This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Proposed changes to template
Rename template and document to Infobox cattle breed, instead of Infobox cow breed. Strictly, cattle is the correct term for this class of animal. Cow, while being commonly used to describe cattle, is a term that only refers to female adults. Cow is also used to describe female adults of a number of other large mammals. This point was debated on the Agriculture Talk Page.
Add conditional statement that displays either:
Bos primigenius taurus, more commonly bos taurus; OR
Bos primigenius indicus, more commonly bos indicus; OR
Bos primigenius taurus/indicus hybrid, more commonly bos taurus/indicus hybrid,
in the bottom cell of the Infobox immediately below
Cattle. The reason is that there are two distinct types of cattle, namely bos (primigenius) taurus adapted to temperate climates, and bos (primigenius) indicus, which are generally humped and adapted to hot climates. Over the past few decades, taurus/indicus hybrids have been developed which combine key features of both cattle forms.
My initial attempt at inserting a conditional statement into the template failed, so will look at in slower time - as time permits.
I agree with your rationale for renaming; and have done so. I'm not convinced (knowing little about cattle other than how I like them cooked, I'm keeping an open mind) about the species names because our article on
cattle, to which those other binomials currently redirect, has them as synonyms. Perhaps consensus on usage should be arrived at there, first? also, given that
other species and hybrids exist, perhaps an editable parameter, with a default value of Bos primigenius, would be best? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits10:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
OK on the renaming of the cattle template - thanks Andy. I'll need to re-read and consult on the subject of naming taurus and indicus. Last year I spoke with an animal scientist who said that there was a proposal to have b.p. taurus and b.p. indicus declared (and presumably renamed) as different species! I'm not sure how, or if, this has been resolved, or what the rationale was. I won't do anything on this until it is resolved satisfactorily.
Aussiefrank (
talk)
00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There seems to be some consensus, and some inconsistencies!
1. Bos primigenius (
http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/9909) does not appear to be a valid and consistent descriptor for cattle, but is valid when referring to the ancestor of modern cattle, namely
Aurochs. It is not commonly used as a species' descriptor for cattle. Also see article on
Bos which refers to usage of Bos primigenius for
Aurochs, Bos taurus for
cattle, and Bos indicus for
Zebu. The
Bos article contradicts the
cattle article. The former restricts the term Bos taurus to cattle, while the latter refers to both Bos indicus and Bos taurus as cattle. I agree with the latter interpretation, which is common usage among Australian cattle breeders, and presumably other English speaking cattle breeders.
2. Analysis of Bos indicus, Bos taurus, and Aurochs DNA indicates that modern cattle are domesticated forms of two lines of
Aurochs that diverged 1 - 2 million years ago; see for example article on analysis of mtDNA (
http://www.cob.lu.se/phylogeny/AxelJanke/papers/54Hiendleder.pdf). Domestication that produced Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle occurred independently 8,000 - 10,000 years ago. See article on
Aurochs.
3.
Bos indicus and Bos taurus are now generally considered to be
subspecies, in particular because they can interbreed and produce fertile males and females. A proposal was made (
http://www.cob.lu.se/phylogeny/AxelJanke/papers/54Hiendleder.pdf) to identify them respectively as Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius taurus, which increasingly appears to be how they are referred to; see for example the article on
cattle.
4. However, adoption of the names Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius taurus does not yet appear to have been formally adopted. Following the convention described in the article on
subspecies, the proposal is to refer to the different subspecies as Bos (primigenius) indicus and Bos (primigenius) taurus, where relevant a hybrid of the two, and to delete the current Infobox cattle template reference to Bos primigenius.
I have added the specification 'Height (withers)' to the infobox and used it in the article
Yakutian cattle. The article
Withers states that ″in horses and dogs it is the standard place to measure the animal's height (in contrast, cattle are normally measured to the top of the hips).″ I have never encountered such a measurement. A quick, statistically not significant survey of cattle breeds in en:WP revealed that most cattle articles to not give any height, but the ones I found that did (
Belgian Red cattle,
Jutland cattle,
Limia Cattle,
Pajuna,
White Park) use height at withers/shoulder. Maybe this is used differently in the US (at hips) and Europe (at withers)? If 'Height (hips)' is deemed necessary, it may be added independently as a further specification, and then either specification used as required.
