Talk:Spotted hyena/Archive 1

Minor Error
Regarding: "An adult hyena's bite pressure can reach over 4000 Newtons", Newton is not a unit of pressure.

What was wrong with the previous value of "50 kilograms per cm² (800 lb per square inch)" ?


 * See below. The correct SI units are kilopascals.

Propaganda
A death census was taken in 2006, which showed that in addition to being at risk to human trafficking, “More than 280 orphans have died in our community of Nyamlell, Sudan this year alone, simply because they do not have a safe place to sleep at night.”

The whole "in addition to being at risk to human trafficking" bit sounds like some propaganda from some human rights activist, and doesn't really have anything to do with the article. It should be removed.74.224.92.248 02:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Mating
Some more detail on how the mating works if both parties have a(n erect) penis would be appreciated. --194.81.255.254 16:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This information has been added here. Jarble (talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

GQ article
There was this article in GQ from a couple of years ago about a group of roaming street people or something in Southern Africa that had sedated pet hyenas they showed around for money, has anyone seen this article?

Arthurian Legend 01:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Original:

"Early in the Christian era and continuing through the middle ages, two themes emerged: that hyenas changed sex from year to year--a morally unacceptable practice--and that they preyed upon human corpses, digging up graves. The former was linked metaphorically to the Jews and reflected the anti-semitism of this extended period, while the latter was threatening to many human traditions and persists to the present day."

Wikipedia:

"Early in the Christian era and continuing through the Middle Ages, two charges against hyenas emerged: that they could swap gender, which was a morally unacceptable practice, and that they feasted upon human corpses, digging up graves. The former was symbolically linked to the Jews and reflected the anti-Semitism of this extended period, while the latter was threatening to many human traditions and persists to the present day."

This is not a paraphrase, this is just copying with a few key words changed. If the paragraph is relevant it should be appropriately paraphrased and tied in to the text better. I removed it for now for this reason. --Blechnic (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Update to match MSW3
I will be updating all of the hyena aritcles to match the following taxonomy from Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005):


 * Family Hyaenidae
 * Genus Crocuta
 * Spotted Hyena (Crocuta crocuta)
 * Genus Hyaena
 * Brown Hyena (Hyaena brunnea)
 * Striped Hyena (Hyaena hyaena)
 * Genus Proteles
 * Aardwolf (Proteles cristata)

If you need to discuss this, pleae contact me on my talk page. If no one objects, I will proceed in 48 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

historical perceptions
This section is horribly written.

"Aristotle was noted to have first challenged the condemnations directed toward the hyena's supposed hermaphroditism" - did Aristotle believe they were hermaphrodites? Does this mean he thought it was ok for them to be hermaphrodites?

"hyenas were thought to annually change sex and habitually rob graves. The former charge was traditionally linked to the Jews." - what relevance has sex-changing Jews have with this? Unless it means the Jews believed they annually changed sex, which is not what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maltelauridsbrigge (talk • contribs) 14:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
"In the wild, the spotted hyena has an average lifespan of 120 years. It can be extended to 250 in captivity."

Seriously? And the weights are a bit ambitious as well (450kg?)... someone thinks hyenas are pretty funny! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.40.92 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

11,400psi bite?
Ahh I've heard a hyenas bite is only 1,000psi, five tons and a half would probably break a hyenas teeth and even it's jaw. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.66.27.162 (talk) 04:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct. I fixed the error and used the correct SI units (kilopascals). The ref. I tracked down was for 800 psi, which is about 5500 kpa. DGERobertson (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

It still says 800 kg/cm^2 or 11,400psi in the article, which seems wrong indeed. Still, I don't want to arbitrarily change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.26.195 (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC) No I checked on my fact book hyenas have a bite of 19,000 psi they have strong bones so they do not break their jaw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.223.175.245 (talk) 18:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Calling
Someone should put up the sound of a hyena calling.

Capitalisation in title
According to WP:MOS, should this article be Spotted hyena, and this a redirect? I notice the same convention at Striped Hyena and Brown Hyena and for Laughing Hyena in the lede here as well as Irish Elk, Red Deer, Roe Deer and Fallow Deer, but not for Wild boar, African elephant, or Woolly rhinoceros, just to pick a few. Do animal names have some special dispensation from following WP:MOS? If so, are there complex rules to spot the exceptions?

The reason this came up was with regard to referencing these articles from elsewhere without unnecessary capitalisation or hitting redirects. We should not have to say in ordinary prose, "The same applies to Spotted Hyenas", but "The same applies to spotted Hyenas" looks even stranger, and "The same applies to spotted hyenas" hits a redirect.

Clarification would be appreciated. --Nigelj (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Only in all of Africa?
I realize that the spotted hyena used to have a much wider range, but still, "only in all of Africa" doesn't sound right. Something like "the spotted hyena is found throughout Africa, although it could be found in Europe and Asia until the last ice age". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.175.248 (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Note the sentence states "NOW only all of Africa..."Mariomassone (talk) 11:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Spotted Hyenas are NOT Carnivores
At least, according to their fact page on National Geographic fact page. This is a big problem, considering the whole "carnivorous" idea is quite integrated into the article. --Fluoxetine 67.170.236.35 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * ? One of your links says "The hyena is the most abundant large carnivore". And the NG link accentuates their hunting skills. Materialscientist (talk) 05:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

They are omnivorous members of the Order Carnivora. So they are 'carnivores', in the taxonomic sense. Other members of the order include pandas, kinkajous, and domestic dogs, none of which feed exclusively on meat. Sumanuil (talk) 02:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Least Concern?
The second sentence of the introduction says:
 * "It is listed as Least Concern by the IUCN on account of its widespread range and large numbers estimated at 10,000 individuals."

