Talk:Mongoose

Introduction as an exotic species

There has to be a section on this. Mongoose have been used in many places where they are an exotic species, usually not to the benefit of the local fauna. Please put this in. 2600:1702:3840:E240:47F:4782:C551:56DA (talk) 21:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Popularity Contest

As much as I loved the Chuck Jones cartoon, I think Rikki-Tikki-Tavi lost his claim to the title of the world's most popular fictional mongoose once The Lion King hit theatres in 1994. From that point on, Timon the meerkat had received a lot more public recognition.palmer --M.Neko 13:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The character Timon isn't a mongoose; he's a meerkat. No matter how popular Timon is it has nothing to do with the popularity of mongoose characters, a completely different animal. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 17:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Technically, meerkats are a type of mongoose (as mentioned in the article). However, they're not commonly referred to as such, so I agree that it might be confusing to include this example in the "in popular culture" section. Anaxial (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

They are in the same family, but they're of a species not commonly referred to as a mongoose, so I agree it's probably not appropriate to give Timon the title of "most popular fictional mongoose." It may bear a brief mention in the popular culture section but Riki Tikki Tavi is still much better known in popular culture as a mongoose than Timon, by far. Tigers are in the same family as domestic cats but we don't say Tony the Tiger is a more popular cat than Garfield. 67.174.98.77 (talk) 17:43, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Relation

Are the words mongoose and goose really related?? 66.32.252.184 01:41, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Likely not, goose comes from PIE *ghans, whereas mongoose comes from a dravidian word, akin to mangoos, or something.

The word should be derived from an Indic language word, (Marathi) 'mangus'. Source: The Chambers Dictionary. Googling reveals several supporting articles.

Why isn't the mongoose in the Mustelidae family?(much discription please) 64.149.37.114 01:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC) 64.149.37.114 01:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Taxonomists use structures (teeth, bones, etc) that they can measure and compare objectively to decide, and most recently use of genetics to group animals into species. Mongoose is a large family, and if you looked at them and mustelids (otters, weasels, badgers, skunks etc.) closely, there would be many differences. They may appear more similar to each other than other animals, but they are not the same. --Paddling bear 17:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Brand

Shouldn't there be a dismbiguation page for this? For the bike/skateboard band mongoose. Yes?

Make a disambiguation page please.

• I thought disambiguation was when there was more than two articles with similar names? Otherwise, I'd say add a link on the top of this article to the other. There's no need for a extra page to tell about a single other article.

--Vidarlo 20:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Plural

I thought the plural was "polygoose", compared to "mongoose".

That's a knee-slapper. (Momus)

Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists both mongooses and mongeese. The American Heritage Dictionary, 4th ed. and the Compact Oxford English Dictionary both list only mongooses. None list mongoose. Given this inconsistency, it's important to recognize these dictionaries present quite different views of the English language. Merriam-Webster takes a descriptive approach and seeks to record real-world usage. American Heritage, on the other hand, focuses more on the traditional rules of formal English. In fact, James Parton created The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language because he felt Webster's Third New International Dictionary was too permissive in regard to non-standard usage. Compare the following usage notes for they, gender-neutral third person singular: MW AH.

Merriam-Webster and American Heritage are both useful references for a Wikipedia editor. Merriam-Webster's descriptivist treatment of the English language mirrors Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Similarly, American Heritage's preference for formal, standardized English complements Wikipedia: Manual of Style. Thus Merriam-Webster is better research tool and American Heritage a better editing aid. And since this discussion relates to the word mongeese, rather than the actual animal, Merriam-Webster trumps American Heritage. I've changed the article to lists mongeese as a rare variation of mongooses. Labeling it incorrect would not be a neutral point of view. --Ryanrs 11:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

"The plural form of mongoose is properly written mongooses." Well, duh. Nobody seriously uses "mongeese" as plural. It's not common "usage", but a common joke. Will remove Kar98 18:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

We had a run in with mongooses last weekend and one of my friends refered to them as mongi, like octipi... any reason why this isn't correct?--Jrader 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Because that's using latin declination. The "us" in "Octopus" comes from Latin. Only words ending in "us" and coming from Latin change to "i" in the plural. "Mongoose" may sound similar to "Mongus," but that's only a coincidence. Korossyl 18:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but Octopus comes from Greek, not Latin. Anyways, the comment in the article that the -eese plural ending is incorrect because they are unrelated doesn't make sense. Their being unrelated didn't present a barrier to their singulars ending in -oose, after all, so it doesn't follow that -eese is incorrect for this reason. I would propose a change to something like this: "Though the plural of mongoose is most frequently rendered as "mongooses", it is also rendered as "mongeese", though this is variously seen as incorrect, a joke form, or a valid alternative." --Reveilled 16:46, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so Ryanrs wrote a nice paragraph to support using mongooses as plural, but mentioning mongeese as alternative. BUT when I read it today, it clearly and only states 'plural is mongeese' at the top. I'v never heard anyone call it that, so I think it should be changed. It's an odd one, but remember house becomes houses, while mouse becomes mice. =D--Paddling bear 17:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

None the less, I think we should stick with one form of the plural in the article itself, rather than switching between 'mongooses' and 'mongeese' every other sentence. I've edited to use 'mongooses' exclusively (except, of course, for the statement at the beginning about the alternative being acceptable), since that seems the less controversial of the two. Anaxial 18:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Anaxial that the article should use the formal plural (mongooses) but I suppose Merriam-Webster reflects the fact that 25% of Google hits use the "incorrect" form (mongeese) so I have left this as an option in the heading.
Is this dumbing-down?
Dbfirs (talk) 13:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Having studied the "Google Books" hits, and eliminated those which discuss the error or "mongeese" and those which are undecided, there remain just a few where the author genuinely thinks that "mongeese" is a valid plural. I conclude, therefore, that Merriam-Webster includes this alternative as a rare plural which appears to be deprecated by most authors. I have marked it accordingly, but please study the data in detail for yourself if you disagree.
Dbfirs (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nature's Assassin

Seriously? 153.104.16.114 01:39, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed information

I removed the following because the first reliable source I saw contradicted it clearly:

"Each female has a territory, which she defends against other females. Males defend larger territories that overlap with those of several females. Males and females rarely interact outside mating periods. Feeding on prey like mice, snakes and lizards requires stealth and is best done alone."

