Talk:Bat/Archive 2

Collective noun for bats
What is it? I think it should be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashpotter (talk • contribs) 17:27, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It doesn't really seem to warrant mentioning and was easily found with a google search. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Chiroptera etymology
Giving the etymology when the grecolatin term is first mentioned is standard. See, for example, carnivora and perissodactyla. Please do not move this relevant information to an inelegant box following no standard formatting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medeis (talk • contribs) 01:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Vertebrates?
The section http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat#Vertebrates talks about bats not being vertebrates. Aren't all mammals vertebrates by definition? Dennis Brown (talk) 17:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to say that they're not considered carnivores; of course they are vertebrates. I changed it. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 18:36, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't quite ready to get bold with it. Ran across the error while working on List of nocturnal animals  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually it's supposed to say that most bats don't eat vertebrates. The title of each subsection in the 'Feeding and diet' section refers to a type of diet, so in this case the diet is other vertebrates. I'm going to change the wording about carnivores, as this is incorrect since many bats are insectivores. -- Fyrefly (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Bats eat vertebrates, like frogs, fish and small mammals.

Wrong sonogram or wrong description
The sonogram (and sound file attached) DOES NOT show approach and terminal phase of echolocation calls (i.e. structure of echolocation calls at the moment when bat approaches and captures its prey)! Only the first call is, in fact, echolocation signal, the remaining sounds - these four calls arranged into a trill - are element of the SOCIAL CALL, in this case advertisement call used by territorial pipistrelle male to attract females (function similar to bird song). Could anybody, more proficient in English (and being bat specialist) fix this problem?83.25.154.223 (talk) 16:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

O.K., I fixed it by myself83.25.161.223 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Should this be a new Section? possibly a New article?
How exactly did bats evolve? from small gliding rodent like mammals? has no evidence been found?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The section for this is called 'Classification and evolution'. It's the very first section of the article. -- Fyrefly (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article on order Laurasiatheria states that DNA analysis puts bats in the same group with hippos and dolphins, would this fill the "citation needed" qualification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.88.5.252 (talk) 11:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually no, other Wikipedia articles are not acceptable as sources. However, if that article gives a source for the information (which it should), then we could use the same source in this article. I actually don't see the "citation needed" tag that you're referring to though. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

REQ: Punc Fix
Could somebody please fix the punctuation in the following: "However, they are not directly related to rodents, and much less to birds, and do not in fact have any closely related orders (their uniqueness can be demonstrated by the fact that their closest living genetic relatives are thought to be carnivorans, certain hoofed animals, such as alpacas and hippopotamuses, and sea mammals, such as dolphins.)" The period should be outside the closing parenthesis in this case: "However, they are not directly related to rodents, and much less to birds, and do not in fact have any closely related orders (their uniqueness can be demonstrated by the fact that their closest living genetic relatives are thought to be carnivorans, certain hoofed animals, such as alpacas and hippopotamuses, and sea mammals, such as dolphins)." Alternatively (and perhaps arguably better), the phrase inside the parentheses should really be a separate sentence: "However, they are not directly related to rodents, and much less to birds, and do not in fact have any closely related orders. Their uniqueness can be demonstrated by the fact that their closest living genetic relatives are thought to be carnivorans, certain hoofed animals, such as alpacas and hippopotamuses, and sea mammals, such as dolphins." -- 108.68.83.82
 * As far as I can tell, this article is not protected in any way, so you can feel free to make any constructive changes that you want. -- Fyrefly (talk) 16:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Parasite
The article says: "...the vampire bats being the only parasitic mammalian species." Is this true? I thought they feed off various species while a parasite depends on one host. Borock (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I corrected it, after reading the various articles. Borock (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Airborne rabies
To my recollection, the only cases where it was suspected that rabies was contracted via an aerosolized virus was after the victims were in bat caves, where they may have been bitten. I feel that this should be pointed out, as the current format suggests that one could potentially contract rabies simply by being in the same area as a bat, which is unlikely to be true in open-air situations. God knows the little guys don't need any extra bad press! Does anyone have more concrete/recent info on the matter? Arkhetypon (talk) 03:56, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Flight
I think there should be more information on bat flight and how it compares and contrasts with bird flight. --72.196.105.71 (talk) 05:33, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Tomb bat
The bat article at present makes no reference to tomb bats, yet there exist several - including 9 on Wikipedia:
 * Mauritian tomb bat
 * Egyptian tomb bat
 * Naked-rumped tomb bat
 * Black-bearded tomb bat
 * Hamilton's tomb bat
 * Long-winged tomb bat
 * Hill's Tomb Bat
 * Sharp-Nosed Tomb Bat
 * Arnham Tomb Bat

So, I propose at least one of:
 * a new article tomb bat (wp:dab page possibly)
 * a new article list of tomb bats
 * a new section somewhere in bat, linking to the above 9.