A number of 10,000 individuals seems small and should cause quite some concern in my opinion. Should n't this be 10,000,000 individuals? Eg-T2g (talk) 12:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The IUCN-site reports a total population between 27,000 and 47,000 individuals (numbers adjusted and ref added). Somalian and Sudanese refugees told me that hyenas are a common species in the populated areas of their home countries. (like the outskirts of Mogadishu) Eg-T2g (talk) 07:01, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Local and indigenous names
I cleaned up the local & indigenous names section - "Peuhl" is nothing but the French name for Fula (Fulfulde, Pulaar, Pular); Toucouleur is a Pulaar-speaking group; Saracole is considered offensive and Soninke is generally used anyway; Sambara - not sure where that is spoken, and have never heare of it, but the names listed are like Bambara & Dioula/Jula.--A12n (talk) 02:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

On Erxleben and Pennant
I have a couple of comments about this article. One is that encyclopaedic content should not be hidden (MOS:COLLAPSE), as in the taxobox and a couple of other tables. The second concerns the claim that:

This comes directly from Holger Funk's book, and is straightforwardly false. Pennant described the animal, but he failed to give it a binomial name (see here). He cannot therefore be the author of the taxon. The first person to provide a binomen to go with the description was Erxleben, initially as a species in the genus Canis; thus, the animal was named "Canis crocuta Erxleben, 1777" (only the specific epithet is visible on this page, but it is understood as a binomen; this is also exactly how Linnaeus formatted his works). The species was later transferred to a different genus – presumably by Kaup (1828) – and became "Crocuta crocuta (Erxleben, 1777)" (note the parentheses to indicate the change of genus). Even though the current text is cited, I think it must be removed, because Holger Funk is clearly not a reliable source on issues of nomenclature. The nomenclature of the spotted hyena is well established and is entirely in line with the ICZN. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Flag icons removed from table
I removed the flag icons from the table of hyena distribution in this article. They were seriously lengthening the article and added virtually nothing, and having read WP:FLAGICON I don't think their inclusion was justified. Robofish (talk) 14:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

"No subspecies"
The article states there are no subspecies, yet it includes cave art depicting the cave hyaena, which is a subspecies of the spotted hyana. Yet the cave hyaena is mentioned nowhere in the article itself. It certainly warrants a mention, since it is also featured in the titles of many articles used as sources here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * MSW3 only recognises extant subspecies, not prehistoric ones. Plus, the cave hyena is mentioned several times, but not under that name (see sections mentioning the species' former "European range".Mariomassone (talk) 19:11, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it would still be appropriate to mention it in the taxonomy section. Spotted hyenas are mentioned in the range section, yes, but it does not specify that it is that distinct subspecies, which is quite important. Also, do we know if it was ever inhabited by both subspecies at once? FunkMonk (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

"Laughing"
Should it be explained that hyena don't actually laugh but their vocals just resume human laughter? In addition, the "laugh" of the hyena should be mentioned in the lede since that's what it is most known for. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Very long tag
Regarding the "very long" tag that was added, I disagree; I don't see that the article is "very long." With regard to WP:SIZE, let's go by prose size, like we are supposed to do, and not go by the number of subsection headings making the article look bigger than it actually is. I am definitely not a fan of stub articles being needlessly created. I also think when an editor adds the "very long tag" to an article, that editor should explain on the talk page why he or she feels that the tag belongs, similar to how Template:POV requires editors to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I concur with Flyer22, tags that are placed should be clearly explained, in particular, in a dedicated Talk section. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 00:54, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bravo on the Female genitalia section—or rather, brava
While it takes a bit of assuming as to what information is derived from what source—the citations could repeat, and so be placed nearer to the sentences/phrases derived from each source—the paragraph nevertheless stands as an example of how sourcing in science articles should be done. Monographs and advanced textbooks and reviews over primary research reports, and all factual information presented with source. Bravo/brava to these editors. Happy to read more, and to recommend this kind of work. Cheers. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 00:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I went to the original source of the image in that section, to find out what the labels meant, the added the citation, and a legend defining the abbreviations, to the anatomical image. Cheers, Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 02:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Spotted hyena. 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/20120426071500/http://paleobiogeography.org/uploads/assets/1_Varela_et_al_QSR_2010.pdf to http://paleobiogeography.org/uploads/assets/1_Varela_et_al_QSR_2010.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027025919/http://www.suzieszterhas.com/a/pdf/BBC_WL_SUM08_HYENA_final.pdf to http://www.suzieszterhas.com/a/pdf/BBC_WL_SUM08_HYENA_final.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080611035052/http://www.hyaenidae.org/the-hyaenidae/spotted-hyena-crocuta-crocuta.html to http://www.hyaenidae.org/the-hyaenidae/spotted-hyena-crocuta-crocuta.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141027025919/http://www.suzieszterhas.com/a/pdf/BBC_WL_SUM08_HYENA_final.pdf to http://www.suzieszterhas.com/a/pdf/BBC_WL_SUM08_HYENA_final.pdf

