Talk:Bison

There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia.

The rationale behind the request is: "Important".

Buffalo vs. bear[edit]

Disregard

– Rampant speculation with no sources.

The "brown bear" wikipedia page says that a brown bear can kill a buffalo in "a single blow". I personally have been having a year long argument with my wife that buffalo are, clearly, more dangerous then bears. I would like input.

In my oppion buffalo could easily kill a bear or at least escape it. Even though Bears have a good amount of spead, a buffalo could easily get away. A Buffalo would easily outsize a Bear. Dragonrider27 (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However for some younger buffalo, even a wolf or lynx could bring them down Dragonrider27 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that a grizzly could bring down an older adult who was a little more feeble.Dragonrider27 (talk) 17:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

Resolved

– No consensus for suggested page move after over 7 years.

There does not appear to be a page for the genus Bison. Would it not be better to move this page to Bison (disambiguation) and then make this the genus page? — Pekinensis 04:21, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not the Bison genus article? — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

polar bear vs cat — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.217.176.87 (talk) 10:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with African Buffalo[edit]

Disregard

– Invalid proposal.

Can we merge this with African Buffalo66.97.206.81 16:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're completely different animals, so doing that would violate policy (1 subject per article). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:47, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bison vs. buffalo?[edit]

Resolved

– Articles are clearer now.

Quote from article: "Bison are distinct from buffalo." Could somebody explain why, other than they haven't been domesticated?

Here's some research I've done:

[1] says, "There is no difference. Bison is the scientific name and it's really bison-bison; but we all know the common name as buffalo. It's sort of like comparing canine to dog, or feline to cat (does that make sense?)."
[2] Frank says, "Technically, a bison (Bison bison) is the type of hebivorous hoofed animal of the Bovine family found in the US, Europe and a few other areas but a buffalo is anatomically different. Bison have a well developed hump over the sholders but bufflao lack that. Bison have fairly thick coats but buffalo Bubalus bubalus) have little hair (except as juveniles) and either take mud baths or dust baths to protect their skin from sun burn. Bison horns are relatively small compared to buffalo that can reach five feet or more from tip to tip. Most buffalo can be domesticated (except for the Cape Buffalo of Southern Africa which is a very dangerous animal) but bison do not even tame well."

Some other questions I have: Why is this difference important? To show you're more educated or have studied biology? Is this prescriptive vocabulary - similar to trying to teach people the difference between "among" and "between" when the difference is not really important?

--Dblomgren 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're completely different types of animal. North Amerians just frequently misapply the term "buffalo" to bison. We don't "all" do that; Europeans know the difference. Anyway, this and related articles make the difference clearer now. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:50, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Different genus even. This is an encyclopedia and people come here for definitions. Kortoso (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalized "Bison"[edit]

Resolved

– Fixed. MOS says don't do this except when it's italicized in a scientific name.

Does the word "bison" really need to be capitalized? I know it's a genus thing, but when I'm reading about bison, I'm reading about the animal, not the genus. I'm going to look up "cat" and if it's capitalized, I'm going to have kittens! --Dblomgren 05:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found this Wikipage [3] that basically says there's no standard policy on capitalizaton of common species names. I'm going to be bold and uncapitalize the word bison. If anyone objects, let me know. --DBlomgren 03:51, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See MOS:LIFE. It should only ever be capitalized when it is also italicized as a specific reference to the genus, as such, in taxonomy. When less formally speaking of the general type of animals we call bison (and which often get miscalled "buffalo" in North American English), do not capitalized. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:37, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Migration[edit]

Disregard

– No sources cited.

Bison migrate from Aug. to Sept.

Colorado reintroduction confusing[edit]

Resolved

– Moot. Not such passage remains in article. See American bison for where that info belongs anyway.

On March 16, 2007, 15 American bison were re-introduced to Colorado to roam where they did over a century ago. A herd of 15 bison has been established in the 17,000-acre (69 km²) Rocky Mountain Arsenal National Wildlife Refuge, a former chemical weapons manufacturing site.

This is confusing... does each sentence refer to the same herd or to a different one? -Rolypolyman 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Bison[edit]

Somebody vandalized Indian Bison as 'Indian Buffalo' and Mr John Hill deleted the Image without any discussion. This is again vandalism. One should not delete unless he is an expert and it should not be done without discussion. Here it is important to know that Indian Bison is the species Bos gauraus, locally known as Gaur. It is not buffalo. It is the Indian Bison. Hence the Image again added to the article. --burdak 03:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why I moved the image of the so-called "Indian Bison": It seems that Mr. Burdak has not read the article on bison from which I moved the image. It very clearly says: "Bison is a taxonomic group containing six species of large even-toed ungulates within the subfamily Bovinae. Only two of these species still exist: the American Bison (B. bison) and the European Bison, or wisent (B. bonasus)."