Does anybody agree (or fancy doing it even?) or have alternative thoughts? Cheers, Trafford09 (talk) 13:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

HOLD FIRE - I've found something already ... back soon ... Trafford09 (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, forget all the above. It transpires that tomb bats are listed under the Taphozous article. Hence, I've now created a page tomb bat which redirects to there, and will prevent other users making my mistake. Trafford09 (talk) 13:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Videos

 * Hi again. Please don't add items that you were personally involved with creating. It is considered bad form. Dawnseeker2000   05:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Looking for someone to nominate this article for GA status
Does anyone else think this article is up to GA status?--Bigpoliticsfan (talk) 00:52, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks close. However, Classification and evolution needs to be reorganized and split into a few subsections; and there are still several tags. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

affa
ha — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.255.146.19 (talk) 18:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Incongruity with the Megabat article
There seems to be an incongruity between this item and the Megabat item. From this item:

"Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group."

However, the Megabat page contains this:

"Bats are usually thought to belong to one of two monophyletic groups, a view that is reflected in their classification into two suborders (Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera)."

I really do not know anything about bats. But it strikes me that these two entries are at odds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.160.244.8 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Origin of "bat"?
The article discusses the word for "bat " in other languages but doesn't discuss the origin of the English word "bat" itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

White Nose Syndrome
In this diff, User:‎Shadowkittie5460 added a paragraph of extra information about recent research into White Nose Syndrome. While this looks good, and is cited, I wonder whether this much information belongs in a section in the general Bat article, when we have a separate article on White Nose Syndrome linked at the top of the section.

Thoughts? Skittle (talk) 14:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Microbats and vision
The existing information seems to suggest that microbats don't use vision, but this isn't true. Microbats probably use vision for navigation and some species of microbats have been reported to not use echolocation even during foraging on bright nights. Here are two sources of info:

https://gupea.ub.gu.se/bitstream/2077/15889/1/gupea_2077_15889_1.pdf http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0006390 --CSJordan (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Mythology, Aztec.
"A gigantic, life-size, ceramic bat-man was dug up..." What does "gigantic, life-size" mean? Also no citation is given.66.249.82.182 (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I have added a citation and removed the word gigantic. Sarahj2107 (talk) 15:30, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

⦁	24 bones in the rib cage ⦁	26 bones in both feet ⦁	22 bones in your skull ⦁	33 bones in your spine ⦁	3 bones in your ear ⦁	2 bones in your jaw if we didnt have them we would be like jelly but not azacly like jelly ≥dbmv.kfbn vn .b bn  b ,v  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.148.55 (talk) 10:56, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Expansion of Anatomy section
Hello,

The anatomy section of the page needs some expansion. There are many bat adaptations and anatomical features, such as the lung adaptations necessary for flight and changes to the vestibular system for balance, that are unique among mammals and should be on the page. Can we open up the page briefly to help expand this section?

Thanks! CCevol2015 (talk) 20:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)Keaton

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2016
Article states that bats are the "second largest order of mammals", which makes no sense. I think someone vandalised the word "largest" when it's actually "smallest".

Castochi (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC) This is totally correct. We are not talking about the size of bats, but the number of species of bat in the order Chiroptera. The chart to the right shows the number of species in each order of mammals - Rodents (light blue) make up about 42% while Chiroptera (bats) are in red and make up 20% -so bats are the second largest order of mammals. - Arjayay (talk) 09:04, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ - The statement is "Bats are the second largest order of mammals (after the rodents), representing about 20% of all classified mammal species worldwide"

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Bat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for www.batcon.org/

