Talk:Two-toed sloth

Untitled
There is some messy situation about whether it's under Xenarthra or Pilosa order :( SyP 09:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The most recent publications put it in Pilosa. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Pic
Is this, this or this a Hoffmanns sloth? It'd be good to replace the fair use pic. --Peta 11:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Classification?
"It is very closely related to the three-toed sloth."

I thought it was determined that the two were only distantly related? The family tree on the page on Xenarthra seems accurate, but I don't see how two animals are so very closely related when they are in different families. 71.217.114.221 20:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The closeness of their relation is somewhat relative (no pun intended) to one's point of view. Within the Pilosa, these two sloths represent different families (see Gaudin, 2004 for further details), with three-toed's falling out near the base of the sloth tree (it has odd characters).  Anyone who's ever truly looked at the skeleton of these animals will note that there are general similarities but also some very large and deep differences.  Foot structure alone is enough to explain and relate to their different climbing abilities and preferences for support structures. Doc Sloth (talk) 21:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Some additional information
Source for the following quoted material, which could well be under copyright: http://www.americazoo.com/goto/index/mammals/126.htm

Description: The face of the two-toed sloth is quite flattened and hairless. Its eyes are small, set within black rings, and the ears are almost completely hidden beneath the long, bristly, gray-brown coat. Its tail is little more than a stump. The front legs are slightly longer than the hind legs, and the feet have long curved claws, but only on the second and third toes of the front feet, which is why it is called a two-toed sloth. Also unlike the three-toed sloth, the underside of the two-toed sloth's foot is hairless. It reaches about two feet in length and weighs about 20 lbs.

I liked the mention of why this animal is called a two-toed sloth, in particular. If someone is willing to expand this stub, some of the above would be an excellent addition. If permission from the cited source can't be obtained, or if the desired info can't be included under fair-use, perhaps someone would be willing to look for the same info from a copyright-free source. I'm not familiar enough with the copyright issues or Wiki standards to feel right adding this myself or know just how much of it to add. Maybe just a link to the cited page as an external reference is appropriate.

Again, I'm not familiar with the issues, so I thought I'd just provide this tiny bit of "research" for appropriate use by another :) . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.48.192.98 (talk) 09:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I take exception to the description of the flattened face. If this were a discussion of Bradypus, then I'd agree wholeheartedly but Choleopus does have a bit of a snout.  Doc Sloth (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are right. Of course, compared to a coati the 2-toed sloths face is "quite flattened", but that's not really saying much.Rlendog (talk) 00:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

30% body weight
I added that 30% bodyweight of these animals any time is comprised of undigested food and waste. I would like to know why it was removed? Docku (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Please cite a verifiable and reliable source for this claim of 30%. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The source that was apparently cited (MacDonald) does not support the 30% claim, although that reference actually predated the 30% edit and really applied to the previous fact (that the food can take a month to digest) rather than the 30% claim.Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I have added the information with reference. Hope it is ok this time.Docku (talk) 22:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Physiological Ecology of Animals
— Assignment last updated by IanKreciglowa (talk) 16:38, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Family
Seems we are the only mainstream reference that puts this genus in its own family. All other reputable references use Megalonychidae, and have rejected the recent papers that move it out. This includes IUCN, GBIF, and ITIS. The only other modern reference that uses Choloepodidae is ASM's MDD. I think we should switch back. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:14, 9 October 2023 (UTC)