In fact the article on Bison states very clearly: "The gaur, a large, thick-coated ox found in Asia, is also known as the Indian Bison, although it is in the genus Bos and thus not a true bison."

This means that, even though the Gaur is sometimes referred to as the "Indian Bison" - this is an incorrect naming (rather like the American Bison being called a Buffalo - which it is not). So, it should not be pictured on the bison page.

I will, therefore, move this image once again - to its proper place in the article on the Gaur (Bos gaurus). John Hill 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Query - do bison really get up front end first?[edit]

When I lived in southern Alberta in the early 1970s, the dairy farmer I was renting from said all his cows were deliberately bred to be one sixteenth "buffalo" (read "bison) as this gave them the great advantage of standing up front end first rather than rear end first (as domestic cattle do). This meant that the cross-bred cattle did not smother in snow drifts - an important advantage in Alberta. He also said that this did not work if they were less than one sixteenth "buffalo" and, if they were more than one than one sixteenth buffalo they didn't give as much milk.

I have no idea if this is true or not. Can anyone please confirm or deny this for me (with references if possible)? Many thanks, John Hill 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does seem that bison get up front end first. I found a paper about this: Lidfors, L, (1989) "The use of getting up and lying down movements in the evaluation of cattle environments", Veterinary Research Communications, Volume 13, Number 4, 307-324. The body of this paper is locked to the non-paying public, but Google can see the text and I've managed to extract this quote: "However, there are two bovid species, yak (Bos grunniens) and visent (Bison bonasus), which diverge from this pattern and get up via the sitting posture...". It only mentions European bison (wisent or "visent"), but your anecdote suggests that it applies to American bison too.

Was your farmer definitely a dairy farmer, or a beef farmer? Bison are sometimes crossed with cattle for beef, but I've never heard of it for dairy, and it would be unusual for dairy cattle to be out in the snow; I'd have thought that one sixteenth bison would depress milk yields quite a bit. I'm also not convinced that cattle suffocate in the snow from getting up rear end first, as they'd just dip their faces in for a moment. More likely they have shorter fur and need better forage and so are just less hardy.

It is very curious indeed that such closely related animals as yak, cattle and bison should get up differently (cattle are close enough to both to interbreed). I wonder if it is to do with the relative weight of the front and rear ends? Cattle rock forwards onto their knees, then stand up their hind legs, then rock back onto the hind legs and stand up the front ones; it's done with quite a bit of coordination, and if they get it wrong they go back down. Perhaps if bison or yak did it this way, their much heavier heads would rock them over forwards onto their noses, or they would not be able to rock back onto their hind legs enough to stand up the front ones. With a relatively heavy head, they can stand up the front legs, then rock over them to stand up the hind ones. Horses also get up front end first, and although their heads are not that heavy, they have much longer necks in proportion than cattle so they balance further forward. They first sit up like a dog, then push up with their hind legs.

I wonder about other heavy-fronted animals such as rhinos, giraffes and musk oxen? And what about other cattle such as water buffalo, never mind deer, antelope and other hoofed animals? I shall be watching wildlife films even more closely from now on... Richard New Forest (talk) 19:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, the article says nothing about this one way or the other. PS: Bison are used for dairy as well as meat, at least in N. America. "Buffalo" mozzarella is common enough that some pizza places use it. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Buffal" mozzerella is made from water buffalo milk, not bison! --Maxl (talk) 19:52, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Habitat[edit]

What is the bison's Habitat? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.232.18 (talk) 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This definetely needs to be added as it is very important. I'll do some research, see what i can find. 91.135.10.170 (talk) 17:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It varies by species and ecotype. This is one of many reasons this article needs to be redone in summary style, drawing salient facts from the better-developed articles on the actual species and ecotypes. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:40, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Low importance?[edit]

Disregard

– Wrong article to raise this complaint at.

The American bison was, 200 years ago, the most numerous large land animal that ever lived and the most important animal for th subsistence of native Americans and Europeans on the Great Plains. I would rate the importance of a good article on bison of high importance -- not low importance as the mammal group has done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smallchief (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the American bison article; it's an overview of bison generally and needs to be redone in summary style. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite in summary style[edit]

This article, a summary of bison generally, needs to be rewritten in WP:SUMMARY style. It is almost completely redundant with European bison, American bison and narrower subtopics of both of those. As a summarized overview, it could easily fit in 2 screenfulls, and should. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ɖ^⊝כ^⊙þ Contrib. 02:43, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... I want to try and address that as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The American Bison is also commonly referred to as the American Buffalo, not to be confused with the European Water Buffalo. To only refer the the European variety as a buffalo is not accurate and confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.168.206.192 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

True Buffalo[edit]

Why does true buffalo redirect to African buffalo, are water buffaloes true buffaloes? 202.123.130.53 (talk) 02:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have just had the same concern. What is a "true buffalo"?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Water buffaloes are the source of the term "buffalo". They are known to classical antiquity. African "Cape" buffaloes were discovered by Europeans much later, and of course bison=buffalo is a misnomer.