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Etymology of "Bat"?
The article spend quite a stretch on other languages' words for the bat but gives no explanation of why they are called "bat" in English.--23.119.204.117 (talk) 10:29, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and the etymonline reference is itself obscure. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Bats Infestation
If you have Bats in your house/living area, it is a known home remedy that bats are attracted to dairy ie. Milk, cheese, fromage. Leaving a plate of dairy product outside your house will draw the bats out from there hiding place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:4EA2:5200:3489:CA82:8306:317E (talk) 09:59, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Roost Upside Down
Why? Seems there should be a section for that if anyone knows2602:306:CE96:AD70:D902:A224:EAA5:5BEE (talk) 21:54, 21 August 2016 (UTC)BeaMyra
 * I did a quick search of the literature, and it appears that nobody knows why. Still, it might be worth saying that in the article. RockMagnetist(talk) 15:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a difficult behavior to systematically study, and I found no specific analysis of upside-down roosting (UDR), but there are "educated" interpretations/speculations based mainly on anatomy, metabolism and thermoregulation:

As much of this is conjecture without secondary sources, it's difficult to envision a section supported by WP:SECONDARY references for a section on UDR. --Zefr (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * their leg bones have evolved to be small as an adaptation for improved flying mechanics. UDR avoids the strain of standing on such short legs
 * further, there are adaptive tendons in bat feet that make UDR easy and metabolically conservative
 * for instantaneous flight, UDR enables quick transition, whereas upright roosting may require running on short legs to gain momentum and lift for flying
 * UDR enables more efficient spatial huddling to conserve heat during sleep and hibernation, often in cold temperatures

White-nose syndrome
Under the "Threats" section, it should be added that white-nose recently made the jump to the west coast. This article looks reliable: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/04/killer-bat-fungus-jumps-west-coast

Additionally, in the intro I would emphasize bats' role in aiding farmers, perhaps an estimate of how much money is saved by using fewer pesticides?

Mjb2952 (talk) 20:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016
--FY 211 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

FY 211 (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC) 'BATS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST ORDER OF MAMALLS (after the rodents), REPRESENTNG ABOUT 20% OF ALL CLASSIFFIED MAMALLS SPECIES WORLDWIDE, WITH ABOUTt 1,240 BATSPECIES DIVIDED INTO TWO SUBORDERS:THE LESS SPECIALIZED AND LARGLY FRUIT-EATING megabats, OR FLYING FOXES, AND THE highly specialized and echolocating microbats. About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with thSuperscript text e vampire bats being hematophagous, or feeding on blood.'IN MARATHI BAT IS CALLED AS 'VATVAGHUL' AND IN HINDI IT IS CALLED AS 'BALLA'


 * ❌ we are an English encyclopedia, not an international dictionary, translating the article title into every language, and you have cited no reliable source, even if we were. - Arjayay (talk) 07:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016
FY 211 (talk) 07:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC) BATS ARE THE SECOND LARGEST ORDER OF MAMMALS (after the rodents), REPRESENTING ABOUT 20% OF ALL CLASSIFIED MAMMALS SPECIES WORLDWIDE,WITH ABOUT 1,240 BAT SPECIES DIVIDED INTO TWO SUBORDERS: the less specialized and largely fruit-eating megabats, or flying foxes, and the highly specialized and echolocating microbats. About 70% of bat species are insectivores. Most of the rest are frugivores, or fruit eaters. A few species, such as the fish-eating bat, feed from animals other than insects, with the vampire bats being hematophagous, or feeding on blood.IN MARATHI BAT IS CALLED AS "VATVAGHUL"AND IN HINDI IT IS CALLED AS "BALLA"
 * ❌ - as explained above (edit conflict you repeated your request while I was answering your first request) - Arjayay (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016
Ketakiprasad (talk) 02:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC) BAT ARE MAMMALS.
 * Yes, that is true. I believe the article already mentions that fact. Altamel (talk) 04:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 February 2017
yessir i wanna edit real bat about bats cause i really do like them there bats. amarite? 163.6.189.9 (talk) 16:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ Incoherent request. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017
The sentence in the fossil record subsection "However, a Late Cretaceous tooth from South America resembles that of an early microchiropteran bat." needs a citation. 85.234.92.172 (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Since the sentence was placed there over ten years ago, the source may no longer stand, even if we could identify it. I have therefore deleted it, although, obviously, if anyone can find a citation to support the claim, they're more than welcome to put it back in. Anaxial (talk) 18:03, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bat. 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 http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160523215159/http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.aspx?aid=7047 to http://www.discoverychannel.ca/reports/article.aspx?aid=7047

