Talk:Red panda/Etymology

Etymology
Removed from the "Common names" section.
 * The Western name Red Panda is taken from the Himalayan language: "panda" is an anglicisation of "poonya", which means "eater of bamboo".

There's no such language as "Himalayan" (there is a language family called "Himalayish", consisting of 145 distinct languages acoording to Ethnologue), and "panda" would be a terrible angliciation of "poonya". --Ptcamn 10:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That seems to have been added back. The Giant Panda article says "There is no conclusive source for the origin of the Anglicized name "panda." The closest candidate that has been accepted as the source originates in the Nepali word ponya, possibly referring to the adapted wrist bone. The Western world originally applied this name to the Red Panda."


 * Something like this would be better. I have changed it to "The Western name "Red Panda" has no conclusive source. The most likely origin is from the Nepali word ponya". I left out the meaning of the word, because the two articles seem to give different meanings to the word (I looked in a Nepali dictionary and couldn't find any word resembling poonya. In fact now I'm not even sure I should say it's from Nepali, since Nepali is not a Himalayish language.) Stickinsect2 (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Ptcamn that '"panda" would be a terrible angliciation of "poonya".' It would actually be pretty typical considering we rendered Beijing (fairly close to the real pronounciation) as "Peking." Speakers of other languages are no better at rendering English, which is one thing that makes etymology so challenging. Just take a look at how differently various words are rendered from the Latin to English, Spanish, French, etc.

Donlammers (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have changed this again. I agree with Stickinsect2 that this is not authoritative. In fact, I think it can be classified as urban myth, and needs to be specifically contradicted rather than just being downplayed. The main words mentioned seem to be "nigalya ponya" (or "nigayla ponya"?), "nyala-ponga" (both are sometimes hyphenated), and "poonya". These are said to be "Nepali" (which is an existing language) or "Himalayan" (which is not, as pointed out above). However, no original source (like a dictionary) is ever quoted. Like Stickinsect2 above, I looked for Nepali-English dictinaries, and none of these words appear anywhere that I can find. It may be that the words are from another language (as pointed out above, there are many languages in the area), or that the anglicized spelling is incorrect, but in any case the standard online attributions seem to be essentially urban myth. So I have rewritten accordingly. I would love to be contradicted on this (it's a great story) with, of course some actual authoritative citations (I found only a bunch of articles basically pointing to each other, which is not meaningful in this context). Donlammers (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I have not, at this time, removed "poonya" and "nigalya ponya" as alternative names, though I might do that at some later date. I have not done what I would consider an exhaustive search of other languages that might call them by these names, and the names have such widespread use on the Web that it may be appropriate to leave them there anyway. Depending on future research, we might want to mention that they were only popularized by the "urban myth." Donlammers (talk) 11:32, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Correct Latin Name for the Eastern Subspecies
The discussion was going to originally be about which latin name for the eastern species (Styani / Refulgens) should primarily be used. Currently on the main page this subspecies is listed as A. f. refulgens (or A. f. styani). The primary name should be the one listed first - not inside the bracket.

In the book, A.R. Glatston (1989): Red Panda Biology pp.24, it states that the Styani name should be used as it is the more recent. However this led to further confusions as the page provides contrasting information to that already on wikipedia in regards to their naming. The source currently cited by wikipedia for this is ''Wozencraft, W. C. (2005). "Order Carnivora". in Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M.. Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference. 1 (3a ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. pp. 532–628.''

According to wikipedia, Mammal Species of the World says that:

F.G. Cuvier named the western red panda Ailurus fulgens fulgens in 1825

Milne-Edwards named the eastern red panda Ailurus fulgens refulgens in 1874

and that Thomas named the eastern red panda Ailurus fulgens styani in 1902

As it stands. This makes it very unclear as to which name for the eatern red panda should be used primarily. And provides no explanation as to why this subspecies was named twice.

Red Panda Biology says that:

F.G. Cuvier named the western red panda Ailurus fulgens in 1825, as at that point it was believed there were no other subspecies.