Let's go with the buffalo genus Bubalus and let them sort out the different buffalo species from there, what do you think? Kortoso (talk) 17:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BISON[edit]

The most respectful use of the word Bison ? North Dakota State Bison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.220.249 (talk) 07:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good swimmers?[edit]

The second sentence in the description says that they are "good swimmers". I am sure that is true, but they are not generally to be thought of as an aquatic species. I'm afraid this sentence's placement may be painting the wrong picture. Kortoso (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First paragraph under description lacks cohesion[edit]

The first paragraph under description is all over the place. It starts be discussing size, without actually giving any hard numbers, it simply states that they are large, then ubruptly moves onto swimming ability before then discussing the tendency for male bison to leave and find their own herd. Finally, the paragraph brielfly explores their mating habits and endangered status.

The paragraph lacks cohesion. The ideas do not flow and are largely unrelated to one another.--96.51.65.38 (talk) 16:42, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--I added a short physical description, with approximate sizes based on the seperate articles for american and european bison 2A00:23C4:9F27:3C01:39BC:5787:23E7:7AE8 (talk) 00:00, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dangerous[edit]

The claim about the bison says it's more dangerous than the grizzly bear but less dangerous than the american brown bear. That's a pretty good trick considering they are the same species. Obviously, the source of this silly claim isn't reliable, and the line should be rewritten to reflect the facts.40.142.177.101 (talk) 03:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing isn't clear, and I'm rather inclined to remove the sentence. However, it does say the "Alaska brown bear" [sic], not the American brown bear, and that and the grizzly are different subspecies. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:34, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi both. In animal behaviour terms, the sentence is almost nonsense. Many animals can become extremely dangerous, but this depends on context. I have been bold and removed it completely, but happy to discuss. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:03, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think you made the right decision. And yeah—it is nonsense. Which is more dangerous? Whichever one is chasing you at the moment. Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 04:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and who can run faster, you or the person you are with! ;-) DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:59, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent research on bison migration to North America[edit]

I'm not remotely a biologist, but given the recent genomic testing and date estimates of migration of American bison progenitors to North America, I did what I could with adding the news article and the study, and removing the disproven earlier dates of the arrival on the continent. I hope someone better equipped with the appropriate background could polish my edits and add pertinent information, if appropriate. Activist (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rivertorch: Thanks to editor Rivertorch for addressing those issues with which I was less able to deal. Activist (talk) 06:16, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. Just did a copyedit, more or less. I'm no biologist, either.

Rivertorch^FIRE _WATER 06:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bison. 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:

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) 03:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bison. 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/20130603204741/http://www.utah.com/schmerker/1999/bison.htm to http://www.utah.com/schmerker/1999/bison.htm

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) 06:33, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bison/Bos[edit]

Apparently new genetic studies have led some scientists to conclude that Bison is a junior synonym of Bos, and bison should be reclassified as Bos bison and B. bonasus (see Bovina). Perhaps this should be mentioned in this article as well. 216.255.171.122 (talk) 21:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science[edit]

In which state or country we can find bison class 7 science ch 3 fibre to fabrik 2409:4065:E1E:31E9:CC89:7362:1669:CB3F (talk) 06:31, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bos/Bison[edit]

Please see Talk:American_bison#Genus for the question of whether the taxonomy should be revised by placing the species into genus Bos. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:47, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tabs misaligned[edit]

The tabs have been misaligned in this article, making it look sloppy and unprofessional in my opinion. Xboxsponge15 (talk) 18:52, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How do you mean? - UtherSRG (talk) 23:32, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Human Impact[edit]

Quote from page3 & page 4 of History of Gove County, Kansas; W.P. Harrington; 47 pages; 1917.

There is a story that the legislature of Texas once had up for consideration a bill for the protection of the buffalo. General Phil Sheridan, then commanding the army on the frontier, appeared before the legislature and spoke against the bill. He said in substance "We have got to get rid of the buffalo before we can get rid of the Indian. As long as the buffalo exist the Indian can live and we can't conquer him. When the buffalo in gone we can starve the Indian out."

• Sbmeirow • Talk • 03:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]