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

is it really from ancient Greek?
when was the name Cheiroptera created? Was it really "ancient Greek" or was it neoGreek, ie the Greek used by modern scientists? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The words it's made of are from Ancient Greek as the article says, but of course it's a modern coinage. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yinpterochiroptera
The tree used on this page should present Yinpterochiroptera vs. Yangpterochiroptera, not Megachiroptera vs. Microchiroptera. Yinpterochiroptera/Yangpterochiroptera has been accepted by both standard mammalogy textbooks (Vaughan et al., and Feldhamer et al.), and is supported by genomic evidence. (The tree that is currently being used on this page used cytochrome B only.) In addition, the article itself talks about how echolocation likely evolved twice, so the tree used in the article should reflect that. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it's moreover to separate fruit bats from the other bats if anything. The article also says that echolocation evolved once in bats  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Article also says "The first is that laryngeal echolocation evolved twice in bats, once in Yangochiroptera and once in the rhinolophoids." Evidently there's some tidying up to be done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's saying that if bats are paraphyletic, then echolocation evolved on two separate occasions (and it's also saying that that's unlikely)  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Erm, we're writing for a non-Vulcan readership. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the reply. The tree that is being used should be one that supports Yinpterochiroptera and Yangpterochiroptera as clades not Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera.  A quick look at the history indicates that such a tree was formerly being used on this page before it was changed. Bueller 007 (talk) 06:14, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Gameplan

 * and I plan on writing up social/reproductive behavior soon, either this week or next (maybe even tommorrow). I also plan on fixing up the feeding section, maybe some rewrites and source replacements. I feel like the culture section should be a two are three paragraphs summarizing its place in different cultures. I'm not a fan of the current subsections which give undue weight to a few cultures. LittleJerry (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Something went wrong on the wiki - I received a ping for this. You might like to double-check that the two addressees received your message. William Harris •   (talk) •  21:33, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I'll fix references, but I think a lot of them will need to be replaced (which I'll handle). Since you're rewriting Behaviour, I'll just stick to Taxonomy and Anatomy. Also I feel that feeding and anatomy sort of blend, so maybe it should move  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:03, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've now trimmed the Mythology, Bat houses, and Heraldry down to size. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:11, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I ordered a book on bats. I should get it within a few days. LittleJerry (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * In the Behaviour section, I'd say we'd just need a section on migration, hibernation (though that may go in anatomy), and roosting. Also, should we replace the Bat Before the Moon picture with Batman? He is more famous after all, and the way it's positioned the picture's attached to the paragraph on western culture  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * A Batman image requires fair use, which should be used sparingly and only for articles on the subject. I think its better to use the moon image. LittleJerry (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I can't see how such an image could get through FAC. Since the theme of the lamely titled section 'Cultural depictions' is however darkness and death, Goya is easily the most relevant illustration, presaging all the later monsters. For a second image, I'd say the Zapotec god would be best, as it's far older and a powerful figure from a civilization distant in both time and space. The Takashi painting is nice but we don't really want two flying black bats, and it's far tamer than the Goya at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought of the Goya image but didn't like the fact that it had owls too. It might distract from the bats. LittleJerry (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * We're to report on what's out there, not what we'd prefer. Thanks for the edit, by the way. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:48, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * , don't forget for anatomy mention roosting posture and the adaptions related that like why they hang upside down and how they can with no loss in energy. LittleJerry (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you think roosting and all that should go in the Distribution and habitat section?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Not the discussion of the physiology of it. LittleJerry (talk) 01:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Okay, so I got my book in, I will try to find some time to wrtie this week but next week might be better. I hope no ones in a hurry. LittleJerry (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)


