Talk:Harem (zoology)

Manade

Taking the Manade question here. Basically, if we want to add every example of stallions and mares living together, we could be adding all sorts of articles besides this one, basically every animal listed in the feral horse and semi-feral articles just for starters. So I fail to see why this one article belongs in the see also section. But I am also open to a cogent argument that can answer why this but not New Forest ponies, or Chincoteague ponies or whatever. And also why we don't add more on Wapiti and other harem animals. Montanabw^(talk) 01:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A Manade is, I believe, a harem-like behavioural grouping of horses, albeit an artificially produced one (though I'm still unsure even of that; why is there no article on Manada?). Feral horse, Semi-feral, Elk, Chincoteague etc. are not, I think. But why not add them to the See also if you think they are relevant, along with things like Hamadryas baboon? One possible reason why not is that it might turn into a laundry-list, but the article is empty at present. Why I myself don't add more stuff is because I am not competent to do so. I've asked for help at WP:Animals; that is why I put the article in that project, and would like you to leave it there. Ethology is in the biology project too, so you might consider restoring that as well. The feral horse article is full of references to "bands", some at least of which should probably be replaced with "harems" in the hope that someone will write this page. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If you have a good reason to keep Ethology in, it can stay in for now, that's find. But for the rest, ALL horses turned loose into groups of mixed sex breeding stock will form a harem model herd. To single out a manade is undue weight on only one example when there are, at least, dozens. The Manade article was created by someone knowledgeable about the Carmargue horse (which is the only breed kept in a Manade, according to the article) who appeared to be a person from France who spoke French as their first language, I have no clue if a "Manada" is even the same thing or not, and if they are different, then fine, go create another article. As far as baboons go, if they have a harem model, fine, I can guarantee you that Elk (Wapiti -- the US ones) are definitely harem creatures, that's the terminology the wildlife biologists here use to describe their behavior. Montanabw^(talk) 06:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there some confusion here between behavioural groupings and their members? It would be one thing to list all fraternal organisations such as the Elks or the Masons. It would be quite another to list all their members. If there are articles on other relevant behavioural groupings, please go ahead and add them. Manade just happens to be the only one I am aware of. There's nothing undue about that. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

LOL On the Elks and the Masons, let's also remember the Lions Club and the Fraternal order of the Moose, also the Eagles (the club not the band!). The point is that harem organization in animals is related to biology and is going to appear across any group of animals within that species when left to themselves; hence a manade is not really representative more so than any of the others, which is why I think it wasn't suitable to be in there in the first place. Montanabw^(talk) 19:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bengal tiger listed as haremic species - incorrect?

Forgive me if I mistakenly don't follow convention here. I've never participated in a Wikipedia talk page before, but I am in the middle of a Masters degree on animal behavior.

Bengal tigers are listed here as a harem-living species, but this is incorrect by common wisdom; most of the big cats, including tigers, typically live alone. To be considered a harem, the animal should spend the majority of its time in a group of females that are reproductively defended by a vast minority of males (a la elephant seals). This really does not describe tigers. (It might describe lions and I might be able to find a source to that effect.)

The source cited (13 in the article is http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006320712000250, and it does not support the idea that tigers live in harems. The researchers in the paper used a variety of hypothetical mating systems for tigers, including polygyny, to model population dynamics with poaching as a factor---but no one knows for sure which model is the right one, i.e. if tigers are somehow haremic we haven't seen it.

I think tigers should be taken from the list of non-primate haremic animals, with the possibility of lions added as a substitute.

Mammalfish (talk) 23:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that if you cannot locate a reliable source that says they are, then toss them. Probably best to not add anything new without a source, we probably should try to improve verification on this article, at least as we go... Montanabw^(talk) 05:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the cited paper and it uses a harem system as a model in conservation predictions. I have therefore removed Bengal tiger from the list.

Hi, I read your article and learned a lot about Harem formation in the animal kingdom. However, I have noticed that most of the references are pretty ancient which makes the information in the article seem a bit out-dated. Also, I would recommend checking the links in the references section as some of them do not work. Thanks ESE98 (talk) 20:31, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I've chopped the dead links. The refs range up to 2017; I would say that in non-molecular zoology, if something is well researched it's not likely to change rapidly; of course, there's always room for new discoveries. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)