Talk:Brown bear/Archive 2

Tackling the article
I am a relative newcomer here and I don't know much about how consensus is reached. I think that a lot of useful information is here on these pages, despite my querying feedback I would like to see Clevernames' work incorporated into the pages. Would someone please like to sit down and get this article in order?IceDragon64 18:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

European Article Please
would someone please write an article about the European Brown Bear? I am assuming that this would have been the British bear, before it became extinct? ThanksIceDragon64 16:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Posture?
The section about "normally a solitary animal..." has been put in under Posture. I am a newbie here and seeing that this article is semi-pro I won't meddle, but it needs sorting out.IceDragon64 16:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
Since the body of the article refers to brown bears with that capitalization, why is the title of the article "Brown Bear," rather than "Brown bear?" I feel like this article should be moved to "Brown bear" to correct this inconsistent capitalization. Nik-renshaw (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:MAMMAL, there is no consensus on capitalization, other than "No articles should be moved to 'fix' the capitalization", so it should stay as is. Rgrds. --Tombstone (talk) 12:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Picture
Anyone notice that the picture on the Brown Bear page is not a brown bear? I can't be sure, however it looks like a Grizzly.

Someone want to remove the picture or fix it so it actually *is* a brown bear? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.157.49 (talk) 19:27, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Grizzly bear (Ursus arctos horribilis) is a subspecies of brown bear (Ursus arctos) – so if it is a grizzly it is indeed also a brown bear. --Richard New Forest (talk) 20:18, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Brown bear vs Amur tiger again
I add the following data (according to the given source):

"Scientists report about 12 incidents when tigers were killed and eaten by brown bears (most of which were female and male adult tigers). There is an opinion that the brown bear vs tiger conflict can eliminate the weakest animals from both populations."

The last opinion belongs to Russian scientist Kostoglod (the corresponding reference is not available online). Somebody trying to make a "correction": mostly old and traumatized tigers. Although old and traumatized tigers (as well as brown bears) have better chances to be killed, it's never mentioned that most of tigers were traumatized (and certainly old). This pseudo correction does not fit to the original source I have cited, so I will delete such an input whenever I find it.

Grizzlies are too big and strong for tigers to eat, that is why the small percentage of brown bears that tigers eat are small like the sun bear. They usually cannot overpower a grizzly, which don't even usually coexist with bengal tigers. Wolves vs. grizzly encounters have the grizzlyies win half of the fights but with enough wolves, the wolves will come out on top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.1.57 (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

The extended version is the next one:

Seryodkin, I. V., J. M. Goodrich, A. V. Kostyrya, B. O. Schleyer, E. N. Smirnov, L. L. Kerley, and D. G. Miquelle. 2005. Relationship between tigers, brown bears, and Himalayan black bears. Pages 156-163 in Miquelle, D. G., E. N. Smirnov, and J. M. Goodrich, editors, Tigers of Sikhote-Alin Zapovednik: ecology and conservation. PSP, Vladivostok, Russia. 224 pp. (in Russian) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.152 (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The Mathieson source actually says the opposite from what the passage implies. Page 12 of Mathieson says bears are careful to avoid attempting to drive male tigers off of kills, lest they become prey for these tigers. If someone has an additional source from the Mathieson book, please post it, but I have recently reviewed the book and found only that page 12 passage relating to bear/tiger conflict and it does not say what is implied here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.79.35.227 (talk) 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This passage from the Mathieson book concerns rather Black Asiatic bears or small brown bears, than male adult boars. From special literature it's clear, that tigers do not prey upon male brown bears, lest they become killed or traumatized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.64.77.141 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