 * and, I plan on expanding communication and possibly writing a section on roosting posture and terrestrial locomotion for "Adapation". I think the culture section could use some more information with regards to literature (Silverwing (series)) and popular culture. I checked the Telegraph article and it mentions Dracula but not Batman. Batman is of course important so we should find a source for him. Also, the echolocation section has at least one uncited paragraph. LittleJerry (talk) 00:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * OK. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I’ll have to rewrite most of Echolocation  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:36, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Copyedited. Evolution of echolocation is discussed (slightly differently) in both Phylogeny and Fossil record. Chiswick Chap (talk) 00:39, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we could use a section on the use of bats for science and technology. Also could you write up about the physiology of torpor in bats? LittleJerry (talk) 01:12, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I’ll get started tomorrow  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 03:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Uses? There's plenty of research on bats, specially on echolocation, but not much on uses that I can, er, locate. There was a passing mention in Wired of biomimicry in a quickly-forgotten prototype airport-type scanner (it used sonar imaging, wow). Did you have anything particular in mind? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't sonar technology historically influenced by bat research? Also I heard in a documentary that Da Vinci used bats alot as saw them as more promising subjects for replicating flight than birds. Anyway, I will be busy this week so I won't be able to do major edits. LittleJerry (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, sonar started in WWI and Griffin discovered it in bats in 1938. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, scratch the science section. Chiswick Chap, perhaps you could write about postures (like roosting) and terrestrial locomotion, (a few bat species can crawl). LittleJerry (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

I'll see what I can rustle up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:05, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * and, I'll try to work on communications this weekend. I feel like roosting posture is more than about bones. Bat have a muscular sturcture that allows then to hang without using energy. I also think things related to conservation and human interactions may need to be split. Other than that I think we are almost done. LittleJerry (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It must be bones (and joints/tendons) not muscles, or hanging would continuously consume energy in those muscles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we're almost done., is the torpor section coming along? LittleJerry (talk) 18:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did a few small copyedits and it's about ready to fly, even if the torpor section is a bit ... torpid ... if need be I can find something on that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No need, it's done, but I figure we now need a section on migration  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 01:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Migration is mentioned in the first paragraph of behavior. I suppose it could be expanded but I won't have the time or energy to do major edits this next couple weeks. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So, are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Engvar
Per this old revision ("fibre") I've tagged the article as being in UK English. --John (talk) 23:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Dracula image
Instead of the Aztec god, do we wanna put a picture of Dracula instead? There's two in the public domain File:Bela Lugosi as Dracula, anonymous photograph from 1931, Universal Studios.jpg, and File:Dracula 1958 c.jpg. They're both pretty good  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Why instead? Why can't we have both? Besides, I think the god is a little less biased. Vampire images in popular culture have gotten millions of harmless bats killed. Sumanuil (talk) 04:03, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, we are severely space-limited. I agree that the god is a good image. The bat-as-monster theme is already covered by the Goya aquatint, an excellent illustration from the history of art that long precedes Bram Stoker. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like since Dracula and vampires are much more famous than an Aztec god, it should get more coverage  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 00:42, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

They're famous to Westerners. Not so much the rest of the world. Besides, the statue is ZAPOTEC. If you can't get that straight, I don't think you should be replacing the image. (And like I said, it's not like the deity ever got entire colonies of fruit bats killed with flamethrowers. Dracula and his ilk have. Besides, he turned into a dog in the book. Maybe his picture belongs on that page?)Sumanuil (talk) 04:37, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of Zapotec before right now, and I've asked around and no one else's heard of Zapotec either. Also, we shouldn't avoid a topic because it's had negative consequences. It can be part of the caption or something or the other "the depiction of Dracula has resulted in mass bat killings"   User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * An editor's not having heard about something does not, to my knowledge, form a criterion within Wikipedia policy, and one of the functions of a global encyclopedia is indeed to educate. "Negative consequences" have nothing to do with the image choice. Zapotec provides both a striking image which is exactly on the topic, and given the extremely limited space, also illustrates the many centuries long history and cultural diversity of human responses to, and indeed actual worship of bats. Dracula is recent, western, nothing to do with religion or mythology, and not a bat. At best he has a vague cultural association with dark things of the night, but Goya's fine artwork does that too, in a culturally resonant work from a major painter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:41, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The main point is, its better to have an image of actual bat depictions, rather than a character who is merely associated with bats. LittleJerry (talk) 19:52, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Getting ready for FAC
LittleJerry asked me to take a look at it and I've been through a first pass of the prose without anything serious coming up. I have a slight worry about the two separate but overlapping accounts of the different evolutionary theories. I'd like to see alt text for images (though I know it's no longer a FAC requirement). Anything else? User:Chiswick Chap? --John (talk) 14:10, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about:

Under Phylogeny

The phylogenetic relationships of the different groups of bats have been the subject of much debate. The traditional subdivision into Megachiroptera and Microchiroptera reflected the view that these groups of bats had evolved independently of each other for a long time, from a common ancestor already capable of flight. This hypothesis recognised differences between microbats and megabats and acknowledged that flight has only evolved once in mammals. Most molecular biological evidence supports the view that bats form a single or monophyletic group. In the 1980s, a hypothesis based on morphological evidence stated the Megachiroptera evolved flight separately from the Microchiroptera. The so-called flying primate hypothesis proposed that, when adaptations to flight are removed, the Megachiroptera are allied to primates by anatomical features not shared with Microchiroptera. For example, the brains of megabats have advanced characteristics. Although recent genetic studies strongly support the monophyly of bats, debate continues as to the meaning of the genetic and morphological evidence.