After receiving a skin of the eastern red panda with significantly different markings to the western red panda, Milne-Edwards named the eastern red panda Ailurus refulgens in 1874, as he believed it to be a new species altogether.

It was in 1902 that the eastern red panda was given subspecific status and was named Ailurus fulgens styani by Thomas. The book states that this "is the one that we use today".

What are others thoughts on what the name is officially?

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 13:34, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "The discussion was going to originally be about which latin name for the species", since the discussion on subspecies name is under "Subspecies" on the article page. At least as long as I've worked on the article, that's where it's been and Taxonomy has been about the "common" name. In any case, I inserted what information there is about "styani", and I agree with you that this is somewhat confusing.

If you are quoting a different article when you say "According to wikipedia", then please point to the article. If you are referring to this article, then the confusion here is probably my fault, as I added the reference to Thomas 1904 without moving the citation. As far as I can tell Mammal Species of the World only supports "refulgens", and that's how Wikispecies here names it (I can't find subspecies names elsewhere on WikiPedia itself -- if you have, please point to them). Because Wikipedia goes by Mammal Species of the World, I picked "refulgens" as the "primary.

I think what we need to do is this:


 * Move the citation to a bit later where we cite all of the sources for the names. Here the names are separately cited so it won't seem like we are saying that "Mammal Species" supports "styani".
 * Use the Glatston Red Panda Biology citation to support the sentence that includes "(Ailurus fulgens refulgens Milne-Edwards, 1874 or Ailurus fulgens styani Thomas, 1902)", since it mentions both and even provides a good reason for using the styani name. We may need a separate source to support the range. If so, we can probably use IUCN if nothing else.
 * Reverse the order of the sentence with the name citations, since at least at this time "refulgens" is still the primary name.

This straightens out a bit of the citation confusion, but does not resolve the primary name issue. So far I have attempted to be neutral on this issue while supporting the Wikipedia preference for "Mammal Species" as the primary in the taxobox. I have no objection to changing the primary name, but if we do it here we will need to do it in WikiSpecies as well, and at that point I think we need to have better citations to support going against the general guidelines for source.

Donlammers (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

By "The discussion was going to originally be about which latin name for the species" - I was referring to this talk page. I just phrased it poorly. I said this, as I believe the issues extend beyond simply the primary naming of the subspecies.

When I said "According to wikipedia", I was referring to this article.

"We may need a separate source to support the range" I am not quite sure what you mean by this. The range of what?

I agree that we need better citations for going against the general guidelines. At this stage I still think it is unclear as to which name is correct. I am seeking advice about this from the ICZN and shall report back with progress on the matter.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 15:56, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, by "We may need a separate source to support the range", what I meant was that the sentence actually makes two assertions -- one is the dates and sources for each of the names, and the other is the habitat range for each of the subspecies. I don't think that the range is supported by "Mammal Species," so the sentence needs to be cited with something else (it probably should have been in the first place).

On the off chance that I might dig up something, I took a look around the ICZN site and did some searches, but could not find any useful info. Hopefully your queries will get us some decent advice. I'm in the middle of some other stuff right now, but hopefully in a few days I can at least get around to moving the citation and finding a better one for the sentence that is causing confusion. I realize that this won't solve the underlying problem, but there is no telling how long that will take to resolve as the experts seem to be in disagreement.

Donlammers (talk) 00:06, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

The ICZN referred me to their code - although no article in particular. http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp They said they suspected that it would be Ailurus fulgens refulgens, but could not say for certain.

The first name to be published is the one that takes precedence. But the problem lies in the fact that F.G. Cuvier published a name for the species (not the subspecies) and so did Milne-Edwards. I believe the answer to this lies within how the names are handled when a species receives subspecific status. Do the names get adjusted appropriately using some sort of rule and hence brought forward, or do the names for the subspecies (i.e. Ailurus fulgens fulgens & Ailurus fulgens refulgens) have to be published somewhere when subspecific status is given and if so, where was it published?