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) 08:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Supposition that Spotted Hyena society is 'Matriarchal' may be an outdated concept
This blog post (that cites three scientific papers from 2008, 2009, and 2016) claims that Spotted Hyena society is not matriarchal, which contradicts the sentence: "Spotted hyena society is matriarchal; females are larger than males, and dominate them." under the general summary of the article. Considering that the cited source for that claim is from 1992, I think that it might be fair to update this information. -- Novelyst (talk) 11:03, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * A blog post is not a reliable source. Besides, that's not what the blog post says. It says 'not COMPLETELY matriarchal', which is does not mean that everything we know about them is wrong. Sumanuil (talk) 21:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)


 * The blog post isn't my source, sorry if it came off that way. Whilst I did mention its claim, I did not mean to imply it as my source. This article in particular mentions that rank is inherited through the mother, regardless of the sex of the offspring. This makes hyena society matrilineal as opposed to matriarchal. Sibling dominance is a different subject. Male hyenas generally have lower ranks because of dispersal, occurring with multiple clans in a region and the male choice to go (or stay at) the best - source - due to female-driven mate-choice. The summary of this article that I am admittedly unable to read, supports this, although I cannot cite the article itself.


 * I have read the source of the claim that spotted hyena society is matriarchal and, first of all, from what I have read (pages 324-326, 337-343, where 340 was not available to me) nowhere is it explicitly claimed that spotted hyena society is matriachal. The root of this article's claims seem to have been: "The famous 'hermaphroditism' of the spotted hyena can be understood as the outcome of selection for female dominance. Apparently the nutritional advantage of being dominant lead to increased female aggressiveness and size." and "Female dominance is asserted on almost all occasions where there is any question of precedence. When 2 hyenas of opposite sex meet, it is the male that gives way. ... and it is females that lead packs on a marking expedition or into battle." This would seem to suggest that because of females' general dominance, their cubs are larger due to being better fed. I do not believe that this source claims that hyenas are matriarchal - it even mentions a case in which the alpha female's sons outranked all other hyenas save her. -- Novelyst (talk) 06:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)


 * See WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Recent changes
Like I stated on 's talk page, FundiFisi, with this edit, added material about aggressiveness and dominance that conflicts with other sources and/or research, as does this bit, where FundiFisi engaged in WP:Editorializing by stating, "Contrary to what is frequently reported, female spotted hyenas are not substantially larger than males." That is why FundiFisi had to state "contrary to what is frequently reported." Per WP:Primary and WP:SCHOLARSHIP, a primary source should not be used to try to contradict the general literature. Per WP:Due weight, we give most of our weight to what the literature generally states. If there is a serious error, then it will have been reported in a secondary source. And per WP:Verifiability, "If reliable sources disagree, then maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight."

This 2006 "Biology of Aggression" source, from Oxford University Press, page, 195, states, "That female spotted hyenas are more aggressive than other female mammals led to the hypothesis that female dominance in spotted hyenas evolved due to selection favoring large androgenized females that can monopolize access to food resources in competitive feeding situations [...]. High levels of androgens during ontogeny are likely to have organizational effects on aggressive behavior of female spotted hyenas [...], but female dominance in this species is most likely a function of (a) matrilineal association, (b) coalitions between related females, (c) the inheritance of maternal rank, and (d) the general lack of aggressiveness in males, resulting in habitual male submission toward females." Notice how it states "most likely" rather than "is" and gives more than one reason, including the males being less aggressive than the females? This 2011 "Encyclopedia of Power" source, from Sage Publications, page 249, states, "Like meerkats, dominant pregnant hyenas have particularly high levels of androgens that make female offspring behaviorally dominant and aggressive."