Then under Fossil record we get

The 2003 discovery of an intermediate fossil bat from the 52 million year old Green River Formation, Onychonycteris finneyi, indicates that flight evolved before echolocative abilities. Onychonycteris had claws on all five of its fingers, whereas modern bats have at most two claws appearing on two digits of each hand. It also had longer hind legs and shorter forearms, similar to climbing mammals that hang under branches, such as sloths and gibbons. This palm-sized bat had short, broad wings, suggesting that it could not fly as fast or as far as later bat species. Instead of flapping its wings continuously while flying, Onychonycteris likely alternated between flaps and glides in the air. This suggests that this bat did not fly as much as modern bats, rather flying from tree to tree and spending most of its time climbing or hanging on the branches of trees. The distinctive features noted on the Onychonycteris fossil also support the claim that mammalian flight most likely evolved in arboreal locomotors, rather than terrestrial runners. This model of flight development, commonly known as the "trees-down" theory, implies that bats attained powered flight by taking advantage of height and gravity to drop down on to prey, rather than relying on running speeds fast enough for a ground-level take off

Now, I think I understand this, having read it over three or four times. But is it the best it can be? --John (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not mine, actually, but I can see why the matter has been addressed in separate sections. It might be possible to regroup it but there is logic in the present structure. Regrouping would only be a benefit if it ends up less rather than more contorted. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:15, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * My initial feeling is that splitting it like this is clumsy. I think we could have the evolutionary theories together in one coherent narrative, integrating the fossil-based research with the molecular stuff. I can see why the current approach was chosen, but I don't think it makes for an easy read and it may make an already-complex story harder to understand. --John (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Dunkleosteus77, we may need you for this. LittleJerry (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Morphology (fossil record that is) and phylogeny are two very different things that often tell different things in different ways. I say keep it as is, but if you really want to merge it, I'm not quite too sure how this'd be done with grace. What could be done is have the Phylogeny and Fossil record sections be under a subheading of Evolution, which would be a subheading under Taxonomy, so the two seem more related to each other  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support that, let's have'em both under Evolution (as is not unusual in articles), though not sure that can really come under taxonomy. The topic is unsurprisingly important in bats, so it's entirely reasonable to have more than one take on it in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Philosophically, my feeling is that evolution should come first as it is the phenomenon we are describing. Then should come taxonomy, with its historical fluctuations and various methods, as that is the human effort to analyse and describe it. --John (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * And Dunkleosteus77, I don't disagree with anything that you say. I just think the current model is quite difficult to understand and could potentially be smoothed out. --John (talk) 20:54, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * And a further thought; what sense does it make to have a section called Taxonomy, with a subsection Classification? Taxonomy means classification (incidentally, could anyone fix the irritating template error in the lead of classification (biology)?) . I think what we are describing here is Evolution, perhaps with subsections on the Taxonomy and how it's evolved, and the methods which have been used to elucidate the evolution, and the uncertainties that remain. --John (talk) 21:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like this. --John (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Expect I don't think taxomony can be considered a subset of evolution. Classifying organisms was around before the modern theory of evolution. LittleJerry (talk) 23:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I did both History and Philosophy of Science as part of my degree, and I could have an interesting discussion with you there, but I won't for now. I think this opens up a better flow, though it's still not perfect. I think it's a lot better. --John (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * So are there any other problems? LittleJerry (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Does anyone else think the Distribution section is a little lacking? I'm not sure by what specifically given it's got its hands in a lot of subjects. I see it touching upon the Behaviour section and the Interactions section and there's a little bit of overlap with Adaptations. In fact, the only part that isn't delved into elsewhere is the second sentence and the first part of the third sentence, so maybe if it can't be expanded it can be merged into somewhere else. Also, biological systems; as of now there's circulatory, but there's a lot more than that in a bat. The section on White nose syndrome could be expanded with info on how it spreads and what's being done to combat it. The first paragraph of the Behaviour section just seems like a collection of random trivia (it starts with activity, then migration, then hibernation, then flying in the rain, then agility on the ground). Why is Threats a subsection of Conservation, and why aren't they both subheadings of the Interactions section?  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I've sorted out the Conservation and Threats section - the latter was not bad where it was, as it contained both human-related and natural threats, but I've divided it for you.