The source I consulted is [1], which I also added inline. - Taxman ^Talk 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

I saw more dubious material: "and resistance to the venom of most snakes (the vipers being a notable exception). It is said that some mongooses will actually eat the venom glands of snakes." which there was no source for. I unfortunately don't know much about the subject so I'm not the best to fix the article, but I didn't want to gloss over the problems either. - Taxman ^Talk 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

It is my understanding that Mongooses do not have an immunity to venom in the form of snake bites, and that their ophiophagy is accomplished because of speed and aggression. I have read, however (I believe it was from encyclopedia.com or msn encarta) that Mongooses do consume the venom glands of snakes with the rest of their meal. My educated guess would be that the venom does not enter the bloodstream in this way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.164.68.176 (talk • contribs) .

The point being a reference is needed to be sure. More like a textbook or journal article, not another encyclopedia. And please just respond, don't delete other comments. - Taxman ^Talk 17:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There was no reason to delete this Alaiyah reid (talk) 16:06, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Redirects

A lot of links on the mongoose page (like "herpestinae," "hespestes") just redirect back to the mongoose page. What's the point of them being links at all?

Popular Culture

Do we really need that many references to the word "mongoose" appearing in movies and television? I have removed each entry in which it is simply a character's name.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I was surprised that the Kipling book was not mentioned. The western world's popular conception of the mongoose was largely shaped by the book Why remove it?97.91.185.82 (talk) 01:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I still think it should be included- For comparison purposes, the page for the Tasmanian Devil mentions the merry melodies character. 97.91.172.177 (talk) 04:27, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

"They will eat your flesh"??

"However if approached by humans they will eat your flesh."

This sentence seems colloquial. First, the voice changes to "your flesh" as if the reader is involved. But more importantly, this seems conjecture.. Shouldn't it say something more like that mongooses have been known to eat human flesh? Perhaps it should be removed all together.

Sneeper

Yep, it is inappropriate. I reverted the edit. Taranah 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You removed reference to eating human flesh but left, "They are habitually vampiric animals. Draining the blood of animals whilst resting or unattentive. The victim animal awakens with the strange craving of hemoglobins and an intense sensitivity to sunlight." ?? I've never heard of this, and it sounds like chupa capra. Next line is a list of normal foods it eats. I think if we don't have a citation for this, it should be removed. BTW, how would one know an animal has a craving for hemoglobin?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear (talk • contribs) 17:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

this is not true what so ever though — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.146.243 (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2017

Dental Formula

Do we need to have repetitions of mongoose' dental formula? I would like to have one of them to be removed. --Lucifer 09:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable request! It must have been duplicated by mistake at some point (possibly by me!) Anaxial (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel so, kindly remove one of the formula. My obvious choice would be to remove the first one as we don't need to have that in the very introduction --Ankithreya! 05:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I already did... Anaxial (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Great :-) --Ankithreya! 05:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

"Mongeese" Totally Incorrect

The plural of Mongoose is Mongooses. It is not, neither rarely nor EVER, Mongeese.

Sixthcrusifix (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

The citation provided in the text says you are incorrect. The plural is deprecated, certainly, and relies on a false etymology, but if Miriam-Webster says that it can sometimes be correct (even if it isn't preferred), we kind of have to accept that. At the very least, you'd need to change the citation to one that clearly states Miriam-Webster is wrong. Anaxial (talk) 16:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

That didn't exist back when I edited that and Miriam-Webster is very wrong. The definition provided on their site is based on a socially accepted pluralization of the word and I really don't think that the mental decay and general stupidity of the majority should have so much bearing on Dictionaries but online dictionaries in particular are bad about giving the definitions that people want more often than the definitions that are correct. Consider the Reference changed to an online dictionary that's not quite as ridiculous. Sixthcrusifix (talk) 19:55, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine by me - what I mainly object to is having a statement in the text and marking it with a citation that claims the statement is incorrect.Anaxial (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

It is rather meaningless to say that the plural relies on a false etymology when the singular essentially does as well. Sylvain1972 (talk) 02:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What is a false etymology about rendering the Hindu "mangus" (pronounced as "mongoose") as Mongoose? Am I alone in seeing this? What is it, the spelling? Chrisrus (talk) 06:13, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Because the term in English could have simply been spelled mangus, following the Hindi, but it borrowed "goose" instead. So there is no good reason why the term can't borrow the plural form geese as well. The true plural form of mangus is whatever it is in Hindi, which is surely not "mongooses." The English plural will be a neologism whether it is mongooses or mongeese. Sylvain1972 (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think I understand your way of looking at it. But I see it differently. When you said "Because the term in English could have simply been spelled mangus, following the Hindi, but it borrowed "goose" instead", I suppose the word we disagree about is the word "simply". Spelling it any other way, the way I see it, wouldn't be as simple as simply "mongoose". If it had been spelled "mongus" is most simply pronounced with the second syllable as in "bogus". And when you say "following the Hindi", well, think about that for a second. As you probably know, Hindi isn't written with Latin letters; they have their own alphabet. So we couldn't really "follow the Hindi", now could we? Of course not. "Mongoose" is the natural way to spell it, whether the first spellers were confused about whether it was a mammal or a waterfowl (however unlikely such a mistake would have been) or not. Chrisrus (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User:Chrisrus - if you wish to claim that the first people to transliterate the word into English really thought that the second part of the word represented waterfowl (rather than simply sounding the same, and therefore taking the same plural ending as "moose" and "noose" per standard English construction), and constructed the plural accordingly, you'll really need a cite to support that. Just because it happens to sound the same does not mean it takes the same plural, any more than "boni" is the correct plural for "bonus" just because it ends in -us. If it's used widely, that's a separate matter, but that doesn't make it correct. Anaxial (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but if I may just clarify that the false etymology thing is a red herring, you are right about that. We should all agree that there is no reason or obvious precedent that would justify the irregular plural. When I have said "mongeese" before, it was always with a smirk, as sort of a joke, and I therefore guess that maybe some of the citiations that Webster's might have found for it's use might have been done in jest as well and don't betray any misunderstanding on the part of the users. Dictionaries in English just slavishly record what people do, and apparently enough people have done that enough times for Websters to have noted it. A very complete dictionary would also have to record popular wordplay as "bassackwards" and "fantabulous", but that doesn't mean that they should ever appear in an encyclopedia article. Scholarly works use "mongooses", that's that.