I could not find anything describing what happens under such a situation within ICZN's code, but maybe others will have better luck.

Regardless, I have been forwarded on to someone with an interest in the nomenclature of mammals who may be of better help. They are away at the moment however, so it may be a while before any progress is made.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 13:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all the digging. For now it looks like "refulgens" should remain the preferred name here. I have rewritten the subspecies section to clarify what the citations refer to, and to place refulgens first there as well. I will need to find the reference that describes the subspecies distribution and add it, but I have found a couple of other issues with the references in the article that I need to fix first.

Donlammers (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Roberts and Gittleman describe this better than I've seen before [url=http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4231/1/Roberts1984.pdf here on the first page]. The first description of the subspecies as a subspecies was evidently "A. f. styani Pocock 1941:258" Before that, separate species were described. Before this there was no A.f. refulgens, only A. refulgens. Personally I take this to mean that the correct name should be Styani, but that goes against the rest of Wikipedia and what seems to be the majority opinion. I have not changed anything, and won't until we get something more definitive.

Donlammers (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Ha, I had just found that same article and was going to put that here, only to discover I had been beaten.This makes me believe that Glatston is right in calling it Styani. But as said, we need confirmation on this matter as to whether it is how the name is first published as a subspecies, or if there is any system to bring forward names from the binomial nomenclature system to the trinomial one. For example, it lists the first known publication of Ailurus fulgens fulgens (not just Ailurus fulgens) as by Cuvier in 1825, however at this point he did not know there were any subspecies. I believe we should try and hunt down copies of these publications where the names were first published. Some of them should now be in the public domain and hence pdf files may exist. If we found copies we could confirm exactly how the names were published (binomial or trinomial) and maybe we can finally put this matter to rest.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done quite extensive searches for the Cuvier book. If I remember right, I found copies listed in London, Paris, and New York (all too far away for me to visit the library personally), but no PDF, and I think at least one of the copies is incomplete. New York Public Library has the illustrations scanned, but I couldn't find the text. I have not tried searching for any of the other originals or PDFs of them.

Donlammers (talk) 12:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I can get to London, I don't suppose you can give me more information to its whereabouts there?

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 16:17, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I've found a copies at the British Library in London. I presume this is the library you spoke of. I shall look into accessing these.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 17:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I have found copies of all the major publications in or near London. I shall phone and request access to these tomorrow. In the mean time, I have found something quite interesting that should help http://www.archive.org/details/s7annalsmagazine10londuoft. This is the 1902 publication of Annals and Magazines of Natural History, read ser. 7 10:251-252 to see Thomas's declaration of the eastern red panda's subspecific status as Ailurus fulgens Styani. This renders the information provided here http://si-pddr.si.edu/dspace/bitstream/10088/4231/1/Roberts1984.pdf inaccurate, as Thomas did not declare it the Ailurus styani but the Ailurus fulgens Styani. As such we should treat the rest of the information provided in that article with scepticism. The question now is whether this is enough to give Styani precedence, or should we still wait for further rulings?

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

This issue can finally be laid to rest. I have been given a definitive answer. Ailurus fulgens refulgens has never been correct. Milne-Edwards had a lapsus, making refulgens a nomen nudum. Milne-Edwards even cites Cuvier as the authority for the name. I have been in contact with Don Wilson and he says that refulgens slipped through the editorial process in the most recent edition of Mammal Species of the World. But it has been corrected in their more recent works A Guide to the Mammals of China and Handbook of Mammals of the World Vol. 1.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 12:46, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great! Now we just have to get all the citations (unfortunately, although "Don Wilson told me" is good enough for me, it's not good enough for Wikipedia) and then explain it, since there are actually more sources using refulgens (including Wikispecies) than styani. Sorry for not answering about the London location. I'm not sure why I didn't spot it on my watchlist. It's been months since I searched the internet for this information, and about all I remember is that I thought I found it in the British National Library catalog, but not digitized. Since I had no way to access a physical book in London, I don't seem to have saved any of the information.