See source I have just added here; http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&pg=PA177&dq=tigers+killing+brown+bears&lr=&as_brr=3 If anyone adds bullshit to it, this link will let us know.Mariomassone (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

polar bear competitor of american black bear?
Someone is trying to insert that, since the last glacial age, the polar bear is competing in large prey with the american black bear and the cougar. . However, the Polar bear lives in the Artic Ocean, on the ice plaques, and eats fish and seals. How the hell is he going to be in competition with the other animals, who never go so up to the north, and who don't eat the same animals? In the zones inhabitated by the polar bear there is only ice, and no deers, elks, etc. I request a source for how they can possibly in competition. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Due to extensive vandalism maybe someone should protect this article by proper restriction againts new users and IP's.--  J   onesy22    talk  23:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Carnivore?
The article states that the Kodiak bear is the largest extant terrestrial carnivore. Later it states the species primarily feeds on vegetable matter. The latter statement would make it an omnivore rather than a carnivore. The source for the first statement only says that it is the largest member of the bear family. the second statement is unsourced. Can anyone shed any light on this.--Weetoddid (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a mistake. The Kodiak bear is the largest land predator together with the Polar Bear (Kodiak bear is an omnivore predator, while Polar bear is the same size and is a carnivore predator, so Polar bear is the largest carnivore), but I need to find a good source for that. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's even more confusing than that. Polar bears are carnivores, but are often classified as marine mammals as they spend most of their time on the pack ice.--Weetoddid (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Move?
Brown bear → Brown Bear &mdash;
 * Brown Bear →  — As per MoS. — SlamDiego&#8592;T 10:28, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a vernacular name not a scientific name, so does not require capitalisation. The MOS section you quote gives three exceptional criteria for capitalising a vernacular name, but none of them are met here. Oppose, per MoS. Knepflerle (talk) 11:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed the move tag and struck out the request. What the user originally requested was a move to Brown bear (diff). That move has already been completed. Jafeluv (talk) 18:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That was listed in "uncontroversial requests". It was not uncontroversial. See moves in log for page. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mammals/Archive_5, which ends with "if there's no consensus to stop capitalizing animal names..." Gimmetrow 06:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Map: Western Europe?
The file ZL ursus arctos.png does not show the bear population Spain, in the Pyrenees (Northern Spain/southern France) and the Cantabrian Mountains (Spain), with a population of about 170 bears. It is the only place in western Europe where there is a population of bears. Cheers.--Karljoos (talk) 14:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

King
I think the brown bear should be considered King of the Mountains. There is no other animal in it's range that can come out on top; not the American Black Bear, not the Cougar, not the Gray Wolf, and probably not the Siberian tiger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elephant200 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Average/Top running speed
Can someone list this in the article please. The Black Bear article reports a top speed of 40-50 km/h, but I see no mention of speed in the Brown bear article. Anthiety (talk) 05:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Syrian Brown Bear
I have been informed that the source: "Mammals of the Soviet Union Vol.II Part 1a, SIRENIA AND CARNIVORA (Sea cows; Wolves and Bears), V.G Heptner and N.P Naumov editors, Science Publishers, Inc. USA. 1998. ISBN 1-886106-81-9" Does not say that the Syrian brown Bear exist in Israel, but that it was extinct in Palestine. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 23:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Added section on firearms
I've added a short section on which firearms are considered minimum for defending against a brown bear attack.


 * If the .45 mentioned in the article refers to the standard load .45 Auto, it probably doesn't deliver enough muzzle energy for safety, but the +P load might. Other handgun loads superior to it and generally available include those for .357 Magnum, 10 mm., .40 S&W, .41 and .44 Magnum.  See ballistic chart at waterguy.us for comparisons.Uniquerman (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Biggie Bear
Ok, why does it say tat largest weighed close to 2400 pounds? Here is a source that says that largest weighed OVER 2500+ pounds:

http://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/mysteries/bear.html

and the source is of library of congress research. Could it be edited please.

Also, a book called "Great Bear Almanac" by Garry Brown, a very well known bear expert, mentiones over 2500 pound bear for kodiak and Kamchatka bears. both of course are pretty extremely large individuals, but nevertheless, the largest bears weigh over 2500, not close to 2400 pounds.

Also, here is a picture of 1000 kg (2200 pound) bear (http://www.daylife.com/photo/03Nngke5xR7Vx). To settle the "Oh no, it can't be, bears don't get that large!!!" question finally.


