Talk:American red fox

Bad English in article
This article is very poorly written; it seems either hastily translated from another language or written by someone not fluent in English. I'm marking it Cleanup for now. Ianthegecko (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

English fixed Nice2835 (talk) 18:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Introductory paragraph had two sentences indicating that American and Eurasian Red Foxes were once considered to be separate species. I removed the second sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.206.175.118 (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Revamping article
I just reinstated the page Vulpes fulva because Castello (2018) has followed Statham et al. (2014) in treating North American red foxes as a separate species from the Old World red foxes based on DNA analysis suggesting that V. fulva DNA haplotypes have been isolated from Eurasian V. vulpes haplotypes for 400,000 years. Therefore, it would be prudent to incorporate these references into the article.

Sources:

Castello, Jose, 2018. Canids of the World. Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ.

Statham, Mark J.; Murdoch, James; Janecka, Jan; Aubry, Keith B.; Edwards, Ceiridwen J.; Soulsbury, Carl D.; Berry, Oliver; Wang, Zhenghuan; et al. (2014). "Range-wide multilocus phylogeography of the red fox reveals ancient continental divergence, minimal genomic exchange and distinct demographic histories". Molecular Ecology. 23 (19): 4813–4830. doi:10.1111/mec.12898. PMID 25212210.68.4.252.105 (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Proposed merge
It has been suggested that Vulpes fulva be merged into this article. Vulpes fulva has been considered at different times as either a separate species or a subspecies of Vulpes vulpes. It goes by the common name "Eastern American red fox" or simply "American red fox". Lithopsian (talk) 17:30, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


 * If it is the same species then yes it should be merged, but if not then it should have its own stand alone article. What is the current scientific consensus? Hughesdarren (talk) 10:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Either way, only one article should exist. This one takes the view that it is a separate species, and that it is a subspecies, but both are only about the same subset of North American red foxes. Having two articles staking contrary positions can’t stand. 66.108.18.196 (talk) 06:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Is the revert to my edit justified?
Correct me if I am wrong, but the manual of style says that only one English variety is needed (MOS:ARTCON), and since this article, using American English for words other than "colour" instead of "color", discusses an animal native to North America, can't it use one variety (also keeping the topic with strong national ties in mind, according to the same section)? I know the differences between British and American English, but is the revert to my edit justified? CarCrazedAlex586 (talk) 10:40, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies,. You are indeed correct. I've added a tag to the article to help prevent this kind of confusion in the future. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Intro paragraph conflicts with first section (re: native status)?
The intro paragraph ends with "This subspecies is most likely the ancestor of the domesticated silver fox." The following section then spends three convincing paragraphs explaining why this is likely not the case. It seems like the intro paragraph should be changed to reflect the "North American colonization and native status" section? Chconnor (talk) 23:26, 21 November 2023 (UTC)