Roberta jr. (
talk)
12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Infoboxes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Infoboxes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InfoboxesWikipedia:WikiProject InfoboxesTemplate:WikiProject InfoboxesInfoboxes articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Proposed changes to template
Rename template and document to Infobox cattle breed, instead of Infobox cow breed. Strictly, cattle is the correct term for this class of animal. Cow, while being commonly used to describe cattle, is a term that only refers to female adults. Cow is also used to describe female adults of a number of other large mammals. This point was debated on the Agriculture Talk Page.
Add conditional statement that displays either:
Bos primigenius taurus, more commonly bos taurus; OR
Bos primigenius indicus, more commonly bos indicus; OR
Bos primigenius taurus/indicus hybrid, more commonly bos taurus/indicus hybrid,
in the bottom cell of the Infobox immediately below
Cattle. The reason is that there are two distinct types of cattle, namely bos (primigenius) taurus adapted to temperate climates, and bos (primigenius) indicus, which are generally humped and adapted to hot climates. Over the past few decades, taurus/indicus hybrids have been developed which combine key features of both cattle forms.
My initial attempt at inserting a conditional statement into the template failed, so will look at in slower time - as time permits.
I agree with your rationale for renaming; and have done so. I'm not convinced (knowing little about cattle other than how I like them cooked, I'm keeping an open mind) about the species names because our article on
cattle, to which those other binomials currently redirect, has them as synonyms. Perhaps consensus on usage should be arrived at there, first? also, given that
other species and hybrids exist, perhaps an editable parameter, with a default value of Bos primigenius, would be best? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Andy's talk;
Andy's edits10:58, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
OK on the renaming of the cattle template - thanks Andy. I'll need to re-read and consult on the subject of naming taurus and indicus. Last year I spoke with an animal scientist who said that there was a proposal to have b.p. taurus and b.p. indicus declared (and presumably renamed) as different species! I'm not sure how, or if, this has been resolved, or what the rationale was. I won't do anything on this until it is resolved satisfactorily.
Aussiefrank (
talk)
00:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)reply
There seems to be some consensus, and some inconsistencies!
1. Bos primigenius (
http://www.uniprot.org/taxonomy/9909) does not appear to be a valid and consistent descriptor for cattle, but is valid when referring to the ancestor of modern cattle, namely
Aurochs. It is not commonly used as a species' descriptor for cattle. Also see article on
Bos which refers to usage of Bos primigenius for
Aurochs, Bos taurus for
cattle, and Bos indicus for
Zebu. The
Bos article contradicts the
cattle article. The former restricts the term Bos taurus to cattle, while the latter refers to both Bos indicus and Bos taurus as cattle. I agree with the latter interpretation, which is common usage among Australian cattle breeders, and presumably other English speaking cattle breeders.
2. Analysis of Bos indicus, Bos taurus, and Aurochs DNA indicates that modern cattle are domesticated forms of two lines of
Aurochs that diverged 1 - 2 million years ago; see for example article on analysis of mtDNA (
http://www.cob.lu.se/phylogeny/AxelJanke/papers/54Hiendleder.pdf). Domestication that produced Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle occurred independently 8,000 - 10,000 years ago. See article on
Aurochs.
3.
Bos indicus and Bos taurus are now generally considered to be
subspecies, in particular because they can interbreed and produce fertile males and females. A proposal was made (
http://www.cob.lu.se/phylogeny/AxelJanke/papers/54Hiendleder.pdf) to identify them respectively as Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius taurus, which increasingly appears to be how they are referred to; see for example the article on
cattle.
4. However, adoption of the names Bos primigenius indicus and Bos primigenius taurus does not yet appear to have been formally adopted. Following the convention described in the article on
subspecies, the proposal is to refer to the different subspecies as Bos (primigenius) indicus and Bos (primigenius) taurus, where relevant a hybrid of the two, and to delete the current Infobox cattle template reference to Bos primigenius.
I have added the specification 'Height (withers)' to the infobox and used it in the article
Yakutian cattle. The article
Withers states that ″in horses and dogs it is the standard place to measure the animal's height (in contrast, cattle are normally measured to the top of the hips).″ I have never encountered such a measurement. A quick, statistically not significant survey of cattle breeds in en:WP revealed that most cattle articles to not give any height, but the ones I found that did (
Belgian Red cattle,
Jutland cattle,
Limia Cattle,
Pajuna,
White Park) use height at withers/shoulder. Maybe this is used differently in the US (at hips) and Europe (at withers)? If 'Height (hips)' is deemed necessary, it may be added independently as a further specification, and then either specification used as required.
Roberta jr. (
talk)
12:20, 3 July 2013 (UTC)reply