 * The picture doesn't establish its size.Uniquerman (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The only feasible method of weighing an animal that size is a truck scale.Uniquerman (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Misnomer
I would contest that there is no such species as "brown bear". There are grizzlies, distinct by the large hump on their back, of which Kodiak are an enormous example, and there are black bear, some of which come in shades of brown. Brown bear is not a species unto itself. My source is bear training while working with the Montana Conservation Corps and working in the backwoods of the Rockies, now working and living in the Appalachians. I find this site, http://www.bear.org/website/, corroborates my point. 99.66.36.168 (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert, but it seems to be an umbrella term for all "Ursus arctos" subspecies. There is no such thing as an "Ursus arctos" bear, but there is a "Ursus arctos arctos", a "Ursus arctos beringianus", etc. They are listed at Brown_Bear. Maybe we should update the first sentence in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm also not an expert, but my understanding was that the term "Brown Bear" refers to a species of bear (individuals of which are not necessarily brown), and "Black Bear" refers to a different species of bear (individuals of which are not necessarily black). I thought "Grizzly Bear" referred to a subspecies or group of subspecies within "Brown Bear", which is supported by this subpage within the site you linked.  There's a long-standing debate within Wikipedia about whether capital letters should be used to distinguish, for example, "Brown Bears" (members of Ursus arcto) from "brown bears" (bears of any species that are brown in color). Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "brown bear" is the general English name for the species Ursos arctos, which occurs in North America, Europe and Asia, and includes the grizzly, the Kodiak, the Eurasian brown bear and various other subspecies. American Black Bear is another species, Ursus americanus, occurring only in North America, and although it is commonly black it has various other colour varieties including brown. All this is covered in the articles. Richard New Forest (talk) 20:10, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted the statement that adult bears are generally immune from any predation except by Siberian Tigers. Adult bears ARE generally immune from tiger attacks, as the sources provided have shown OCCASIONAL instances of smaller adult bears being attacked in their dens during the winter, where the tiger can take advantage of their depressed and dazed state. I have never seen a source showing a recorded instance where a large adult bear was ever taken by a tiger in normal circumstances. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 09:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if there have been a few instances of tigers taking larger adult bears, it's safe to say that larger adults are GENERALLY immune from tiger predation, though maybe NOT always. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.127.119.2 (talk) 09:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

There is another subspecies, which is no longer considered by many researchers: Ursus arctos marsicanus (Altobello, 1921), the southern italy bear. Maybe you should add it near the Iberian bear? Also could be a valid subspecies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.48.68.66 (talk) 14:09, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the word "sympatric."
The third paragraph of the section on bear attacks begins with the sentence, "Native Americans sympatric to brown bears...". I would have edited the article directly but it is difficult to tell what the author actually meant. Since an integral element of the definition requires "living in proximity without interbreeding", any human could satisfy it. The other essential element, "closely-related species" exempts all humans.Uniquerman (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Except for the occasional hybrid, Ursus arctos and Ursus americanus are sympatric species. They inhabit contiguous territory without interbreeding. "Sympatric speciation" refers to populations that speciated for reasons other than geographic isolation. Most commonly, it is used to describe the confusing and intricate taxonomy of animals like snails, salamanders, birds, fruit flies, and trypanosomes, many closely related species of which demonstrate little morphological variation but do not interbreed even when they inhabit the same territory. If the author of the article could explain what he meant by "sympatric", it would be helpful. Anyone who wants to challenge the source material on "sympatric" or "sympatric speciation", I will be happy to hunt it up and give it out.Uniquerman (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Animal Species and Their Evolution, A. J. Cain, Hutchinson University Library, [Harper Torchbook Edition, NY, 1960, pp. 169-181.] Please do not delete my reference. It is valid and establishes the issue.Uniquerman (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Uniquerman, I'm afraid you've misunderstood the meaning of the word "sympatric" – you've got it confused with the term "sympatric speciation".