Now, please everyone go down and weigh in on whether or not the Malagassy Mongooses should be added back into the article. Are they still mongooses though recently it was determined that are not related to the rest? Can convergent evolution re-create a mongoose more than once, or does one have to be "true" and the other "false"? If it turns out tomorrow that the Masai Giraffe evolved separately, will it still be a giraffe? That is an interesting matter, and, unlike this one, to my mind at least, unresolved. Chrisrus (talk) 07:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Anaxial, you misunderstand what I am saying. I do not claim that anyone "really thought that the second part of the word represented waterfowl." What I am claiming is only the obvious, which is that there is an obvious precedent in English for using "geese" formation to pluralize the "goose" formation. It is obvious that people who say mongeese do not do so because they believe mongeese are somehow related to geese. They are following an established precedent in the language, and there is nothing to say that is "wrong." The one authoritative reference we have on the matter, Websters, feels that it is a legitimate usage, so the burden of proof is on the other side.Sylvain1972 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Very well, I think I understand you. I think, however, that the article seems to be slightly misuing the term "false etymology". According to the article that word links to in this article, that term refers to a kind of story or belief about the origin of a word that is mistaken, such as the idea that the term "rule of thumb" came from how big around the stick you beat your wife can be: a story which is mistaken and just got around somehow to become a popular misconception. In this case, you seem to be saying, they were not mistaken about the origin, just believing that it would be best to extend the precedent set by the word "goose" to the word "mongoose", a belief that I, at least, don't know the word for, but not a case of false etymology. It would be more like where Homer Simpson asks God to show him who to smite, "and they shall be smoten!"; a sort of extending of a Saxon irregular based on some precedent in the English language.

Yet the article seems to be correcting or forestalling a belief on the part of the reader that the word is derived from "goose" somehow even though it has nothing to do with geese. This might be necessar if the article were shorter, like a short article on Bombay Duck should explain, minimally, that it's not a duck but a kind of fish which is called something that sounds quite like "duck" in the language of that area. I don't think that this is necessary because the correct derivation is clearly stated just before that. Would you object if I changed that? Chrisrus (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Rikki Tikki Tavvi

Changed one deadly cobra to "two deadly cobras" because that was how the story goes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.157.87.198 (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch! Chrisrus (talk) 15:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Leptospirosis

An alleged problem with mongoose; should be discussed in the article. Viriditas (talk) 11:09, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Good idea, do you have a citation for it we could you? Chrisrus (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Images

I would like to see a more diverse set of images in this article. The photos on this page show small-bodied mongoose. In Hawaii, the mongoose are enormous and make these specimens look like small mice. Viriditas (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Relation to Mustelids?

Does anyone know why Mongooses are not considered related to Mustelids? The Family is very diverse, but the Mongoose shares most of their common traits, including body style, fur type, and anal scent glands. Or if they are- in the way skunks are no longer considered 'mustelids' but are noted as being highly related (and included in the Superfamily)- why is this not noted? I'm just curious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.254.46.161 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

As stated in the article, mongooses are related to viverrids; cat-like animals such as the civet. Mustelids (and skunks), by comparison, are more closely related to dogs. So the two groups are not especially related, despite their similar physical appearance. A more detailed explanation is at the Feliformia article. Anaxial (talk) 09:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

False Mongooses?

What about these?

• Family Eupleridae
  • Subfamily Galidiinae
    • Ring-tailed Mongoose, Galidia elegans
    • Broad-striped Mongoose, Galidictis fasciata
    • Giant-striped Mongoose, Galidictis grandidieri
    • Narrow-striped Mongoose, Mungotictis decemlineata
    • Brown-tailed Mongoose, Salanoia concolor

We have a problem. It seems "mongoose" is not a technical term. Not anymore, anyway.Chrisrus (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the Madagascan "mongooses" aren't true mongooses, but I don't think that's a real problem, so long as we have a reference and link to the page for them, which you've already added. Anaxial (talk) 05:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Do I take it that everything in this article is as true about the Malagasy mongooses as it is about the Galidiinae mongooses? (Geez, that's hard to spell. Do you mind if I call them "continental mongooses"?) So it's fine if we have one umbrella article that covers all, like mistletoe; instead of one umbrella article and then separate articles for each, like vulture, Old World vulture, and new world vulture; or a disambiguation page and then separate articles, like Mole-rat, or...? Chrisrus (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the article refers to what scientists typically call "mongooses" (usually, AFAIK, without adding a qualifier such as "true", unless they specifically need to distinguish them from the other group), which is to say the African sort. Which is why I think that the way the article currently does it, referring and linking to the other sort of animals commonly called "mongooses" is sufficient. Anaxial (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they are mongooses, why not add the Malagasy Mongooses into the article? I don't see why, if the Malagasy Mongooses fit the definition of "mongoose", which is a common, not technical term, they should not be listed in this article as well just because they are unrelated other than being carnivora. You don't have to be related to the other mongooses to be a mongoose. I want to add them back into the classification section and add text explaining the situation. One of the most interesting things about Mongooses is the fact that they are not all related. I also want to undo what I'd written about "possibly erroniously". Then, each taxonomic term should have an article of it's own. Alternatively, where there is ambiguity, a disambiguation page is often helpful.

