Talk:Capybara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Echo has identified Capybara as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the German language Wikipedia.

Contents 1 Capybara As Fish 2 Capybara In Mass Media 3 Foreign names 4 Taste 5 Hydrochoerus isthmius 6 Capybara in romanian mythology

[edit] Capybara As Fish

The correct genus name is Hydrochoerus Brisson, 1762 (Opinion 1894, International Comission on Zoological Nomenclature, 1998) and the correct family name is Hydrochoeridae. This is not copyrighted information. Alvaro Mones

The "fish" story is interesting but deserves a date and a reliable reference.
I changed "the Pope" to "Rome" or "the Church" because it is questionable whether the Pope himself would be involved. (This detail smells of a popular legend rather than a historical fact.)

Also beware of non-neutral point of view -- the Church's "error" is "obvious" only if you assume that the scientific definition of the word "fish" is the only valid one, but (e.g.) for a fisherman it makes perfect sense to define "fish" as anything that swims in the sea, dolphins included. Jorge Stolfi 04:10, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This story has been said of several water dwelling mammals. For example I've heard it of beaver and muskrat too. The only case I knew of where it was true was whale, which was fairly certainly counted as a fish by the Catholic Church for centuries.

That said there is some support for this story I find.[1] It sounds like the Vatican isn't really saying the capybara is a fish, that'd be stupid, but instead says they can count it as one for Lenten purposes. That's not quite the same thing.--T. Anthony 11:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Googling for "capivara AND quaresma" (Portuguese for lent) and "carpincho AND iglésia (Spanish for church) I could find no references on the web. If someone unearths a bibliographic reference it must be surprising. I suppose this anedocte is just that.jggouvea 11:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capybara In Mass Media

Given that (at least to a North American audience) capybaras are fairly unique and somewhat comical animals, a section on famous examples in fiction, literature, news, etc. provides an extra degree of relevance. And, that said, Speak from The Tick is one of the very few examples of this (perhaps even the only only). I'm reverting to the version that includes information on Speak, which seems no more unusual than a page on famous horses, fictional lions, etc., although certainly if it's felt that the information is better provided in a seperate page or a disambiguation page I'm more than willing to do so.

I placed Speak in Category: Fictional rodents. If there's justification to create a Category: Fictional capybaras he could go there, but so far I think he's the only one named.--T. Anthony 11:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I found it very odd, simply because it's a cartoon, it's not real -- a cartoon character can have whatever it likes as a pet (even a speaking capybara?). There's no link to Scooby Doo at the bottom of dog... Apparently some (real live flesh and blood) people keep capybaras as pets: do you feel up to the task of writing a section about "capybaras as pets", in the real world, with a mention of the cartoon capybara at the end? Either that, or change the title: "fictional capybaras", "capybaras in fiction", something like that? There must be an odd reference or two to capybaras in the novels of Rómulo Gallegos or Jorge Amado or García Márquez... –Hajor 01:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Would it be useful to anyone looking up the Capybara article, as if in an actual encyclopedia? I don't think so. I think it's just worthless trivia. User:justfred

Perhaps the fictional reference is, but a "Capybaras as pets" section could be very informative, say, to people who would like to know whether or not they can be easily domesticated, whether they are as intelligent as some other rodents (rats and mice are freakishly intelligent, are capybaras as well?), if one needs special "exotic animal" permits to keep one, etc. --Corvun 09:23, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Only if anyone keeps them as pets. Which I suspect they don't, at least in the english-speaking world. And I'm not talking about cartoon characters here, I mean someone in real life (if y'all can remember what that is) actually keeps them as actual pets. --User:justfred

I would find it hard to believe that no-one in the English speaking world has tried to keep one as a pet, but even if that's the case: why not? Are they ill-tempered? Hard to domesticated? Hard to house-train? What makes them undesirable as pets? --Corvun 20:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

They're the size of a medium domesticated animal - a large pig or small pony. They like to live in a river - are you planning to let them swim in your pool? And having had golden retrievers who did just so, I would imagine they would smell really, really bad. They're native to the Amazon and Brazil, not North America or Europe. Guinea pigs, sure, they're pocket-sized. Boa constrictors and smaller snakes, yes; Anacondas, quite a bit more difficult. Sure, there are people who keep (full-sized) pigs and goats and sheep, ostrich, emu, llamas as pets - but for the most part they're livestock, and an encyclopedia would tend to describe them as such. Go ahead, look it up and see. If you can find proof, documentation somewhere (preferably a less-than-flaky internet source), you're welcome to put it up. But just because it was on a TV cartoon does not seem to be a valid reason to add it to the encyclopedia article. --User:justfred

Have you had a bad day? I wasn't arguing that a section on capybaras as pets needs to be included, only that it might be useful if there are a significant number of people out there who would be interested in such a thing, or maybe a brief statement as to why doing so might be undesirable (if it actually were undesirable, which it doesn't really appear to be). If it's not that common, then there's no reason to spend a lot of time on it. It's not as if I'm saying there needs to be a lengthy section dedicated to the subject, only that something more than "some people capture them as pets" would be useful and ellucidating. Something like "not unlike the 'barnyard' animals of North America and Europe, capybaras are sometimes kept as pets, but are most often regarded as livestock". I'm not suggesting a complete upheaval of the article just for the sake of appeasing the few people who (like some North American goat, pig, chicken, etc. owners) keep them as companions and shudder at the idea of using them for food.