Donlammers (talk) 13:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I have provided another reference now as confirmation and am working on verifying another paper that is suspected to report this. The reference I have just added is to "The Mammals of China and Mongolia" by Glover, pp.314-317 viewable here http://www.archive.org/details/mammalsofchinamo01alle

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 10:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

This is great. It has a range map too, so I added it to the previous paragraph. I'm pretty sure that one of the citations we already have actually lists the countries like it does in the article. I haven't been able to find it since the rewrite, but this will work too.

Donlammers (talk) 11:03, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Just added that second reference. "The Fauna of British India" by Pocock, pp258, viewable here http://www.archive.org/details/PocockMammalia2

Lots of other interesting information on Red Pandas here that could be used to update the page elsewhere too.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a notice over on Wikispecies in the hopes that someone there will take a look at your citations here and straighten things out. I would prefer if someone who knows their processes and format better than me would make the edits there. However, considering that a December query of mine is still not answered, I'm not all that hopeful. Once we (mostly you, I guess, since I can't even find the latest Don Wilson stuff at all here in our Colorado libraries) have everything lined up, I can go change things over there (in at least two articles). Donlammers (talk) 13:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually that's not entirely true. "Handbook of the Mammals of the World" is available in Colorado: http://207.67.203.71/D20019Staff/OPAC/TitleView/CompleteDisplay.aspx?FromOPAC=true&DbCode=0&PatronCode=0&Language=english&RwSearchCode=0&WordHits=&BibCodes=27590155 And I believe that "A guide to the mammals of China" is too. This second book by Don Wilson apparently also refers to them as Styani.

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 13:53, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought the Denver Public Library search I did was supposed to search the whole state, but on closer inspection, it doesn't. I did find a search engine that purports to search the whole state, but I need to get an account in order to set up a reasonable search group (which I will probably do shortly). The "Mammals" book is at the Denver Museum of Natural History, and I'll probably be going there this coming weekend, so I will look for it then. They don't seem to have the "China" book, nor do Boulder or Denver, so that may be "out of reach" for now (there comes a time when it's cheaper to buy it from Amazon than spend more time looking, but I'm not there yet).

Donlammers (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Auraria in Denver has it http://skyline.cudenver.edu/search~S0?/dMammals+--+China+--+Identification./dmammals+china+identification/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=dmammals+china+identification&1%2C1%2C

Innocenceisdeath (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I know where that is, more or less, and it looks from their policy page like any resident of Colorado is allowed access. MarnetteD evidently lives in Wheat Ridge (much closer to Auraria than me), so I've asked if a little reconnaissance could be done for us.

Donlammers (talk) 17:24, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

I have seen the "Handbook of Mammals," and the subspecies is indeed listed as "styani." I have added a page number to the citation (each species seems to be on a single page in this book). Hopefully in the next couple of weeks either MarnetteD or I can verify the "Mammals of China" reference (I go fairly close if we go down to the Aquarium). Donlammers (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Latin name
I am curious about translation of latin name "Ailurus fulgens" - "fire-colored cat". Fulgens means shining and aelurus was a literary designation for 'cat' in ancient Rome - more common word was 'feles' (perhaps Ailurus comes from greek 'ailouros'?). So could anyone fluent in latin or greek explain "fire-colored" in translated latin name? BGT


 * I believe this issue has been closed. Someone changed the translation to "Shining Cat", which seems to answer this query. From other threads, it seems that "fire" comes from the Chinese, not from the taxonomic name.Donlammers (talk) 14:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

"Firefox" Name
"It is a common misconception that the common term "firefox" for the Red Panda arises from the Chinese word "hun ho." However, neither hon nor ho are syllables used in Mandarin Chinese."

The first part says "hun", which is a syllable used in Mandarin Chinese. And depending on the transliteration system used, "ho" could also be a syllable. I think what's important is that this information is more or less irrelevant to "hun ho" being the wrong term. BTW, since when is "hun ho" being used for "red panda" a common misconception? Most people are unaware of the existence of either.