Pinging Elmidae, Mariomassone and Sumanuil, seen in the edit history, for their thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Also see the source FundiFisi used to for the "Contrary to what is frequently reported, female spotted hyenas are not substantially larger than males" piece. Even with the source reporting on variation, the source is clear that female spotted hyenas are one of the rare cases in which female mammals are larger than male mammals. It also states, "Our results demonstrate that when large sample sizes are available, female-biased sexual size dimorphism is apparent for most morphological traits we measured in our study population of spotted hyenas (Table 3). Nevertheless, we found marked variation among traits regarding both the degree of dimorphism and the sample size needed to reliably detect dimorphism (Fig. 4)." The "not substantially larger" aspect is something we might look to report on in the future, but we should not be using this source to report that. The source also talks about what some have argued and what it proposes. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't have the headspace at the moment to really look into the sources, so this opinion is going to be a bit shallow. From what I can see, FundiFisi has done a commendable job here of bringing in some more recent research to supplement what's already there, and the bulk of their additions look fine to me. But I agree with Flyer22 Reborn that a single paper (including possible cites by others) is not a sufficient basis to authoritatively state "contrary to what is frequently reported". Basically, if you've got to use that phrasing, you are running contrary to how WP operates - if it is frequently reported, then that's what we report, and we leave the revision of popular consensus to the normal scientific process of verification, replication and uptake. It doeasn't look like that is being reflected in the literature yet. That doesn't mean that this study's results can't be reported, but they shouldn't be presented as revising current understanding rather than offering a dissenting finding. - So overall, I'd suggest reinstating FundiFisi's material here, but reformulating the size ratio along the lines of "A 2013 study suggests that [alternative interpretation]". -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Elmidae. As for FundiFisi edits, I can agree to add a bit from this aforementioned study in its own paragraph. But FundiFisi added other material that is at conflict with the literature as well, mainly the aggression/dominance aspect. And so I don't agree with re-adding all of that the way that FundiFisi added it; this is per what I stated above. I can support adding aspects of FundiFisi's material with careful wording and respecting the existence of other sources saying differently; this is where WP:Verifiability stating about "if reliable sources disagree" comes in. Like you said, "we leave the revision of popular consensus to the normal scientific process of verification, replication and uptake." I'd still prefer not to use primary sources, though, and that goes for primary sourcing currently in the article as well. On a side note: I also have a concern that the FundiFisi account is operated by an editor who followed me to this article, and so I have contacted a WP:CheckUser to look into that. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that my phrasing concerning sexual size dimorphism in spotted hyenas may have been misleading. By writing “frequently reported” I was not referring to textbooks and the scientific literature but to the popular literature (blogs, social media etc.). Most scientific studies in fact found no difference in body size and shoulder height – arguably the two most common and relevant morphometric traits when discussing size dimorphism – and argue that there is little or no sexual size dimorphism in spotted hyenas. As Van Horn et al. 2003 put it in the Journal of Mammalogy: “Because we found no sexual dimorphism in those variables that best reflected and predicted age... we agree with those authors (Hamilton et al. 1986; van Jaarsveld et al. 1988) who have suggested that sexual dimorphism in C. crocuta is very slight.”
 * I’m therefore happy to rephrase the text accordingly and include all relevant references. I suggest reinstating my changes and rephrasing the corresponding statements in the section Dimensions as follows: “Adult females are not substantially larger than males: females are less than 3% longer and less than 1% taller than males, and sexual size dimorphism is low or absent in these and other morphological traits (Matthews 1939, Skinner 1976, Whately 1980, Hamilton et al. 1986, Henschel 1986, van Jaarsveld 1988, Mills 1990, van Horn et al. 2003, Sillero-Zubiri and Gottelli 1992, Swanson et al. 2013). This removes the potentially unclear difference between “frequently reported” and “general literature” or “popular consensus”. It also clarifies that even if there was a difference in body size in spotted hyenas, it is very small and negligible biologically. It also clarifies that not just one study showed that sexual size dimorphism is low or absent but the vast majority. This is supported by the additional studies that have measured body mass and that were referred to in the subsequent section on body mass. By providing actual sizes for males and females, the readers can decide by themselves whether they consider a less than 1% difference in shoulder height and less than 3% difference in body length something else than “not substantially larger”. As for the aggression/dominance part, there is not a single study of the many scientific studies on spotted hyenas that disputes the fact that sons of high-ranking females dominate lower-ranking females. Stating that females dominate males (in the first section below the title) and “Females dominate males, with even the lowest ranking females being dominant over the highest ranking males” in the Social behaviour section therefore is wrong. What is correct is that females dominate ‘immigrant’ males of their clan (but so do native males), and that resident males, including immigrant males, dominate intruding females. This was shown in Vullioud et al. 2019 and is written in the current version on Wikipedia. On a more general note, I find it dangerous to rely on statements in old, outdated books or safari guides (e.g. Estes, Kingdon) rather than comprehensive and thorough new scientific studies (that usually discuss the old results) based on the argument that the old statements were repeated many times and thus became 'popular consensus' for two reasons. First, old sources have been around for much longer than recent studies and therefore have had the chance to become 'popular consensus', even if they are proven wrong. Second, new studies are increasingly less likely to be integrated into any 'textbooks' (mostly because these kinds of sources have become less and less relevant and attractive) meaning that we will increasingly rely on outdated books... Also: I was surprised to see that other users undo all changes and additions because of one or two debatable statements. With my changes I corrected various statements that contradicted all known literature and that had no reference to scientific studies. Example: males were stated to disperse at the age of 2.5 years, with no reference. This was replaced by 3.5 years, citing the by far most comprehensive study on male dispersal thus far and the only one that was based on actual observations of males who were individually known and who were monitored from birth, that is, whose age was very precisely estimated (other scientific studies found a similar dispersal age). Adding substantial changes that mostly follow WP’s guidelines and that add interesting information (and that include reference to the scientific literature) is quite time consuming and it can be discouraging if these efforts are not respected. Finally, I am NOT an editor who followed you to this article. FundiFisi (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * FundiFisi, I'm the one who undid your changes. We don't rely on WP:Primary sources the way you are trying to rely on them. You keep talking about individual studies. Read WP:Primary sources and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Also read WP:Due weight. We don't get to decide what is outdated, and certainly not based on what one study says. Like Elmidae stated above, "if it is frequently reported, then that's what we report, and we leave the revision of popular consensus to the normal scientific process of verification, replication and uptake. It doesn't look like that is being reflected in the literature yet." We should not add "Adult females are not substantially larger than males: females are less than 3% longer and less than 1% taller than males" in Wikipedia's voice. That's the reason for Elmidae considering "A 2013 study suggests" wording. I could easily support some or all of the older sources in the article with newer sources, but you would just state that what they are reporting is popular consensus. What you find dangerous is the way that Wikipedia works. And for good reasons that are addressed at WP:Primary sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:Due weight. You spoke of wanting Wikipedia to rely on "comprehensive and thorough new scientific studies (that usually discuss the old results)." You stated that "old sources have been around for much longer than recent studies and therefore have had the chance to become 'popular consensus', even if they are proven wrong. Second, new studies are increasingly less likely to be integrated into any 'textbooks' (mostly because these kinds of sources have become less and less relevant and attractive) meaning that we will increasingly rely on outdated books." WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS states, "we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion."