 * "Sympatric" on its own simply means "occurring in the same area", so saying that humans and bears are sympatric is just saying that their distributions overlap.


 * Sympatric speciation is where a species divides into two or more while living in the same area. U arctos and U americanus may be sympatric now, but that does not necessarily mean they were when they separated.  In fact, looking at the black bear article, it seems that black bears evolved allopatrically in America some 5 million years before brown bears got there, and if I've got it right, black bears then colonised Asia from America and developed into the Asian black bear, again allopatrically.  Richard New Forest (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The definition of sympatric as a biological term has been corrupted by simplifying it. In biology it means "closely related species living in proximity without interbreeding."  This definition has three elements:  1)closely related species 2)living in proximity 3)without interbreeding.  It is not my definition.  In genetics it has been in use since 1905 and is the same definition used by Cain in his 1954 book.  Sympatric speciation is a slightly different but related issue.  There is nothing wrong with using sympatric metaphorically as long as the context is not genetics, but the biological terminology is unequivocal.  If you can demonstrate how this has changed in any biological field, please identify your source.Uniquerman (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

To enlarge, without beating up on the lexicographers for shabby work, if your loose definition of sympatric were allowed contemporaneously with the technical one in the same field of endeavor, ambiguities would be inevitable. For instance, the black duck and the mallard would be both sympatric and not sympatric. They certainly live in close proximity, such as the very same flock, and would be therefore loosely sympatric, but they interbreed readily, sometimes forming entire flocks of hybrids, so that they could not be sympatric in the classic sense. Animals can't be both sympatric and not sympatric at the same time for the same reasons. This makes a mockery of language. Secondly, when writing and editing technical material, which is what an encyclopedia is, it is best to stick to the most precise definitions of key concepts. One practice that should always be edited out is using the same term in two different ways, as could easily be the case for the word sympatric in articles on biology. To take an analogous example, in an article on international trade, you would never want to mix the phrase "fair trade" in the technical sense, meaning "trade encumbered by tariffs" with the phrase "fair", meaning "honest", "trade." Lastly, being cute with words by using them in novel or unusual or creative ways is best kept to fiction, not technical material. Any way you cut it, using sympatric to mean living together is not the usual thing.Uniquerman (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Section Clarification: History of defense from bears
AK DNR website states, Select a gun that will stop a bear (12-gauge shotgun or .300 mag rifle).

From my research, large caliber handguns (ie. 45, 44 magnum, ...) are suitable only for the smaller (black) bears. And brown bears require the larger 300 hunting rifles or 12-gauge shotguns. Although there is much hype about using a smaller gun to kill a bear, it's usually because the bear was sitting still or a very very lucky shot with plenty of time.

From the first paragraph of this section, pepper spray is too heavily stated here. I'm speaking from experience on using pepper spray, if any bear was in a full adrenline attack mode, they'll probably stick it where the sun doesn't shine before they back off -- or consider it seasoning due to the untrained person spraying into the wind. But if used by a trained person very tactfully, it might more effective then a gun.

There are some other interesting aspects I've learned from past discussions and observances.&nbsp  Such as, black bears typically run away where brown bears tend to get curious. Black bears, although rarely attack, if they do attack then they have a tendancy to stalk, attack and eat you whole. Which is opposite of Brown Bears, where they attack, but leave.

Hiking is a popular sport in the western North America and would be nice to see self protection options more clarified for Brown Bears, Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, and then Mountain Loins/Cats wikipedia articles. For example, what to do if attacked -- which differ from each of the prior mentioned predator animals.

Another possible influence, it's possible the person writing this section in the past lived in California where they do not have the larger brown bears, hence, recommendation of a handgun. From my experience, it's illegal to carry a handgun while in a park in California, but when you ask the rangers, they might say something like "... yea it's illegal... (pause) ... but we're not responsible for you when you go hiking out of the campsite areas." or something similar.