 * Firefox webbrowser uses the Red Panda as its logo. There is also an ancient Chinese translation of the Red Panda as hǔo hú (火狐), which literally translates as "fire fox", referring to the Red Panda’s "fire-reddish" fur color: a name which can designate either the red fox or the Red Panda. Valich 03:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * According to mozdev.org, Firefox (web browser) does use the red panda as its logo: http://br.mozdev.org/firefox/firefox. They say despite the browser name, the logo is not the panda because it isn't a known animal and doesn't represent the desired concept.
 * I'm sorry, I couldn't find the english version of that page, but there is a link to the author's explanation: http://www.hicksdesign.co.uk/journal/branding-firefox —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.254.153.2 (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have found the Mozilla FAQ page that states that the browser name is for Red Panda: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/firefox/firefox-name-faq.html. However, the Ben Goodger article (http://www.bengoodger.com/weblog/archives/week_2004_02_08.shtml#000549) is now a broken link. This article originally contradicted the Mozilla FAQ page.Donlammers (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * But, another article says that although firefox is a Red Panda, the design is not a Red Panda, but a Red Fox. The designer was evidently aware of the connection, but decided explicitly not to use a Red Panda as the Firefox.Donlammers (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Some Chinese sources using &#28779;&#29392; for the Red Panda:

Gaolingong Nature Reserve administration website    


 * The term "fire fox" &#28779;&#29392 for the Red Panda has been around for centuries in China due to its "fire-reddish" coat color and most recently popularized because the webbrowser Mozilla Firefox who uses the Red Panda as its logo in China. Apparently, in China, to many people the word now designates either the fire fox or the Red Panda. Valich 06:12, 25 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If anyone is listening... I am currently trying to research and rewrite the Etymology section. None of the links above work (2009-11-29). I can find no primary citations for this usage in Chinese. Although &#28779;&#29392 can indeed be translated as Firefox, I can find no evidence of its origin in China, except for many assertions that this is so. Unfortunately, User:Valich did not cite any source for his assertion either. Chinese dictionaries translate Red Panda to Red Bear Cat or Small Bear Cat. Small Bear Cat is used for the Red Panda articles in the Chinese Wiki Projects (zh and zh-yue -- wuu uses an English title).Donlammers (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I have just posted changes to the Etymology section, in which I debunk the "firefox" statements made above. I would love to be proven wrong (it's a great story!), and all this would take would be a single primary and reliable source for the statement. No Chinese english dictionary that I accessed translates 火狐 as "Red Panda."

Ah! Wikipedia!
This article is a good example of what happens when all kinds of uncoordinated edits take place in a Wikipedia article.

Once upon a time, in a far-off version of this article, it was noted that the Red Panda is "also known as the Small Panda, Lesser Panda, Cat Bear, Bear Cat or Fire Fox".

Then on 19 March 2007, one User:Kvn8907 deleted these names on the grounds that they were mentioned later in the article, at the section on Common names. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Red_Panda&diff=116424880&oldid=116373789)

And so they were! The section on common names went as follows:


 * The Red Panda is also known as the Wah because of its distinctive cry. This name was given to it by Thomas Hardwicke, when he introduced it to Europeans in 1821. It is called a Cat Bear because it was thought to be related to a small bear and washes itself like a cat by licking its entire body. Other names include Bear Cat, Bright Panda, Cat Bear, Common Panda, Fire Fox, Red Fox, Fox Bear, Himalayan Raccoon, Lesser Panda, Nigalya Ponya, Panda Chico, Panda Éclatant, Panda Rojo, Petit Panda, Poonya, Crimson Ngo, Red Cat, Sankam, Small Panda, Thokya, Wah, Wokdonka, Woker, and Ye.