 * And, yes, I find it suspicious that you are a new account that showed up to add material about female spotted hyenas with regard to aggression/dominance after I was just debating an editor on "the more aggressive/dominant behavior of female spotted hyenas being due to androgens" and "researchers noting that female spotted hyenas are as aggressive as they are due to androgens" aspect at a different article. You added the following to the Spotted hyena article: "Dominance relationships and social ranks in spotted hyena society are the result of disparities in social support rather than differences in intrinsic traits such as physical strength or aggressiveness." This wording is more definitive in its statement than the aforementioned 2006 "Biology of Aggression" source (which lists different likely reasons, including the general lack of aggressiveness in the males) and it is contradicted by the aforementioned 2011 "Encyclopedia of Power" source. We need secondary and/or tertiary sources reviewing the literature to say that what these sources are stating is outdated/incorrect. You also sound similar to the editor I was in debate with (and that includes your view on popular consensus, which is contrasted by that editor's view on "popular literature"). In your edit summary, you even used the same "-->" expression that the editor uses. Not many editors use such an expression in their edit summaries. You also obviously have a good grasp of adding citations (using citation templates, for example) and have signed your username above for your first post; both are aspects that are consistently displayed by non-new editors using a new account. So is your use of WP:Indentation on your first post, although I indented the "I’m therefore happy" piece for you. You also spoke of "mostly follow WP's guidelines," although you aren't correct on how we apply sourcing. But like I stated, I've asked a CheckUser to look into this. The article talk page is not the ideal place to discuss my suspicions on your non-newness. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Just a note that FundiFisi was blocked as a sock, but not as the person I suspected FundiFisi of being. The case is at Sockpuppet investigations/FundiFisi. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC)


 * If I am interpreting this correctly, FundiFisi edited the German wiki too, correct? Although I know it may be a bit of a stretch, is it possible that this account belongs to the Hyena Project? They mentioned planning to edit this Wikipedia article on Twitter mid-July. I also saw a COI mentioned on their talk page - did they cite their own work? --Novelyst (talk) 09:03, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Info from Hyena Project regarding social structure.
I have added some small notes regarding the spotted hyenas social structure (I.E. the fact that males can lead clans, and also that females can disperse from clans). However, if you feel like this should be changed, please feel free to do so.

Note: I am not in any way affiliated with Hyena Project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 15:44, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Spot pattern.
I just thought I'd say that I think it would be a good idea to include how researchers often use the spot pattern to identify individual hyenas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 16:57, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyena-project.com, etc.
Redstoneprime, I reverted your edits. Not only were most unsourced, hyena-project.com is not a WP:Reliable source. Stick to scholarly sources per WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

If you don't mind me asking: why aren't Hyena Project considered a "reliable source"? I thought all research groups were considered as reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs)


 * Redstoneprime, why don't you read our WP:Reliable sources guideline? Any ole website doesn't cut it. And, no, we don't include what any researcher or group of researchers state. If that was the case, our WP:Fringe guideline wouldn't exist. And since you are WP:Edit warring on this matter, I will ask editors at the WP:Reliable sources noticeboard to weigh in. In the meantime, Elmidae and Apokryltaros, can I get your thoughts on this? I'm not sure why Sumanuil allowed Redstoneprime's edits. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 17:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

So, basically it's a case of "We know what they say is true, but it's not 100% reliable"? Which also brings up the question of: What if we find some useful info, but there's no reliable source for it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

ALso, I imagine images from such "unreliable" sources are accepted if permission is given? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 18:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I have changed the section regarding hyenas to Zimbabwe back to my version, though, since it's more accurate to say "they aren't protected outside of reserves". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 18:35, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

I imagine the best source of infor regarding hyenas is the IUCN Hyena Specialist Group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 18:47, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * My take on this: material sourced to the Hyena Project site is perfectly fine; this is a long-term research project at a Leibniz Institute that has been producing results for 25 years, and the PI is a member of the IUCN hyena specialist group. Details are here. I don't see a reason to doubt information from that source, and referencing to the blog rather than to individual journal publications should also be okay. - However,, you must attribute this stuff correctly. If you add ten items that all stem from this source, but only reference one of them (placing the others throughout the text without any indication as to what the source is), then you should not be surprised if the lot gets reverted. Please reference each addition, then there should be no problems from that direction. I noted that grammar (looks somewhat doubtful in large stretches) and formatting are likely to need some polish though. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Elmidae could you elaborate a bit more on this, please?Redstoneprime (talk) 19:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What needs elaborating? The referencing approach? In this edit, you add 5 items, but the ones about spot use for ID and persecution by farmers are without references. They all need one. (The one about changing perceptions I would remove, as it is very likely an unsourceable personal synthesis). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:21, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae Thanks. I take it my correction on the Zimbabwe section can still stay up, though? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, is that information contained in the given source (IUCN conservation action plan)? I can't check because the link is dead and I can't find another working one on the net... -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Elmidae, per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, I can't consider using this source perfectly fine. I'm judging the source based on our WP:Reliable sources guideline. I just don't see how it passes. As for citing research reported on the site via using individual journal publications as opposed to citing the site? That might be okay per WP:Primary sources. Also, regarding this edit that Redstoneprime made? That's WP:Weasel wording; the source doesn't support "some research groups." The only research group it supports is this project in particular. So if citing the source at all, it needs better WP:In-text attribution. I get that Redstoneprime didn't just cite the Hyena Project with that edit, but still. And per WP:Primary sources and WP:Due weight, the Hyena Project source shouldn't be used to try to contradict the general literature. And something like "however, research done by Hyena Project at Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania has confirmed that females may also disperse from their natal clan, although this is very rare, and has only been recorded once" is simply undue because it's presumably only being reported by the Hyena Project and the incident, if true, has been only been recorded once.