Another benefit of clarifying self-protection options within this section, there is much misinformation -- this appears to be a good central location to document here instead of relying on asking questions or word-of-mouth! roger (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Gobi bear
Where to include the Gobi bear in this article? -- chinneeb - talk 19:33, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 March 2012
Brown bear is not the national animal of Germany

Halkier (talk) 09:32, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-silver-slash2.svg Not done: is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages.  elektrik  SHOOS  (talk) 00:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Information Website
Cool, I like this website, Its got a lot of info!

Brown bear exfoliates using rock as a tool‎
Yup, brown bears can be in the list of animals that uses a tool. , Marasama (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Range Map
This article is about the brown bear species (Ursus arctos), but the range map does not seem to include the full range of all of the Ursus arctos subspecies. For example, the range of the grizzly bear subspecies (Ursus arctos horribilis) is down into Montana (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grizzly_bear), but this is not indicated on the map for brown bear range.

At a minimum, the range map for the brown bear should be better labeled to indicate specifically which subspecies are included. I would add the clarification myself but I didn't make the map in question. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Letsgoexploring (talk • contribs) 13:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Subspecies range problem
We have a serious problem in that the list of subspecies includes ranges that do not cover the entire extent of the species's range. For example, New Mexico has brown bears, possibly even more than one kind, yet is not within the range of any subspecies listed in the section. The strong implication to most readers is that the list includes all of the subspecies and all of the ranges,when this clearly is not the case if you know anything about brown bears. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ɖ∘¿ ¤ þ  Contrib.  17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

The largest bear ever recorded.
"It is not unusual for Kodiak bear males to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb) in fall with some specimens attaining 780 kg (1,700 lb) or more.[33] Such huge males can stand over 3.1 m (10 ft) tall while on their hind legs and loom 160 cm (63 in) high at the shoulder.[34] The heaviest recorded brown bear weighed over 1,150 kilograms (2,500 lb).[26] Furthermore, a maximum weight of 1,500 kg (3,300 lb) for the Kodiak bear was published.[33]

I've highlighted the problems, are any of those statements true? from Per Christiansen(1999):

"According to Wood(1981) the largest recorded wild Kodiak bear was a 750kg male shot at the English Bay on Kodiak Island in 1894."

Not only seems that "McDonald, D.W.; Barrett, P. (1993). Mammals of Europe" is claiming that is common for bears to grow bigger than the record breaker it also seems to suggest that they can get up to twice it's mass, so either Kodiak bears grew significantly in size from 1981 to 1993 or they just have their information wrong, if the largest Kodiak bear ever recorded was from the late 19th century and there never was a bigger bear from there until Wood (1981) how can it be possible that during the 12 years up to the time their book was published they're now significantly larger.

About the next statement, I don't think it's impossible that they can reach 10ft tall on two legs and 63in at the shoulders on all fours but the source given makes no mention of such figures.

My last problem is the claim of a 1150kg bear, it is sourced from a book from 1993 but if it was true why Christiansen didn't cite it instead of the 750kg from Wood (1981)? unless this was an incredible obese captive bear and should be specified as such.

I want to hear your opinions on this little problems, thanks. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Bump Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:31, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Life expectancy
At 24th of May the oldest living bear Andreas, estimated age 50 y.o. died in Florina Greece. Link in Greek only unfortunately: http://www.arcturos.gr/el/index.php?option=ozo_content&perform=view&id=311&Itemid=49 Could we write something you think? -Initially I posted this on Bear page, but was suggested to move it here. Soathana (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Scope of this article is ambiguous
The title of this article is Brown bear, and the words brown bear are bold in the first sentence. On Wikipedia, this normally would indicate that the topic of this article is the brown bear -- no more and no less.

But later in the first paragraph, we read: "In North America, two types are generally recognized, the coastal brown bear and the inland grizzly bear." In other words, there are two American types of brown bear: and for some reason, one of them is bold while the other links to a separate article. This would suggest that the topic of this article is not all brown bears, but only the coastal brown bear. If that's true, this article should not be entitled simply "brown bear"!