Disease coverage
A separate issue that we'd be picked up on is the pair of Diseases sections, very different indeed, but still a bit untidy. Ideas? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * In the Parasites section I don't see how the second and third sentences relate back to bats, and I feel White nose syndrome and Parasites should be merged under Diseases. Also there's a lot of articles discussing what hunts bats, but I'm not sure which're entirely notable for this article, but it's worth a look (like this). The rest kinda say the usual owls and snakes and so forth, I wonder if those are entirely relevant for specific examples. As for parasites there's this and this and for some reason there's Category:Parasites of bats which may be worth a look <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 16:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Well, people rarely call fleas, bugs and lice "diseases". The current disease section is about transmission to humans, so we can't put white nose there either. I'm all for having a general diseases section but was wondering about the overlap. Raptors are a definite threat to bats, as are the tropical snakes which have a remarkable set of bat-hunting behaviours, not like anything else in the animal kingdom, so these items are more than well justified. I've reworded the end of 'Parasites' to make the meaning clearer, it certainly pertains to bats. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right yeah but I was wondering if it'd relevant to add specific examples from certain bat species or not (like what snake species A does against bat species B) <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 23:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that is too specific for this article. Personally, I don't think we should have a section on predators of bats. Bats may be preyed on by anything that's bigger than them which is a whole lot of animals. We didn't have one for rodents, and we shouldn't. LittleJerry (talk) 04:22, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * seems relevant enough to at the very least keep it as is, people’d wanna know what generally hunts bats <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * We frequently (usually?) have a "Predators, parasites and diseases" section in natural history articles whether on groups or individual species, actually. The organisms that have major ecological relationships with a group are clearly relevant to it, as Dunkleosteus77 says. I can't see the benefit of naming such a section "Mortality" which would imply actuarial talk of rates of death from various conditions, which we aren't attempting to do here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Chiswick Chap it doesn't make sense to have a section called "Predators, parasites and diseases" and then have subsections with each of the names. I don't recall making sections this way. Grasshopper has a "Predators, parasites and pathogens" with an "Anti-predator defences" subsection. LittleJerry (talk) 17:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On the principle, I beg to differ, but on the article, it's fine without the subsections as they weren't terribly long. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:40, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Predators, parasites, and diseases" subsection seems to have some overlap with the "Disease transmission" subsection. I propose shortening the former section to "Predators and parasites" (as white nose syndrome is caused by a parasite). If we are to include "diseases" then surely rabies and SARS (caused by viruses which are technically not parasites) would count? LittleJerry (talk) 01:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I asked that question at the head of this section but it was temporarily lost in the lengthy discussion. White Nose Syndrome is undoubtedly a (deadly) disease, so there's no easy 'badge engineering' solution. We have appropriate mentions of disease both in the biology and the humans sections, so handling the overlap is a challenge. We could move the whole Disease transmission text into the biology section: probably best, I'll do it now and we can see what we think of it. I note that Food and feeding, and the PP&D section, are about bat Ecology: PP&D fits poorly into 'Behaviour and life history' so perhaps we should reorganise there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like the paragraphs about them being reservoirs has more to do with transmission to humans more than it has to do with the effects on bats. I say revert it and put those last three paragraphs under Interactions with humans under As a disease reservoir or Disease reservoir <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 15:02, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem with that is that we then have 2 sections on the same theme, and worse we have a section on the impact of certain diseases without coverage anywhere of the fact that bats had and carried those diseases. Better would be to edit the paragraphs to be more about bats. - I've just done this, actually quite a small change, leaving a simple story with a clear focus on bat disease. Hope everyone finds that better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:24, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, we can split up the "Behavior and life history section". LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Adaptations section