 * On a side note: Mariomassone is an editor I neglected to ping above. Mariomassone is on Wikipedia less often than the others, however. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:28, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Frozen Understood. However, if it was cited by Hyena-Project, doesn't that automoatically make it true (espescially since they are part of IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group)? And, regarding your comment about me citing only one research group when I mentioned two, I take it you're talking about the part where I talk about spot patterns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 20:30, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:Truth. It's an essay rather than a policy or guideline, but it relays the fact that we don't simply go by what we think is true. We instead go by what sources that pass our WP:Reliable sources guideline state and with WP:Due weight. Yes, per the edit I pointed to, I'm partly referring to your edits about spots.


 * Also, you still are not signing your posts. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This strikes me as mistaken on several counts, but okay. The one thing I take definite issue with is the notion that a single research result cannot be used to provide a counter-example to a generally accepted finding. As long as it is reliably sourced and not over-interpreted, such additions are fine and wanted. -, can you try to source your material to individual publications of the group to allay the misgivings arising (apparently) from the informal nature of the blog? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:55, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Elmidae, the reasons we shouldn't use a single researcher or single research result to try to contradict the general literature is addressed in our WP:Due weight policy, including its subsections. It's also made clear by our WP:Fringe guideline. An outlier source can be included if it's due, but we judge what is due based on its presence in the literature. If something is only reported on in primary sources, then we should question its validity. We should ask ourselves if we should really be including that material if it's not reported on in secondary or tertiary sources. WP:SCHOLARSHIP is clear why we do not prefer primary sources. This is also why the WP:SCIRS essay and WP:MEDRS guideline state what they state. Wikipedia is like this in general -- secondary and tertiary sources are preferred. If primary sources are used, they should be used sparingly and carefully. And if a source is fringe, it may or may not be included, but we have to be clear about the majority viewpoint at all times. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You are mightily overreacting to an uncontroversial observation in ecology, produced by the group of one of the renowned experts in the field. There's no reason to distrust the finding, and a suitably phrased addendum is not UNDUE. This is hyena sociology, not cold fusion, for Chrissakes; you don't have to go full hyper-skeptic on them. I am really annoyed by this more than I should be, so I will bow out here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that we have a newbie here and, when it comes to the way things are done on Wikipedia, your statement that it's fine to use a single research result "to provide a counter-example to a generally accepted finding" does not hold up (except for cases where it's reported on in secondary or tertiary sources and is due or except for certain cases with respect to literature reviews that indicate that the mainstream view may be wrong or may have overlooked something), as Girth Summit in the section immediately below would no doubt also make clear, I haven't overreacted in the least. I'm trying to educate this new editor on the fact that we do not give the same weight to single research results. Per WP:Due weight, WP:ONUS, and WP:NOTEVERYTHING, we don't add everything that exists on a topic just because one or more sources exist for it. This is not about whether we trust findings or not. It's about what I stated above, including with regard to WP:Truth. And it's good to see that Girth Summit touched on WP:Truth below as well. All that stated, I don't see that we need to argue any further on this. We are both trying to guide Redstoneprime. And I'd pinged you because you offered sound commentary on a different matter at this talk page before. I am interested in what you have to state on matters such as these. I meant no offense. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen I don't see why we should question the validity of Hyena-Project, considering they study the animals in Ngorongoro Crater (which means all of their reports are true), so I see no reason to be "skeptical" of them. (Of course, that's just my opinion, and you are free to disagree). Also, as Elmidae pointed out, Hyena-Project are part of both IZW (Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research) Berlin and the IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group (who are considered a reliable source on the spotted hyena article). So, since Hyena-Project aren't a reliable source, wouldn't it make sense to consider the IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group as a non-reliable source, as well? Redstoneprime (talk) 06:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Again, like Girth Summit and I have stated, it is not about how valid/truthful the source is. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer 22 in my edit on spots, I mention two research groups (MSU Masai Mara Hyena Project and Ngorongoro Crater Hyena Project). Redstoneprime (talk) 20:42, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae It's not cited, know. But I know it's true that they're protected within nature reserves, since that's the whole point of nature reserves: to protect local fauna and flora. Redstoneprime (talk) 21:20, 11 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Redstoneprime, I know that you did. Above, I clearly stated, "I get that Redstoneprime didn't just cite the Hyena Project with that edit, but still." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Elmidae I put a question regarding my edit to the Zimbabwe section onto the Wikipedia Teahouse, if you want to check it out.Redstoneprime (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Social behaviour
Does anyone know any reliable sources that state that females can disperse from their natal clan, and also that males can lead the clan? I know from Hyena Project that females can disperse from their clan (or even form new ones), and that males can lead a clan. But I can't find any other sources regarding that info.Redstoneprime (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , if there's something we know, but can't source, we generally leave it out. Our aim is to reflect what the best available sources say, not what we know to be true. This can be frustrating when we have a lot of personal knowledge about a subject, but you can imagine what would happen if we allowed anyone to add anything they like because they 'know' it. This is the internet, after all... Girth Summit  (blether)  15:27, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * this paper seems to go a little into female dispersal:
 * Höner, O. P., Wachter, B., East, M. L., Runyoro, V. A., & Hofer, H. (2005). The effect of prey abundance and foraging tactics on the population dynamics of a social, territorial carnivore, the spotted hyena. Oikos, 108(3), 544-554.
 * You will have to assess whether it backs up what you want to add. No mention of male clan leadership though. If you can't access the paper, give me a ping, I can send you the PDF. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit So, that sort of stuff is probably best discussed on the articles talk page?

