Talk:North American porcupine

Erethizon dorsatus vs. Erethizon dorsatum

"Report". Integrated Taxonomic Information System. states that Erethizon dorsatus is valid and Erethizon dorsatum is invalid. They say: “Erethizon is a Latin word found to be masculine in standard Latin dictionaries and thus under Art. 30.1.1 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature it is masculine. The specific epithet dorsata (from type species Hystrix dorsata Linnaeus, 1758) would be variable, and with a masculine genus would be dorsatus”.

They are wrong as Erethizon is not a Latin word; it’s Greek (hence 30.1.2, not 30.1.1, should be applied)—an active present participle of ἐρεθίζω “to provoke, irritate”. It could be still masculine as they think (if the o is long: ἐρεθίζων erethizōn, “provoking/irritating [guy]”), while it could be neuter as well (if the o is short: ἐρέθιζον erethizŏn, “provoking/irritating [thing]”). The way I see it, both are potentially valid, and the one used first has priority and since Erethizon is a Greek word ending in -on, by default it should be treated as neuter. As such, I’m just going to add Erethizon dorsatus as a synonym. (I’m just an amateur who happened to notice the above ITIS page and their comment.) — Gyopi (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Both E. dorsata and E. dorsatus have been used in the literature. However E. dorsatum is the most widely used and is also used in recent texts and papers. So while the old synonyms should be noted, the current proper name should remain here. Atrian (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

While their reasoning is flawed (erethizon is not a Latin word), their conclusion is still correct if the combination Erethizon dorsatus is older than Erethizon dorsatum. As a rule, the valid name of a taxon is the oldest available name applied to it (ICZN 23.1), and not more widely used one. Since both E. dorsatus and E. dorsatum are grammatically acceptable (but not E. dorsata), whichever is older will win. The decision between dorsatus and dorsatum will affect subspecific names as well. I agree that we should keep the current names until otherwise proven, though. — Gyopi (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think priority is ever said to govern gender agreement, though the usage of the original author may inform the inference of gender agreement. Instead, the grammatical gender of the genus name is paramount (Article 31.2). I don't know what standard dictionaries ITIS is reading, but Gyopi is right that the word is Greek and neuter. Cuvier's original description (1822) is at [1], and already uses the combination Erethizon dorsatum. Ucucha (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Rafting rodents?

Would it not be more accurate to say that these animals "apparently rafted" or "are believed to have rafted" across an ocean, than to state that it happened as if we had photographic proof of the event? Laodah (talk) 01:45, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that without more evidence of how African porcupines ended up in South America, we should use a less definitive statement, such as adding "apparantly" or "believed". Nutster (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Preditors

Some of the information I was looking for in this article was what can eat the porcupine. All those quills are a very effective defence. The only successful hunters of the porcupine in Canada that I have heard of are the fisher and the puma. Are there others? What about in other regions? Nutster (talk) 03:45, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on North American porcupine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090430043923/http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/smgame/porky.php to http://www.adfg.state.ak.us/pubs/notebook/smgame/porky.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Predators

The article currently states that fishers have two advantages but has a "first" without a "second".Bill (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

questions

Are porcupines digitgrade or plantigrade or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1201:4FB8:10C6:AF49:20CB:638D (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Dubious coloration explanation

"The porcupine, the wolverine, and the skunk are the only North American mammals that have strongly contrasting black-and-white coloration, because they are the only mammals that benefit from letting other animals know where and what they are in the dark of night.[ref name=Roze/]"

This is a pretty wild claim, that only 3 North American mammals have strongly contrasting black-and-white coloration. E.g. badgers, raccoons, opossums, chipmunks, etc, etc. I'm probably going to come back and just wipe that sentence and ref. Ryan (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Porcupine, wolverine and skunk all pose problems for the same larger predators. Badgers and raccoons the same. Same with the wolverine, not yet mentioned. Is it a coincidence they all have similar shading and superficially similar patterns? It is tempting to say not a coincidence, and it might be a commonly-held belief. It is a viable reasoning that may be found to be accurate, but unless there is a peer reviewed scientific paper to refer to that leads to for instance badger pattern clothing to deter bear attacks, it should be removed as speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.136.45 (talk) 19:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)