Do you believe that Malagasy Mongooses are mongooses or not, and if so, why not add them? If not, why not? Chrisrus (talk) 21:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It depends on whether one is using the technical sense (in which case, no, they aren't), or the more common layman's term (in which case, yes, probably). I could understand either approach, to be honest. Either way, we do need an article specifically for the herpestids, no matter what it's title may be. I also note that you've altered the taxobox to imply that the term "Eupleridae" was (along with Herpestidae) coined by Bonaparte in 1845, which I presume was not your intent! Anaxial (talk) 16:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

As a further note, it's worth mentioning that it's not unusual for an article on animals to refer only to the "true" form of an animal (without qualifier), and to refer to alternative meanings in a hat link, or similar. For instance, shrew (animal) refers only to "true" shrews (that is, soricids), not to Tree shrews or Elephant shrews. Anaxial (talk) 12:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

When you said "When you said "rest of article refers only to herpestids", what specifically did you mean?" I would like to know specifically what in this article is true about the continental mongooses that is not also equally true about the Malagasy ones.

There is no mention of Malagasy mongooses, save in the section on classification; all of the examples are of herpestids. By "refers to" I mean that it specifically makes a reference to - it may be that some of the information in the article also applies to Malagasy mongooses (although there's no particular evidence for that) but in any event, it's not what I said. More importantly, there has to be an article on herpestids as distinct from euplerines, even if we don't agree on what it should be called. I think it should be this article, but, if you disagree, perhaps you could create one (even if only in User space to begin with) and we can see whether that moves us forward? Anaxial (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not at all like some case like "shrew", where animals are simply called one thing but clearly are not the same. In this case, no one, to my knowledge, has even called the Malagasy mongooses "false" except me, when I asked the question. The word "mongoose" is not used metaphorically for them, they are accepted as mongooses, albeit unrelated ones. The fact that this was discovered only just a few years ago makes one think that the differences must be very minor indeed, no more than one normally expects in the case of a family of animals. You seem not to believe that this is extraordinary or even particularly interesting case, and seem to dismiss it as something seen commonly in nature. I ask you again for another example. Your example of the word "shrew" makes me think you are overly focused on the simple word and not enough on the complete form of the animal. Chrisrus (talk) 14:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This sort of thing is quite common, and happening all the time, especially so recently as biochemical evidence reveals evidence of former taxonomic groups turning out to be polyphyletic. The African palm civet is one other example, just from creatures relatively closely related to mongooses. Anaxial (talk) 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Civit is on mylist, (please feel free to add to it, though I haven't gotten to them the civets yet. What gets me, though, is NOT that there are other animals called by the same name, as with "shrew", but rather, that there are animals that mophologically, in terms of behavior, etc are so very much the same that no one could tell they weren't related until genetic testing showed they had independantly evolved. Would you be so blase if some "eohippis" had swum to out to an island and independantly evolved into horses so horsey that experts couldn't tell the difference until yesterday when someone finally ran a DNA test? Chrisrus (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, of course I would be just as "blase" (I'm not sure I'd use that word myself, but it'll do for these purposes) - as I say, this sort of thing happens all the time. I'm not saying that this fact about mongoose classification shouldn't be mentioned (clearly it should), or that it's uninteresting, but that it is not as unusual as you seem to think. And, most importantly of all, that, if this is going to be a generic "mongoose" page, we will need a page for herpestid mongooses specifically. Anaxial (talk) 17:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, for example, do the Malagasy mongooses not range from one to four feet, feed on insects, crabs, etc? Are they not cunning and agile? Are they not also good for controlling vermin; are they not illegal to import into the United States, etc.? Do they not emit a high pitched noise called giggling when it mates or is choosing a mate (which is it by the way, the article is unclear about that)? Do they not have long faces and bodies, small rounded ears, short legs, and long tapering tails? Are the not brindled or grizzled, do many have strongly marked coats? Are their claws retractable or not used for digging? Do they not have goat pupils? Do most not have anal scent glands for scent marking? Is the dental formula different? Is the stuff about snake bite resistance not true of them? Are they arboreal? Are they any less descended from Viverravines?

If you don’t want to do it this way, we have options. Right now, it’s analogous to mistletoe somewhat. We could do like Vulture and have an umbrella article and send the reader two ways. Or we could send anyone who searches for “mongoose” to a disambiguation page and then direct them either continental or Malagasy, like is done with mole. Or we could title the two articles with Greek names and no article called “Mongoose”, just a tiny one explaining the situation like I did with Antbear. You are the expert here in animals, I’m just about the English language and it’s integrity. We can’t say they aren’t mongooses like we can say that a guinea pig isn’t a pig or a sea horse isn’t a horse or even a New World Vulture isn’t really a vulture, or even that a tree shrew isn’t really a shrew. This case is different, and it seems to me that, based on what I know, just about anything we say about continental ones we could say about the Malagasy ones and that the English language is justified in using the same name for both – they are all quite fundamentally the same thing, so why waste time rewriting a separate article for the Malagasy ones, which don’t really have an article, text-wise, except for what I wrote there. But unless we can cite anyone objecting to the use of the word for Malagasy ones (or even implying so, like calling them “false” or something) I don’t think we can just treat it like some kind of misnomer, like guinea pig or something. You say we really need a separate article for the herpestids, why not leave it as Spartan as the Malagasy one is, and leave the rest of the common stuff here? You know more about these animals than I, but it seems to lend itself to that approach better than any other to me. Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

P.s. What was the paper in 2006 that broke them off? We need it to cite that part. Or was it more than one paper? Or some other citation? Chrisrus (talk) 04:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Chrisrus, do you believe that the firt part of your post reminds me of a certain passage in The Merchant of Venice?