But then, on 28 September 2007, User:Marcus334 changed the title Common names to Etymology, and added the following material:


 * The Chinese name of the Red Panda is 小熊貓; (pinyin: xiǎo xióng māo), meaning 'small panda' or, more analytically, 'small bear-cat', in which 'bear-cat' is the Chinese name for the panda. The Chinese name of the Red Panda is based on that of the Giant Panda, unlike English where the Giant Panda has been named after the Red Panda. The Red Panda is also sometimes known as hǔo hú (火狐), which literally translates as "Firefox", a name which can designate either the Red Fox or the Red Panda. The Red Panda is also sometimes known as the 貓熊 (pinyin: māo xióng), meaning 'cat-bear'.

Then after a persistent bout of vandalism by juveniles in November, the paragraph of alternative names disappeared on 12 November 2007 thanks to an edit by drive-by vandal User:131.111.195.8, and failed to be restored by User:Metanoid, who removed vestigial vandalism on 13 November without noticing that a whole section was missing.

And so a whole slew of alternative names disappeared, including what is a very widespread English name, the Lesser Panda. Just how widespread that English name is can be judged from the fact that the Japanese name of the animal is レッサーパンダ Ressaa Panda, which is straight from the English. Other languages all use names meaning "small panda", including German, French, and Chinese among others.

But we still have the largely irrelevant information on the Chinese naming of the Red panda added by Marcus334. red panda are foucking sweet —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.39.165 (talk) 03:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia succumbing to the forces of decay and mindless vandalism? Bathrobe (talk) 12:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone obviously edited this essentially back to the way it was in 2007 (to which I have no objection). However, I'm curios (if he or she is still lurking) why 99.130.39.165 thinks the Chinise naming information is "largely irrelevant" in a discussion of "common names"? I am not planning to add back either the Chinese or the Japanese information (at least not now), but I'm curious. Donlammers (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason why these alternative names have not been returned to the article? Innocenceisdeath (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I believe that I covered all of these names (though not in a straight list) in the Etymology section at one point. See my notes in the next section as well. They explain a bit better what happened with a couple that are missing now. Donlammers (talk) 01:24, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Right, well I have been looking through many old publications, and have found many names. Some which I know used to be on this page, but have disappeared - and rightfully so if there is uncertainty and no citation can be found. I shall add some more names in due time, right now I have a list of over 30 publications not yet cited by this page to look through and I have no doubt I will find even more names among these (among other useful information).Innocenceisdeath (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't see any sense in a huge list of the same name just in different languages (like different language versions of red panda or small panda), so I just gave examples. I tried to find the most common other names and list them if I could find a reliable source. The Chinese names are dealt with separately because of the "firefox" connection. I can find no reliable source that the red panda is called firefox in Chinese. Though it seems that practically every zoo in the world claims this (yes, I am exaggerating), my Chinese coworkers just laugh when I tell them this "fact". Anyway, have at it! Donlammers (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha, well I'm afraid I have no source for firefox as of yet. Though it would definitely be great if I could find one. Innocenceisdeath (talk) 11:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah! the Web!
Once upon a time, the list of names included Cokoloaca Pigara and Gambawarella. Someone (just an IP address) removed these names on the basis that Flickr was not a "reliable source" (I agree with this, though the original sentence included that disclaimer). A week later I started researching to see if I could find a reliable source for these names. Most of the Google hits for these two names were identically phrased, and when the link was followed most of those no longer contained the names. Why? Because they were all mirrors of this article, and the names had been removed from here.

An additional point about circular references. I am researching for a "Cultural References" section. One of the issues is the Firefox browser name (NO, it is NOT a red panda). Mozilla does claim that Firefox is a Red Panda. It points to a BBC article that (guess what) is a mirror of this article. Although this article still states that "Firefox" is one name of the Red Panda, this reference is no longer in the part that is mirrored in the BBC article (just the intro). Where did the name really come from? There seems to be NO evidence that it is from Chinese. Did someone invent this after seeing the Firefox browser? At this point, I can't find a source for this name either (and this is reflected in the article). I will keep plugging away.Donlammers (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)