered them.--Prosfilaes 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's an excellent question, and an excellent point. Perhaps other analogs would be fly, mouse and goose. Hmmmm, all of these support your case. No change of vote yet, but I'm thinking hard. Andrewa 13:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Counterexamples: Capra (genus)/Goat, Swifts/Apus (genus)/Common Swift, Taurotragus/Common Eland, Tern/Sterna/Common Tern. Speciate 05:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

None of those aren't counterexamples; goat doesn't redirect to the common goat, but instead the domestic goat, which is a different issue, Eland is a disambiguation page, and both swifts and tern are examples of why it shouldn't be redirected; swifts and terns redirect to the family page, not some specific species in that family.--Prosfilaes 13:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

"Family" is different than "Genus." I invite people to look at my counterexamples and judge for themselves, as nothing I say will convince Prosfilaes. He actually argues above that scientists don't write in Latin anymore, as if that has any bearing on the name Procyon. Please. Speciate 00:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

(Gee, a snide rude response.) Yes, family is different from genus, but that's because swift and tern denote something matching a family, not a genus, like raccoon. Your examples show that there's lots of options here, and no clear guidance from outside examples.--Prosfilaes 11:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nomination arguments. — AjaxSmack 13:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
• Support per nomination arguments. Racoon in English most commonly refers to the Common Racoon. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, as the common names of other Procyon species indicate, "raccoon" is used in English not only for P. lotor but for all Procyon species. Ucucha 14:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an encyclopedia, and we need to make an effort to be scientific, and to make the encyclopedia easy to use. The problem is not that the members of the genus are called raccoons, but that there is "The" raccoon blotting out all the others. Speciate 22:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It is, indeed, very scientific to just ignore P. cancrivorus, which actually seems to have a larger range than P. lotor, just because it isn't fortunate enough to occur in the USA. Ucucha 07:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The crab-eating raccoon does have a considerable range, but in non-English-speaking areas. That's one reason it's not so well known to English speakers. I agree with your general sentiment, in fact I often wonder what the students of State University of Belarus think of the redirect currently at State University. But I don't think we can blame the yanks for this one. No change of vote. Andrewa 09:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't it occur in Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago? And isn't Wikipedia supposed to be an encyclopedia about the entire world, not just about things well-known to English speakers?

Wikipedia is indeed supposed to be an encyclopedia about the entire world, and English Wikipedia does seek to cover all topics. But that's about content. Decisions on ambiguous article names in English Wikipedia are based on the English language. This doesn't just mean what's spoken by native English speakers, but it does tend to be biased towards them. Andrewa 07:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That said, I do also see some reasons for using "raccoon" only for P. lotor, considering the fact that it is indeed somewhat better known than P. cancrivorus (let alone P. insularis), and that some sources also use that common name. Ucucha 09:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia uses everyday names, not scientific names, as article titles. Georgia guy 23:14, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

How do we address the problem that the everyday name of Procyon lotor is Raccoon, not Common Raccoon? Speciate 23:27, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Support This is the same issue as with Wolf and subspecies such as Italian wolf or different species such as Maned wolf. There needs to be a parent article that is very clearly for that as such and not for a particular species. While it is preferable to use the most common name for a topic, we cannot do so if it entails a problem demarcating the subject of the article for contributors. I myself have been confused and edited this like it was for Common Raccoon for some time now. Another pertinent example might be the difference between the Cavia article and Guinea pig. The guinea pig we all know is almost totally the only colloquially known species of the genus, and guinea pigs are even often called cavies. But technically all caviomorphs are called guinea pigs. The popular usage doesn't negate that there needs to be a clear topical boundary as described by the article's title. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
  • All caviomorphs are called guinea pigs? You must be joking. I don't think anyone would call a chinchilla or a (New World) porcupine a guinea pig. I doubt that the name has ever been used for animals beyond the family Caviidae. Ucucha 06:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

This article has been renamed from Raccoon to Procyon (genus) as the result of a move request. --Stemonitis 18:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)