Elmidae I'm surprised there is no paper on male clan leadership, considering it's been studied before. Also, would you say this a good source: https://academic.oup.com/jmammal/article/84/3/1019/903732? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It's a published and peer-reviewed scientific paper, thus a reliable source. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * (By the way, if you don't sign your messages, the ping/notofication to other editors won't work) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Regarding this and this? You shouldn't be adding "usually" unless you have a reliable source to support it. And I don't mean a sole research paper via the Hyena-Project or something else indicating that males occasionally dominate females, or that one male is known to have done so. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen I understand. However, simply saying that "females dominate males" sound a little too "one-sided" in my honest opinion (since it makes it sound like that's always the case. I know that isn't your intention, however)m hence why I put "usually". Not every individual of a species follows the same "rules" that nature has set for that species.Of course, I think Hyena-Project are more reliable for hyenas than, say, some random website made by some random hyena fan. (but just not reliable enough for Wikipedia, of course). I take it the main rule is "Just because you know something is true, don't add it to the page unless you have a reliable source" (such as, in the case of hyenas, the IUCN Hyaena Specialist Group)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstoneprime (talk • contribs) 08:42, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

I have added more to social behaviour (I.E. how cubs rank just below their mothers, and how the matriarchs youngest will take over when the matriarch dies/dispseres). Redstoneprime (talk) 10:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I stand by what I stated above. "Usually" shouldn't be there. With regard to adding text to this article or other Wikipedia articles, it should be supported by sources that pass our reliable sources guideline and should not violate WP:Undue. And for using the same reference more than once, see WP:REFNAME. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 20:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen What would be a good way to word it to make it so it doesn't sound like that's always the case (I.E. females are always more dominant than males)? Redstoneprime (talk) 22:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you still trying to reword it without a reliable source supporting you? What reliable source states that males occasionally dominate the females? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:58, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 Frozen That's true. I know Hyena-Project are the most reliable source for that (I.E. more reliable than some random fan-made website, for example), but just not reliable enough for Wikipedia. I guess it's safe to say that I currently have proof that it happens, but not enough proof to put it on Wikipedia. And unfortunately, I can't find any other source that states that happening (which makes no sense to me, since I imagine other people outside of Hyena-Project would have observed it). Redstoneprime (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Regarding stuff like this? Again, you need to source your content with an incline citation. If that source is supported by a source already in the article, then apply WP:REFNAME so that you aren't redundantly citing the whole source. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Spotted_hyena_(Crocuta_crocuta).jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Spotted_hyena_(Crocuta_crocuta).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for September 12, 2020. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2020-09-12. Any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be made before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:57, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Male may dominate female?


Um, where does the ref say that? Bio Flex (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently, Redstoneprime has been stuck on trying to add this to the article, failing to support it with a ref each time. No ref that says it? No add. Bio Flex (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , the capacity to correctly parse an academic text is required before mouthing off in this manner. The statement "females usually but not always dominate males" is a legitimate summary of both the abstract:


 * [...]We found that individuals with greater potential social support dominated one-on-one interactions in all social contexts, irrespective of their body mass and sex. Female dominance emerged from a disparity in social support in favour of females. This disparity was a direct consequence of male-biased dispersal and the disruptive effect of dispersal on social bonds. Accordingly, the degree of female dominance varied with the demographic and kin structure of the social groups, ranging from male and female co-dominance to complete female dominance.[...]
 * and the relevant parts of the text body:


 * Our results show that dominance between two spotted hyaenas is primarily established by asymmetries in social support, both within and between the sexes. They also show that female spotted hyaenas only consistently dominated males who had immigrated into their clan, that is, males who had lost their social bonds during dispersal. The disruptive effect of dispersal on social bonds and the importance of social support for dominance imply that the degree of female dominance should vary with the strength of the sex bias in dispersal and the demographic and kin structure of the social groups, in particular, the ratio of natives to immigrants and the relatedness among immigrants. Accordingly, female dominance in our study population, calculated using the standardized Mann– Whitney U-test statistic of female and male social ranks8, ranged from 0.5 (female and male co-dominance) when the ratio of native males to immigrant males was high, to 0.98 (nearly complete female dominance) when a clan contained mostly native females and immigrant males unrelated to one another (Supplementary Table 5).
 * If you want to try and make a reasonable case from this that "females dominate males", full stop, I'd be very much interested in the related contortions. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:54, 17 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding to this, the article also states 'Rank reversals are rare and only occur during ‘coups’ when a coalition of lower-ranking members dethrone a higher-ranking coalition37. Immigrant males join the new clan at the bottom of the hierarchy, usually only increase in rank with increasing tenure in the clan when a higher-ranking clan member dies or disperses and remain subordinate to all native clan members'. I never include info on animals unless it has been observed by researchers. Also, in the Wikipedia article itself, it stated that 'if the matriarch dies, her youngest cub will take over', which means a male can lead the clan if their youngest cub is a male, as it only says 'youngest cub' rather than 'youngest female cub'.Redstoneprime (talk) 13:22, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * , any comments? Otherwise I am reinstating this edit tomorrow. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:02, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In absence of cogent arguments to the contrary other than "I don't see it", and in view of the unequivocal material cited above, I have inserted a modified version again: Females usually but not invariably dominate males, with even the low-ranking females generally being dominant over high-ranking males. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:29, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