What is at stake here, is, of course, a tension between formal and folk taxonomy. Formal taxonomy, reflecting our understanding of the evolutionary history of these organisms, classifies the family Herpestidae and for the subfamily Galidiinae of family Eupleridae separately, and folk taxonomy, reflecting classificational history and general appearance, classifies all or most of these as "mongooses."

Wikipedia should prefer formal taxonomy. Articles that deal with a term of folk taxonomy, such as "mongoose" in its current state, can in my view hardly be more than a dictionary definition plus a collection of random facts (namely, the facts that are true for the collection of animals that by some stroke of luck have come to be called "mongoose" in English). I do not see why we need such articles: we have Wiktionary to define terms like "mongoose" and articles about actual natural groups to give common facts about groups of animals. Articles about folk taxonomic terms may make some sense when dealing with what the animals look like, but they cannot speak about the evolution of the animals lumped under the folk term in any more sophisticated way than "Herpestid mongooses are derived from this group of basal feliformians. Galidiine mongooses are derived from basal euplerids." without simply starting to describe the evolution of the group that encompasses all animals known as mongooses (Feliformia).

In contrast, articles that deal with terms of formal taxonomy, such as "Herpestidae" and "Eupleridae," are useful. They deal with groups that have evolutionary and scientific relevance. We should have articles on all formal taxonomic terms, which can tell us what the members of these taxa have in common and what is variable among them and thereby actually tell us something meaningful.

We need articles that deal exclusively with the family Herpestidae and with the subfamily Galidiinae, because both are useful and meaningful terms. We emphatically do not need an article that deals with the family Herpestidae and then squeezes in the subfamily Galidiinae just because both are called "mongoose" in English; that is confusing and, in my view, scientifically wrong.

Therefore, I see two possibilities to organize the articles related to animals called "mongoose" accurately:

1. Having an article called "mongoose" which disambiguates to articles about Herpestidae and Galidiinae which describe these taxa.
2. Having an article called "mongoose" that deals with the family Herpestidae and has a hatnote saying that Galidiinae are also called mongooses.

I tend to prefer the latter possibility, but I don't have strong feelings either way. The decision should be based on whether or not the term "mongoose", when used without qualifier in the literature of the last few years, refers specifically to herpestids. Ucucha 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It was asked earlier if there was a comparable example to this and I propose that musk deer and deer is an essentially identical situation. Musk deer were once thought to be deer, but have since been shown to be an earlier diverging pecoran. I think it's important to recognize terms like "Malagasy mongoose", "musk deer", "tree shrew", "mountain lion", and "guinea pig" as nouns in their entirety. They are not equivalent to saying a variety of mongoose from Madagascar, a variety of deer with musk, an arboreal variety of shrew, a normal lion that lives in the mountain, or whatever guinea refers to. English doesn't build a lot of single compound words like hippopotamus - river horse. Malagasy mongooses were once thought to be mongooses, but have since been shown to not be mongooses. It's still a "Malagasy mongooses", just not a "mongoose".

I think the basic question is without group X is the core retained? Basically, it's almost system where there are essentially a number of crude type species and when they are split we have to go to a disambiguation page or a page covering an artificial group. Monkey, vulture, rabbit and toad are examples. But the finding that tree shrews, elephant shrews, and otter shrews are unrelated to shrews doesn't change the essential meaning of shrews. Meanwhile we knew all along that mountain lions aren't lions, guinea pigs aren't pigs and river horses aren't horses. So what if musk deer aren't deer, Malagasy mongooses aren't mongooses, and stink badgers aren't badgers (badgers probably aren't a natural group, but it was Taxidea more than Mydaus that killed the badger)? Goeldi's Marmoset was a marmoset then it wasn't and now it is again, but we somehow managed to have marmosets all along. "Panda bears" have been bears and haven't throughout my lifetime and we never were confused about what a bear is. --Aranae (talk) 03:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

What matters to me is this:

That anyone who searches for the word “mongoose” should be told upfront that as of 2006 the meaning of this word has changed, and then the reader be given some idea how that happened. Unless I’m wrong about something that follows, what happened was this:

The word came into the language to describe a group of feliforms found around the Indian Ocean. It was checked by taxonomists who gave them one Greek word. The reader can be told the facts that unite all mongooses and distinguish them all from all other feliforms that explain the original grouping and common understanding of what the word "mongoose" means: the dentition, anatomy, lifestyle, etc. that unite all mongooses and distinguish them from the rest of the cat-like carnivores. Then the readers should be told that new methods were applied based on genetic analysis, and that it was learned that those mongooses that live on Madagascar had descended from different "civets" than those on the mainland in a way so parallel to the "civets"-to-Mongoose" evolution on the mainland that anyone who had assumed that anatomical unity and other coincidence implied a common ancestor in this case was proven wrong.

There now has become more the one way of looking at it, and that would all depend on what the word “Mongoose” really means to the reader. One could legitimately see it mongooses having evolved from civets twice; once on the island and once on the mainland; that the word refers to anatomy, not ancestry; that all mongooses need not be related. If the reader sees the use of the word as implying an common ancestor, then Malagasy Mongooses must be considered “false mongooses“. As long as the reader does not have such an assumption, Malagasy mongooses are still mongooses, and that the word is no longer a scientific or technical term, or at least has no taxonomic synonym. We may not need to take a position on the issue as the word “mongoose” no longer has a Taxonomic synonym, other than, perhaps, the lack of corresponding change in the official English Common names.

