Talk:Borneo elephant

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Mid‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Political history of the island

Does anyone else think that the majority of this article isn't really relevant? Much of the stuff about the Sultans of Sulu seems like it could be better replaced with "There is some evidence that the elephants were originally a Royal gift from Java, and were later released into the wilds of Borneo. This is supported by a lack of archaeological evidence for elephant populations living on the island." Probably not that, but something of that bent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.3.210 (talk) 14:36, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it is very, very irrelevant. FunkMonk (talk) 06:44, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the "Elephant" capitalization fetish?

Almost every elephant article in Wikipedia arbitrarily mixes capitalization of this word "elephant" as though sometimes it's a proper noun and sometimes it's not. Here's a hint: it's never a proper noun, because we're not talking about a person or place named "Elephant". You don't refer to your Dog and Cat, we don't speak German, we don't capitalize common nouns. Stop it, kids! --75.58.54.17 02:02, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Size

Exactly how big is this? 134.197.62.4 (talk) 18:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Took this from WWF Malaysia www - Size Males grow to a height of less than 2.5 meters compared to other Asian elephants that grow to 3 meters. The Borneo Pygmy has a longer tail that reaches almost to the ground and straighter tusks. Cavingliz (talk) 03:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's been four years now, and no one has added the size to the page???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.105.231.37 (talk) 21:01, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to comment on this issue. This species is also referred to as "pygmy elephant" and one of the first things a reader wants to know is the size range. Yet the original author completely failed for some reason to add this information. Do a wiki search on "asian elephant" or "african elephant" and these specify size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.106.139.29 (talk) 19:46, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Population census of Borneo elephant

A new Borneo elephant population census was published in 2010 by Raymond Alfred et al. It resulted in a new population estimation of 2,040 elephants. This was refinement on a previous population estimation by Raymond Alfred in 2007. In the new study, it was stated that the previous population estimate was incorrect because of insufficient rigour and systemization of the methodology. The jump in elephant numbers from 1,000 to 2,040 is therefore not a population increase but a new, improved systematic methodology.

I understand Annielogue's logic behind keeping the old estimate, but given that the jump is due to an erroneous methodology in the 2007 survey, I would suggest deleting the 2007 population estimate reference be removed altogether. Guillaumefeldman (talk) 15:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Guillaumefeldman for taking the time to write this. I really have no expertise on the Bornean Elephant. I've had a look at the more recent paper, Density and Population Estimation of the Bornean Elephants (Elephas maximus borneensis) in Sabah and I can't find the discussion of the previous one. The only previous one I could actually track down was Satellite Tracking of Borneo's Pygmy Elephants June 2005 - June 2006 http://www.worldwildlife.org/species/finder/asianelephants/WWFBinaryitem12188.pdf and I can't find a population estimate in that. It does seem to be the same authors who worked on the earlier paper, and, without having all the information, what you say does seem to be correct. I'll change the article.

At first it struck me as odd that, "elephant density was highest in ranges where habitat had been removed and elephants had been concentrated in the the remaining forest areas", until I realised that, because these areas are smaller, and neighbouring areas have been deforested, a greater population has had to "squeeze" into a smaller area. (see the map on p93). The statement given in isolation is perhaps misleading - the greatest numbers are in the Central Forest Range, as the article says. Anyway, I'll leave that for now. What do you think, Guillaumefeldman? --Annielogue (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Annielogue. Thanks for rectifying the article. It's a small world when it comes to the conservation of the Borneo elephant and it tends to be the same people, in different combinations, refining their work over the years. Raymond Alfred, author of the 2010 paper, is also the guy who is in charge of putting tracking collars on elephants along the Kinabatangan River in partnership with Sabah Wildlife Department staff. The 2006 WWF report was also written by Raymond Alfred and used previous counts made by Ambu and Andau published in 2002.

In reference to the 2010 paper that discusses the older population counts, I was referring to page 100 where the author has written the following - 'We believe the differences between these population estimates and those of Dawson (1992); Andau et al. (2002) and Ambu et al. (2002) relied primarily on interviews with forest managers and also on secondary data derived from brief field trips to come up with estimates. ..... Therefore, we believe that the methods used to estimate the population size in 1992 and 2002 may have led to an underestimate of the elephant population size in Sabah.' All of Alfred et al 2010's data was derived from a systematic study of all five remaining ranges.

You are quite right to point out the statement about elephant densities is confusing as it stands. I will rectify using your language which I think is clearer and easier to understand than the wording I've used. Guillaumefeldman (talk) 12:13, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

island dwarfism?

if the bornean elephant truly is a native subspecies to bornea then may island dwarfism explain for y its the smalled subspecies of elephant, and it is possible since paleontoligical evidence suggests that it is possible since remains of other extinct species of elephants known as dwarf elephants did suffer from this and explains y they became so small and their remains were found not to far from the native habitat of the now present borneo pygmy elephant.--Jasonz2z (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"In about 1395, the Raja of Java gave two elephants to the ruler Raja Baginda of Sulu. These animals were reputedly the founders of a feral population at the western end of Borneo."

Since when was the realm of Sulu anywhere near the western end of Borneo ? Or was this written by the same confused, mirror-gazing, narcissists who think that "Krakatoa" is east of Java ?Eregli bob (talk) 18:11, 21 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Borneo elephant. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]