Moreover, the grizzly bear article says that another name for the grizzly is North American brown bear (notice that this would seem to include both the coast and inland).

Finally, this article says the brown bear is conservation status "LC". This contradicts the grizzly bear article, which says the grizzly bear is status "EN". If this article is really about the brown bear -- no more and no less -- then it should indicate that some brown bears are not status "LC". &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 02:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I rewrote part of the lede to remove the confusion. The sentence in question should have mentioned Ursus arctos horribilis as the subspecies of bear that has two "types". There are more than two subspecies of brown bear in NA. There are

Nocturnal?
I am surprised to see brown bears recorded as "primarily nocturnal". Can this be confirmed? They may fish at night but 90% of their diet is not fish. This paper (http://web.uvic.ca/~reimlab/noctdibrbear.pdf) shows peak activity in the mid to late afternoon. Darmot and gilad (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Response: You did the right thing in bringing this up. The problem is Wikipedia's requirement for secondary sources. I am sure you are correct, and surely consistent with what I have seen since I was a kid (long time ago). Sadly, many of the secondary sources, like newspapers, are incorrect, but satisfy Wiki's need to be a secondary source. As a result, a great deal of information in Wikipedia is factually incorrect. I have been writing and publishing my entire life, and usually find myself at odds with Wikipedia's perception of encyclopedic writing and referencing (certainly not how I write). The reference you gave is apparently primary. If you can track down a review about this, that could qualify as secondary information. Still subject to getting deleted, as have many of my attempts at making corrections. Anyone can log in and delete your writing arguing the source was not a "reliable" second source. Big problem! (This unsigned comment comment by 79.102.128.51).


 * If you believe information is mistaken, point us to a reference and fix it. Note that Wikipedia is a tertiary source - we only reference what someone else says about research. A secondary source is what is done by publications like Nature and National Geographic - they edit and publish what someone else writes on their research. If you have a zoology textbook which disagrees with newspaper accounts, the textbook is likely to be considered more reliable than a popular newspaper article. But simply stating it without a reference won't get you anywhere. For what it's worth, when I hunted in the Lewis & Clarke national forest, we'd find bear tracks which had been made at night, not during the day. That statement is known as anecdotal evidence as well as WP:OR, and cannot be used in Wikipedia. Find someone who has published specific details about the habits of brown bears, and we can fix any problems in the article.


 * Oh, and please remember to sign any comments you make on the talk page with the quaduple tilde ( "~", which gets converted to your username/IP address), so it's obvious who wrote which portions of the conversation. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Brown bear
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brown bear's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Geptner1972": From Pallas's cat: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva (in Russian); English translation: Heptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N.; Hoffmann, R. S. (1992). [http://archive.org/stream/mammalsofsov221992gept#page/664/mode/2up ''Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats).''] Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington, D.C. pp. 665–696. From Asiatic wildcat: Geptner, V.G., Sludskii, A. A. 1972. Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V.G.; Sludskii, A.A.; Bannikov, A.G.; (1992) Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). pp. 398–497. From Amur leopard: Geptner, V.G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N. (1992). Bars (Leopard). Pages 203–273 in: Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institution and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). From Jungle cat: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva (in Russian); English translation: Heptner, V.G., Sludskii, A.A., Komarov, A., Komorov, N.; Hoffmann, R.S. (1992). [http://books.google.com/books?id=UxWZ-OmTqVoC&lpg=PA356 ''Mammals of the Soviet Union. Vol III: Carnivores (Feloidea).''] Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC. pp. 356–397. From Siberian tiger: Geptner, V. G., Sludskii, A. A. (1972). Mlekopitaiuščie Sovetskogo Soiuza. Vysšaia Škola, Moskva. (In Russian; English translation: Heptner, V. G.; Sludskii, A. A.; Bannikov, A. G.; (1992). Mammals of the Soviet Union. Volume II, Part 2: Carnivora (Hyaenas and Cats). Smithsonian Institute and the National Science Foundation, Washington DC). Pp. 95–202. 

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)