Sorry for the redundancy at the end there, I have to stop writing now and I want to post this tonight, if I'd had more time I’d've write you a shorter post. Chrisrus (talk) 06:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

With regard to your examples, first of all, I'd like to say that these cases are all different. I'd like to point out, however, the way that Wikipedia has decided to deal with the case of the referent to the word "porcupine": porcupine. As you may know, there are two types, old-world and new, and which evolved separately into a form that the English language identifies and calls "porcupines". Granted again, this is no more a perfect analogy than any other. For one thing, the differences between the two kinds of porcupine seem greater those among mongooses. (For one thing, New Worlds are arborial.) but in neither case has anyone seemed to see it fit to label one "true" and the other "false". Therefore, the two English words refer to forms of animals that evolved more than once. There is no worry that the reader will assume a common ancestor because the article simply tells the readers that porcupine that there isn't one, and that this is one of the most important things to know about them. Chrisrus (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I get the impression that we disagree more in principle than in practice, and therefore I have gone ahead and edited the page. I hope this revision makes clear all the points that need to be made clear. I also added some references to the papers supporting euplerid relationships of Galidiinae; evidence for that goes back to 2003 and includes a paper in Nature.

One more thing: Chrisrus implied in the article that the "mongoose form" (a term I, frankly, find somewhat vague to begin with) developed convergently in galidiines and herpestids. This is not necessarily true, however, as the phylogeny seems to be as follows:

	Other feliformians
	Herpestidae Galidiinae Other Euplerids

As such, it is just as parsimonious to assume that this supposed "mongoose form" evolved in the common ancestor of euplerids and herpestids and was subsequently changed in non-galidiine euplerids. We definitely need a clear source before we include such an assertion. Ucucha 18:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Number of Species

There are 3 references to the family having 33 species (ok one was my edit, changing 'more than 30 species'), one of which has an external reference, yet 34 species are listed! Which is the current consensus view?

As no one has reverted on this point yet, I have now removed the Sokoke Bushy-tailed Mongoose from the list, which means that the number of species listed agrees to the quoted total of 33. However, I have added a comment on this species/subspecies at the end of the taxonomy sectionGlevum (talk) 19:20, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Relationships

As Canidae and Mustelidae are both caniformes, I don't see how Herpestides can be more closely related to one than the other! Its like saying I'm more closely related to my cousin Tom than I am to his younger brother Harry!Glevum (talk) 17:10, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Surely what was intended here was the word "felines" right? I assume that this paragraph was meant to clarify for readers that, even though mongeese (sorry, couldn't resist) look like Mustelidae, they are in fact in completely different suborders - mongooses are more closely related to cats; Mustelidae are more closely related as dogs. It would be nice if an expert would fix this paragraph. It definitely confused me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.213.129.198 (talk) 13:48, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Mongoose vs Snake?

What is the relation between the mongoose, and snakes? Is it just because they're immune to snake venom? Why are they always paired up or opposing each other in various media? I've known about the pairing from an old VIC20 Game Pirate's Cove, and the more recent 3rd gen. Pokemon Zangoose & Seviper from Ruby/Sapphire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.240.175 (talk) 07:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Folk etymology

Etymology DOES NOT create words - it describes plausible changes undergone by a word to arrive at its present form. We can't have a word created by folk etymology! Therefore we can't say "The form of the English name (since 1698) was altered to its "-goose" ending ***by*** folk-etymology. There is not even any folk etymology at play here.

To say that "mongoose" is derived FROM "goose", that is folk etymology; to say that "mongoose" came about BECAUSE OF folk etymology, that is just wrong - the words would have existed even in the absence of etymology

Word creation/ evolution of words is one thing, etymology is another. That is if the WP is to remain a reliable source of information without blurring things by allowing folk linguistics into the fray. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

You are right. Is there a change you'd like to make to the article? Chrisrus (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

The article stated (in the "name" section) that the word "mongoose" was created by folk etymology, and, presumably by extension, that "mongeese" was not incorrect as a plural. I've now reverted, since this seems to be present consensus. However, there is another editor with the opposing opinion, citing a source that apparently states that new words can, indeed, be created by folk etymology (I suspect he's misunderstood it, but I don't have a copy to check). Perhaps he'd care to comment here? Anaxial (talk) 22:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Do you recognize a distinction between etymology and folk etymology? The latter term has a well established meaning. This is from Garner's Modern American Usage, third edition, 2009: "...folk etymology has left its mark on the language. Take a few common examples. Pea is a false singular of pease, which was mistakenly taken as a plural. Likewise, a newt is a historical error for an ewt, an adder for a nadder, and an apron for a napron ... Primrose and rosemary were earlier primerole and romarin, neither of which has anything to do with roses, but they were respelled precisely on that mistaken assumption." (p. 322) These are word creations resulting from popular (folk) misunderstanding of an unfamiliar word, aka folk etymology. Ewulp (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Forsyth (whose book I cited) says: "The addition of the H to umble is an example of what's known as folk etymology. Somebody who didn't know what an umble was saw the words umble pie and got confused. Then they saw that umble pie was a humble dish, and assumed that somebody had just missed off the H, and decided to put it back. Thus umble pie becomes humble pie. That's folk etymology ... By the same system, the old word crevis is now spelled and pronounced crayfish, even though it's not very fishlike ... and most wonderfully of all, the Indian mangus became a mongoose, although there's not a huge similarity between the furry, snake-devouring mammal and a goose." Ewulp (talk) 23:13, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Also see "mongoose", Dictionary.com, Online Etymology Dictionary (retrieved June 16, 2013), where the word's origin is given: "1698, perhaps via Port., from an Indic language (cf. Mahrathi mangus "mongoose"), probably ult. from Dravidian (cf. Telugu mangisu, Kanarese mungisi). The form of the Eng. word altered by folk-etymology." Ewulp (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

