Talk:Eurasian wildlife

To-do list

• Wildlife locations in Asia and North Africa
• Urban wildlife spotting
• Arctic wildlife; possibly an independent article

Aim of this article

Where is this article intending to go? A list of animals and plants in such of huge area does not make sense. What types of destinations are intended to be covered on this page? --Traveler100 (talk) 22:12, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Compare with African flora and fauna. /Yvwv (talk) 08:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

I think something like Hiking in the Nordic countries#Wildlife makes sense, but there is much work still to do with even that much more specific focus. The Eurasian article could of course instead discuss the different regions and good places for seeing Eurasian wildlife, be it in museums, zoos or the wild, and perhaps characteristic differences between this and other regions. --LPfi (talk) 15:39, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

If this article is intended to cover only the Palearctic Region of Eurasia, isn't it mistitled? There are great wildlife areas in Eurasian countries outside of that region, for example India, Bangladesh, Israel (or is that within the region? When I blow up the map, I guess so) and Indonesia, but none of them are mentioned and this article doesn't seem to be about them. Ikan Kekek (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

The article is intended to describe the Palearctic region. The word Palearctic is however a bit esoteric. Suggestions for renaming are welcome. /Yvwv (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I would use "Wildlife in Palearctic Eurasia". "Palearctic" is defined and explained in the article. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Bear aggressiveness

I removed the sentence "It [the bear] is one of few carnivores which regularly attacks people." Although attacks are not unheard of, only one person has been killed by bear in Finland, with its population of some 1000 bears, in my lifetime: a jogger managing to turn up between a mother and her cubs. Even that killing was deemed to have been by mistake; a claw happened to hit a critical spot. --LPfi (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

New page banner

Current banner

New banner

Made a new banner. What do you think? /Yvwv (talk) 16:17, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

It's more visually interesting. Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I chose the w:Alpine_marmot as an exclusively European mammal. The w:Wild_boar has a very wide range, including Asia (including throughout India) and also north America and Australia.

If we were to change, it should be something unique (or at least mostly unique) to Europe. --Andrewssi2 (talk) 04:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I think Andrewssi2's argument does have weight... Hobbitschuster (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Using the banner for Blekinge instead. /Yvwv (talk) 16:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

But the article covers not just European but Eurasian wildlife, so we should rather choose an animal encountered in Europe and Asia, for instance the Eurasian wolf, the raccoondog, the European hare or why not the Western jackdaw. --ϒpsilon (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Bears again

The last edit by Traveler100 is summarized as "bears are not carnivores". Speaking taxonomically, stricto sensu, yes they are: Phylum Chordata, class Mammalia, order Carnivora, infraorder Arctoidea, family Ursidae. Not that I want to argue about minutiae, but it's a debatable edit. Just for the record. Ibaman (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Most species of bears are considered omnivores, aren't they? I know that grizzly bears eat salmon in spawning season. I don't know what Eurasian bears eat. Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Eurasian brown bears also eat berries and other things that grow in the forest. WP says they may get up to 90% of their energy intake from plants, which sounded surprising to me. This seems to be the case in some parts of North America too. ϒpsilon (talk) 20:36, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) An animal eating meat mostly or exclusively is a carnivore in one sense but does not necessarily fall under the biological category of carnivores. Of course this term was ill-chosen, but it was chosen and now we have to deal with animals that eat meat not being the same as Carnivoria. Sigh. Hobbitschuster (talk) 20:40, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• That's precisely my point. From a nutritional point of view, bears are omnivores and giant pandas are bamboo-vegan; however, from a biological/taxonomical point of view, both are listed in the Carnivora order of the Mammalian class. Which is why the edit is debatable. Ibaman (talk) 20:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)