To further add to this, it also says here that males can dominate females: https://hyena-project.com/the-clans/shamba-comeback-kids/. 'Was led by a male during a period of two years. A male leading a hyena clan is very rare and usually only happens when the alpha female dies and her highest-ranking offspring is a son'. I know it's not the most reliable source (and not supported by Wikipedia's standards), but it's still proof that it does happen. Redstoneprime (talk) 20:22, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, you need to chill. Talking to Bio Flex like that was uncalled for. All the source you cited shows is that a female may share the dominance with a male. It's still the female dominating solely or with a male. But I understand that you're saying that the male may get to dominate females in that way at least. I think a qualifier should go in the piece so that people know that it's not a male dominating females by himself. I think the phrasing should say something like "females usually dominates males, but will sometimes co-dominate with a male."

After reading "mama's boys" phrasing on the page and wondering why it sounds so unencyclopedic and how it got there, I looked on this discussion page and in the archives and saw https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spotted_hyena/Archive_1#Recent_changes. Well, looking at this and a discussion higher up, it appears certain people keep trying to promote the Hyena Project and that we shouldn't defer to Hyena Project over usual academic information and use one study for this stuff. So something like "According to research by" should be added to the phrasing if we include information based on one study.

Redstoneprime, you added that about the cubs, and it's saying who takes over as the matriarch. Males aren't matriarchs. It's like you can't accept one of the rare cases in the world where females rather than males dominate. As for "it also says here that males can dominate females", that's more Hyena Project stuff. I have to ask if you are with the Hyena Project. All you keep doing is promoting that website/work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Tried suggested wording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 00:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I will take evaluations of "uncalled for" in regard to people who bother to do more than give 5 second scans to papers they blithely dismiss - i.e., not Bio Flex. But specifically mentioning co-dominance would be fine, based on the phrasing in the source.
 * I'm not a fan of the "mama's boy" section either. This kind of coinage is sometimes okay if done by a peer-reviewed study, but I don't think we should adopt it unless actually published as such, which is not the case with much of the Hyena Project stuff (charitably, Not Yet - I believe they are formally publishing their findings by and by). -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * ApproximateLand I was not trying to promote Hyena Project in any way, I was simply making reference of their research in order to provide further evidence that it does happen (with a male leading a clan rather than a female, such as the case of Shamba Clan in Ngorongoro Crater). However, I do find it odd that it's only been observed in one area by one organisation, though (however, there will likely be some variations between different clans in different areas in terms of hierarchy and clan structure, and that could be affected by various factors, including clan size as well as the ranking of the individual members in the clan, including the males), so it is possible they made a mistake somewhere during their observations of this clan. Also, I'm not with Hyena Project, at all, I simply read a lot on hyena research, including notes from Ngorongoro Crater Hyena Project (the research group referenced here), as well as the hyena research group in the Masai Mara. In regards to the Mamas-boy section, the article does link to two accademic papers, so would it be a good idea to link to them instead of the article from the Hyena project website (which acts more as a summary of their research)? Redstoneprime (talk) 09:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Elmidae, I'm under the impression (by the start of the discussion section) that Bio Flex read the source. But to say that males can dominate the females is such a rare and circumstantial occurrence that it makes complete sense to just say that female spotted hyenas dominate, which is what academics typically say. There's always going to be exceptions. Still, I guess it doesn't hurt to be a little more accurate by saying that males can, in rare cases, dominate.

Redstoneprime, OK about you having no affiliation with Hyena Project and why you've been interested in the topic. Regarding the two academic papers, I feel like others before me about waiting until the more published literature reports on stuff like that instead of adding more and more research from the Hyena Project. The "mama's boy" more formal papers (seen at the bottom of the source) are by the same authors. I read a wiki rule somewhere that says if it's worth reporting, then the more established literature would have also reported on it. I don't think it's right to keep adding Hyena Project stuff to the page when no other sources are saying what they're saying. Still, I would be worried less about it if there weren't indications that the Hyena Project is focused on stuffing their independent research on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 23:58, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

That is true: just because something is a good source of information doesn't always mean that it's reliable per Wikipedia's standards. I just simply like making sure the info on the page is as accurate as possible, is all. However, without a reliable source, it can be difficult to make the information 100% accurate (especially in regards to scientific articles, as new research comes out literally all the time). Redstoneprime (talk) 11:08, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Redstoneprime, an edit you made added information already on the page (sort of). I cleaned up and reworked the information.. I gave you some leeway by attributing the data to Höner et al. and adding "otherwise able to lead." For this phrasing, you might want to add one of the Höner sources as an additional reference, but I don't think you should add more information from Höner et al. about this than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 21:57, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed "sometimes co-dominate with a male" to "occasionally co-dominate with a male" for accuracy.. Maybe "infrequently" should be used, but the first part of the sentence does say that the female usually dominates and the rest of the paragraph is straightforward about the rare stuff. So "occasionally" should be fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ApproximateLand (talk • contribs) 22:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)