And I do not argue that mongeese is the proper plural, only that the inserted erroneously is not supported by the cited source. Shouldn't we summarize accurately what our sources actually say? Ewulp (talk) 22:44, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Joseph Shipley explains it well in The origins of English words: A discursive dictionary of Indo-European roots (1984): "Another activity that has helped shape language is what is called folk-etymology, the turning of an unfamiliar word toward one that is more common. Thus, crevisse became crayfish .... When laymen began to write (an activity that for centuries was the almost exclusive function of the clergy ...), they sometimes shifted n from an to the following word, or vice-versa—a becoming an—because they did not know, when they wrote it down, to which word to attach the sound. Thus a napron became an apron; the less common napkin and napery were not confused." (p. xxvi). The "turning of an unfamiliar word toward one that is more common" would explain the turning of mangus to mongoose, the respelling of which is ascribed to folk etymology by two sources I've cited above. Ewulp (talk) 03:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Folk etymology and false etymology

Ok, I figured out why things are going pear-shaped - there are two meanings to "folk etymology", one of which is now being referred to as "false etymology". This is a recent change here in the Wikipedia, as I recall quite clearly having contributed to the original folk etymology article. Content was merged/ unmerged/ renamed/ redirected as can be seen [[2]] and [[3]]. The apparent lack of agreement over the two is such that the changes had the effect of dis-aligning the article(s) vis-a-vis the articles in other languages, which no longer refletced the same reality, as can be seen [[4]]

So it looks like some of us are working for the established meanining of "folk etymology", while others are working from the technical sense - "The term folk etymology, a loan translation from the 19th Century academic German Volksetymologie, is a technical one in philology and historical linguistics, referring to the change of form in the word itself, not to any actual explicit popular analysis". The question now is, which interpretation should prevail in the Wikipedia? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The current interpretation of course—it is good that the English language uses different terms to refer to these two things; imagine the confusion if a single term referred to both. The internal link (formerly in Mongoose) to Folk etymology explains to the curious which sense is intended, although this will already be clear from context. Wikipedia's interpretation of folk etymology is consistent with a long-established usage; see Bloomfield and Newmark, A Linguistic Introduction to the History of English, Knopf, 1963, or Abram Smythe Palmer, Folk-etymology: A Dictionary of Verbal Corruptions Or Words Perverted in Form Or Meaning, by False Derivation Or Mistaken Analogy, London: Bell, 1882. Ewulp (talk) 01:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

How long do they live ?

The article should cover this. Rcbutcher (talk) 06:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

 Done: To editor Rcbutcher: See Mongoose#Lifespan.  Rules of engagement Paine  21:54, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongoose. 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/20060625065933/http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/LACYBANS.html to http://news.fws.gov/newsreleases/LACYBANS.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:23, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

WHY do mongooses fight snakes?

The article give no reason that mongooses choose to fight snakes. Is it because they want to make their neighborhood safe? Is it because mongooses eat snakes?

It is particularly noticeable that this question is not answered in the article. Can someone knowledgeable about this please include the answer in the article?2600:1700:E1C0:F340:6179:1FBF:C33A:895A (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Where are they found?

Doesn't this article need a map of where they are located? Predated0 (talk) 21:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

There already is one; I don't see the need for another in the same article. Anaxial (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

social behavior?

Can someone write about their social behavior? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Kichecia vs. Kichechia

Hi @Sainsf, Apokryltaros, Anaxial, Rjwilmsi, Plantdrew, Materialscientist, and Fama Clamosa: ever since Kichecia was added to the list of Herpestinae, I've been wondering about this genus. You may have seen that the name was wrongly spelled all the time; correct is Kichechia, see the original description by Savage (1965) that I just referenced with url. When then looking for the 2nd species of this genus, Kichechia savagei, I also found this first description by Adrian et al. (2018), see page 4 at http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1193864/FULLTEXT01.pdf. Note the difference : these authors place Kichechia in the Viverridae!! So I would appreciate your opinion: should we follow Savage (1965)'s classification or the updated one by Adrian et al. (2018)? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

For the second species, there is no choice. Kichechia savagei was described as a viverrid and not a herpestid by Adrian et al (2018). We have to follow the source. Savage placed Kichechia zamanae in Herpestinae when it was a subfamily of Viverridae (not the modern circumscription). The remarks say no character precludes ''Kichechia from Viverravinae (does he mean Viverrinae?) so the placement seems tentative. Given the major changes in the taxonomy since then I think the recent source is far more appropriate and they do discuss the reasons for their placement. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:20, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your fast reply, Jts1882!! I'll wait for some others to reply as well, before moving the genus to Viverridae. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I would go with Adrian et al., since that one is the most recent, up-to-date source.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

I found a discussion in Werdelin 2019, General Discussion of Viverridae, p. 278 but I'm not sure I understand it. Kichechia is probably correct anyways. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Adrian et al. are citing Morales & Pickford 2011 as their source for the reclassification of Kichechia as a paradoxurine viverrid, so their opinion is not alone. The source Fama Clamosa cites above says that there may be some doubt about this, due to the inadequacy of the fossils, but demurs from defining them as anything else for the same reason - but certainly doesn't describe them as herpestids. So, in short, I agree with using the more modern sources, since they seem to reflect the current state of play. Anaxial (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for my late response. Looking at the comments above and comparing the sources, I feel using the 2018 source is better since it is more recent and also well-supported. Sainsf (talk · contribs) 13:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Cultural section

@BhagyaMani: This seems like normal material to have in a cultural significance section. Why do you keep deleting it? Invasive Spices (talk) 16:42, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Because this page is about the family! And since this content is about individuals, I think that this content should be shifted to the pages on the resp. mongoose species. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

BhagyaMani is again deleting text in this section. First they claimed the removed passage is "old news," but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and full of relevant information that is not new or current. After revert, they again deleted the text, this time with a new reason, that the article "is about the family; but this account of a single mongoose should be in the page about the respective species" but the deleted text is irrelevant with regard to species. BhagyaMani deleted the text a third time with no reason given while claiming the editor keeping the article intact was the disruptive party. All of these deletions have come three months after they first deleted the text (which was restored at that time, and which stood undisturbed until the renewed recent attempts to delete). BhagyaMani has deleted the text a total of four times on no cogent basis.