Also, it appears capybaras are somewhat more common an animal than someone unfamiliar with them might think. How common are they in their natural state? Are they thought of as pests like the Raccoons, Opossums, and Armadillos of North America? Are they (like the Armadillo, the Raccoon, or the Hedgehog) common enough to be regarded as pests in some areas but kept as exotic pets in others? How are the animals actually viewed?

I understand that they are considered livestock, but just as with pigs, goats, ostriches, emus, chickens, etc., there must surely be a lot more to them. How quickly do they reproduce? How fast do they age? How long do they live? Are they hostile, fearful, friendly, or indifferent toward humans? These are the kinds of things a visitor to the page might want to know about. I mean, would a page on dogs be complete if it didn't mention dingoes? Would a page on chickens be complete if it made no mention of the Indonesion jungle fowl (wild chickens), or of bantams, silkies, polishes, or any of the other breeds that have obviously been bred for purposes other than food? Is there a strong foreign market for capybaras meat? Is there any market for capybara pelts, or does their fur have no desirable qualities at all (such as water resistance or insulation, as with duck feathers)?

All I'm saying is that one leaves this page feeling like one has only gotten a small part of the story. One of the great things about Wikipedia, as opposed to paper encyclopedias, is that here we have the chance to give people the "complete scoop" -- we don't have to skimp on less-than-wildly-popular topics to prevent a set of hard-bound encyclopedia volumes from taking up an entire room. If you don't feel like taking the time to do all of this, that's fine, but why all the hostility at the suggestion that such information might be useful? --Corvun 22:42, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to come off as agressively as I did - mainly I thought that referring to a little-known tv cartoon added nothing to the article. You're right that the article could be well expanded in many of the ways you mention - and please feel free to do so! All of your questions would be good research subjects for expansion. Most of the questions I have no idea of the answer, but someone must. --User:justfred (who would like to thank Windows viruses for his current cranky attitude)

Ah, virus troubles. Enough said. --Corvun 00:20, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to tack onto this discussion, but I must say the "would someone expect to read this in an encyclopedia" comment is just phooey. I think the reason they wouldn't include this is for space consideration, something Wikipedia doesn't really have. If people want the short of the info, that's why there's section heads. If they want details, there's space for it. I can't believe how stuffy some of this comes off as. Bobak 19:48, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, well. I come from a country where capybaras are native (sometimes I can see some from my backyard window because they have adapted to live by the brook that flows across my town). Here's something about the way people regard capybaras here. 1) They are not pets: they're smelly, dirty and are vectors of diseases. It's OK to have them at a zoo or a public park, but it is unthinkable to have them at home --- unless you own a pretty large cottage with enough space. 2) They live in or by fresh water streams, their health and their feeding depends on that. 3) They are pretty large and eat quite a lot (mostly grass, leaves and hay). They'd be costly to keep, though not as much as costly as keeping a cow at your backyard, perhaps just about keeping a smaller breed of lamb. 4) They are rodents and they bite to defend themselves. Not safe for children. 5) They are wild and like to wander about, sometimes walking kilometers each day. They'd be very unhappy living in your backyard. 6) Nevetheless I think someone will consider them as pets because they look cute. Must be a quite rich guy, living in a cottage or big house with a large backyard and without children. The best thing, however, would be to see them at a park or zoo. Just like that cute deer your children find so cute ;-) jggouvea 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foreign names

Someone has added the Polish name to the head section. Not to be negative, but obviously we cannot include the translations of the name into all the thousand languages of the planet. (The interwiki links will do that job, and better, by the way.) The Spanish, Portuguese and Guaraní names were listed only because those are the languages spoken in the capybara's natural range; so they are likely to be used even in English documents, and thus are useful even to English readers.
On the other hand, the names in other major local languages (say, Quechua, French, Saramaccan, etc.) would be fitting.
All the best, Jorge Stolfi 13:56, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taste

The article mentions they are raised for meat, and they are sometimes used as a substitute in pabellón criollo. Can anyone comment on their taste/texture/nutritional qualities?

Tastes like chicken. ;-) --Carnildo 00:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydrochoerus isthmius

This subspecies is often given full species status by scientists. More phylogenetic testing needs to take place, so I will refrain from altering the species' taxonomy box but I included this notation at the end of the introductory paragraph. Based on morphological evidence alone it seems rather clear the Panama race is a distinct species, and new studies will hopefully conclude this in order to give the species more protection for its restricted range. --EllisD 04:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't Woods and Kilpatrick (2006) treat it as a new sp.? I can't remember offhand. If they do and you are so inclined, please make the change. --Aranae 07:09, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

They do treat it as a separate sp. I agree with splitting this page into Hydrochoerus, Capybara (H. hydrocchaeris), and Lesser Capybara (H. isthmius) along with a separate Hydrochoerinae. --Aranae 00:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capybara in romanian mythology

The word "shobolan" is not a romanian word. The correct word is "şobolan", but that simply means rat, there is no mythological meaning attached to it.