I think the "Adaptations" and "Behavior" sections should be split again. The current section is too big. We can rename adaptions as "Anatomy and physiology". LittleJerry (talk) 00:26, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The question is not section size but coherence. Behaviour is certainly an adaptation, and it's actually a short section so splitting it out won't make a lot of difference to the length anyway. I note that in Grasshopper we just called it "Biology" which isn't totally correct either (gold * or no), so the matter crops up repeatedly. "Adaptations" is pretty good overall. Perhaps we should try to standardize on a table of contents for groups. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:49, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I disagree. "Adaptations" is to broad a category. Feeding and diet could also be an "adaption". We tried a general "Biology" section for Octopus and the reviewers asked us to slit them. I'm suggesting we bring back the "Behaviour and life history" which included communications, reproduction and lifespan. LittleJerry (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Eh? You just asked to get rid of it, correctly in my view. There's no particular reason to group those two things. Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I said we could split it up. Which we did when I created the ecology section. Sorry for the confusion. LittleJerry (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I split it up further, if you think "life history" is too general. LittleJerry (talk) 04:42, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I feel like it's getting split a little too much now. I say Behaviour --> [(the two paragraphs about random things) --> Communication --> Breeding --> Rearing --> Lifespan]. Breeding and Rearing could also just be one section Reproduction <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 04:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The 'Anatomy and physiology' just means "Systems" - functional and adaptive systems that necessarily include structures - into which Reproduction fits perfectly. It makes no sense to say (as in an edit comment) that "anatomy desires its own section" - the anatomical structures co-evolved with the physiological functions (such as circulation, reproduction) that they serve. They belong together as working systems, "greater than the sum of their parts". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant that anatomy needs its own section from things like behavior, communication and reproduction which it was looped in with. The reproduction text deals little with actual systems. Topics like Strategies, Parenting and Timing of mating have more to do with behavior than anatomy. We've done numerous other vertebrae FAs; like Teleost, Crocodilia and Pinniped, were reproduction is separate from anatomy. LittleJerry (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reproductive anatomy, physiology and behaviour are all part of an evolved system. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The reproduction section is not about the actual reproductive system. So we should just loop everything under a hoj poj section? That's not how FA vertebrate article work. I would like to comment. LittleJerry (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Canvassing now, are we. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * John was a copyeditor and made suggestions on how to structure the article with the evolution/taxonomy. He is not an outside party. LittleJerry (talk) 18:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I’m seeing this as having a section under Anatomy labelled as Reproductive systems, and then a separate section under Behaviour labelled as Breeding and rearing or something or the other <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 20:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * , is the copyediting finished? LittleJerry (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. I stood off for a while as it looked like there was major work going on. I will take at least one further look. --John (talk) 18:08, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Anything else need to be done? you mentioned something about the sources. LittleJerry (talk) 03:13, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's a sentence in Classification that isn't explicitly sourced. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:29, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , you may continue. I think your copyedits are all that is needed. LittleJerry (talk) 01:41, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm looking. Could we put into a footnote rather than cluttering the lead? --John (talk) 15:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. LittleJerry (talk) 17:16, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. This relates to this discussion; a lot of articles have grotesque levels of metadata obscuring the lead and this is an example where we can enhance the utility to the reader by moving it to a note. Still looking. --John (talk) 20:24, 8 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The coverage of vision could be streamlined, I think. It's looking good otherwise. --John (talk) 22:07, 8 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, guys are we ready? LittleJerry (talk) 17:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I should think so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:42, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've taken a final pass through it, and (I think) sorted out the apparent contradiction in the Vision section that I highlighted on the 8th. Nothing else leaps out at me. --John (talk) 20:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn’t realize I was co-nominating this for FA, but since I am, I’m gonna expand the Anatomy section to include biological systems <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 22:18, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * , if there is anymore you thin is missing, you should probably wait until a reviewer points it out. Adding any more information will make them feel like we are not ready and delay the review. LittleJerry (talk) 01:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * alright, I'll stop at digestive systems until further notice <span style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva;background:#E6E6FA;border:solid 1px;border-radius:7px;box-shadow:darkblue 0px 3px 3px;"> User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:21, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bat. 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/20131110172458/http://www.oaxacanwoodcarving.com/mythnatr.html to http://www.oaxacanwoodcarving.com/mythnatr.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

"It takes a lot of energy and an efficient circulatory system to work the flight muscles of bats."
Didn't we learn not to write like this in grade school? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:46:200:5671:8046:CF57:2BBC:7FEE (talk) 06:22, 1 June 2018 (UTC)