The passage appears relevant to this article due to the unique circumstances described in the text, text that has been fine-tuned by multiple editors over nearly eight years. 50.113.46.223 (talk) 06:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As already mentioned, THIS page is about a family comprising 23 species. No other wiki page on a family contains a sentence or more about the fate of a single animal of an unknown species. Because such content is irrelevant for the understanding of the family. Besides, I question the Wikipedia:Notability of Magoo. @Jts1882 and FunkMonk: please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we also talking about the Rikki-Tikki-Tavi text? Because that's probably the most famous mongoose in culture, so at least warrants mention. But as for the specific real life mongoose individual, it would be more fitting to figure out what species that was and add the info to the respective species article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the real mongoose. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The only mongoose in the continental U.S. to have been granted an exemption (by the government, no less) is worthy of mention. The article is about the entire mongoose family; the specific species is irrelevant to the unique circumstance. 50.113.46.223 (talk) 08:53, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Why single out one country to state its policy on keeping mongooses? And what is so important about one mongoose in that one country? Are there no mongooses in US zoos now? If there are then obviously there are other exceptions or the ban is only for pets as the previous text said.

If Mr. Magoo is really notable it should be able to stand alone as an article. Then a brief mention here and a link to the Mr. Magoo article would suffice. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:11, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I would like to ask somebody else who is familiar with WP guidelines on notability and relevance : @Elmidae: what do you think? – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

As usual, lots of YMMV for these "cultural significance items". I would think that yes, that was enough of big deal back in the day to merit inclusion somewhere - not quite in separate article range but worth a mention (some more local coverage here, and there was even a book). However putting that into the genus article smacks of US parochialism. According to the zoo's website it was an "Indian mongoose", and the images look like an Indian grey mongoose too. So I'd suggest porting that tidbit into the equivalent section over there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Another article on the historical coverage (part 1 of the linked article) says it was "Herpestes Auropunctatus" (see here). Brief coverage at small Indian mongoose (Urva auropunctata) seems more appropriate that at the family article. —  Jts1882 | talk  16:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, there we go - small rather than grey then. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:37, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I found this part from the Secretary of State's pardon amusing: "However, under the specific circumstances surrounding Mr. Magoo, and the fact that there is obviously no danger of further mongoose population increases from his bachelor existence, we have concluded that Mr. Magoo can stay but the rest of his species will have to stay out" the Secretary said. (link). —  Jts1882 | talk  16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me too to move this titbit to the page on small Indian mongoose given that this one was widely introduced in parts of the Americas. – BhagyaMani (talk) 16:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

That would be a different Mr. Magoo article. Lake Superior Zoo appears the only mention of the mongoose Mr. Magoo. Invasive Spices (talk) 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Understood about US parochialism but the fact that the species is an introduced (and prohibited) species there is precisely why Magoo is notable. And it matters not about the subspecies because the fact that it was a mongoose of any type is the point of the unique circumstance. Also, to BhagyaMani's comment, no, there are no other and were no other mongooses in the U.S. *because the mongoose is a prohibited species in that country,* which is precisely why the story of Magoo is relevant to the general mongoose article. 50.113.46.223 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Are we absolutely sure there "are no other... mongooses in the U.S."? A quick online search reveals that multiple U.S. zoos claim to have some, which seems fairly conclusive to me: San Diego, Houston, Lincoln Park, Central Park, etc. all say they do, with photographic evidence on their websites. It may have been true at one point, but it does not seem to be so any longer. I'd also agree with previous comments above that this would be more appropriate for the page on the species (although not the subspecies, as the IP mentions - there doesn't seem to be a page on the subspecies, nor is one likely to be useful) than the one on the Herpestidae as a whole. Anaxial (talk) 23:20, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of other mongooses currently in U.S. zoos, Magoo was the first and remained the exclusive mongoose in the country for an extended period. His predicament became a national story, such that public pressure saved his life at the highest level of government. In that context, as the only mongoose of any type, the cultural entry in the general mongoose article is appropriate. Perhaps some editing for content and/or length will satisfy. 50.113.46.223 (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Misspelled..

Mongooses are usually pronounced as mangoose mostly because of the users dialect or the language they speak. Alaiyah reid (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

And they usually say the plural form of it is mangeese but no mongooses is the correct form Alaiyah reid (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

This is something more for a dictionary and not for this page. wikt:mongoose for example. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2023

Change 'semi-domesticated' to 'tamed'

Domestication is an evolutionary process, it is a term used for a whole species. Mongoose can be tamed and kept as pets, but they are not a domestic species, so the word is incorrectly used here. 122.61.44.215 (talk) 23:11, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have made the change for you, and the wording is supported by the reference. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:45, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Genus Urva

The Asian mongooses are now considered a separate genus. 2600:1009:B06C:2D54:C049:FED1:E153:83FF (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

The article already says that. What do you want changed? Anaxial (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Yellow Mongoose and Slender mongoose pages seem reversed

On the mongoose page in the group of pictures at the top it says “top right: slender mongoose” and includes a picture I’ll label “A.” It also says “bottom left: yellow mongoose” and includes picture B. However, picture A is the picture used in the top of the article for yellow mongoose and picture B is used (not at the top) as a picture for the slender mongoose. Clearly both can’t be correct - can someone verify which is which? 2600:1700:3C64:8600:A4C9:2D9E:A5FD:862C (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

From every other image and source I can find both here and offline, the captions look to be reversed in the infobox. Furthemore, although the bright yellow colour in the image is unusual for the slender mongoose it seems to be even rarer for the yellow mongoose (despite the name). Indeed, the taxobox image originally had the captions the other way around, but they were switched by an anonymous user without explanation in February. A cleanup to remove vandalism later the same day didn't spot that particular edit. Good catch; thanks. Anaxial (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2023 (UTC)