Talk:Wolverine

Gluttony not reflected in English?

"Purported gluttony is reflected neither in English nor in North Germanic languages. The English word wolverine (alteration of the earlier form wolvering of uncertain origin) probably implies 'a little wolf'. The name in Old Norse, Jarfr, lives on in the regular Icelandic name jarfi, regular Norwegian name jerv, regular Swedish name järv and regular Danish name jærv."

Yes, except 'to wolf' has come to mean 'to devour voraciously' and a wolf 'a cruelly rapacious person.' [dictionary.com].

So, if there was a false etymology it might have been aided by the associations people brought to it by comparing it to a wolf. If wolves were thought of in terms of their eating habits; people might imagine it as more gluttonous than a wolf in its eating habits because of its smaller size. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.121.247.40 (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2009‎ (UTC)

Question

description by chantell october 6:38 2009 wolverines are very rair speche they have very sharp claws there discription is they have not to long but long claws they are in a group and in a family of mustelidae.wolverines are from anamali these wolverines are very hard and very rair to find.these wolverines can kill humen speche.I barely know about wolverines somewolverines are very smart.I dont know my question is do wolverines travel? do wolverines live or like the cold? orhot?.please who ever would like to take the time and effort to answer all my questions please and thankyou i would like my answer by tommorrow. but you probabaly cant right answers anywere so you can erase all of mine and right a reply of an answe rplease znd thankyou for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.215.85 (talk) 01:50, 19 October 2009‎ (UTC)

Female wolverine

I heard that the female wolverine is called an “angeline” and came to Wikipedia to check that and found nothing. So I checked several other sources, and that appears to be correct. It seems like it would be something useful to include somewhere. Dmclean (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't sound right to me, and a quick search only reveals unreliable sources that say that. As with all mustelids, be it a ferret, badger, otter, weasel, etc., a male wolverine is called a hob, a female a jill, and the young are kits. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

That sounds like a poetic term for a female wolverine, like "bruin" for a brown bear etc. justinacolmena (talk) 15:30, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree?

Are there any phylogenetic studies that include a cladogram? It would be informative for the taxonomy section to see where exactly Gulo gulo fits among martens. Mariomassone (talk) 09:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Family Mustelidae?

Wolverines seem more like cats than dogs to me, because they can retract their claws like cats, which dogs are unable to do. Also they can growl, hiss, snarl, and yell or almost meow like a cat but they don't have a voice to bark like a dog.

I'm not even sure about the classification because it does not seem that otters other members of the family "Mustelidae" are able to retract their claws like cats and wolverines. And they are certainly not rodents. justinacolmena (talk) 15:38, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you want here, but you must be getting your info from comic books. First, wolverines do not have retractable claws. They are not related to dogs, cats, or rodents. The name mustelidae refers to the smell of the animals in that family. Weasels. Skunks. Badgers. Otters. Minks. Ermine. Ferrets. Mongoose. Ect... They're more related to procyonidae (racoons) than anything else. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The etymology of 'Mustelidae' has nothing to do with their scent (the 'mus' part refers to mice) and mongooses are not mustelids. And Mephitidae is more closely related to Mustelidae than Procyonidae is. 2605:59C8:2553:7510:702E:BD7D:2258:623C (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Putting the 60+ pound wolverine myth to bed.

I looked online and in my library to see if I could track down some primary sources for this giant wolverine myth and found nothing. Every chain of references from secondary sources ultimately leads me back to old books or old research I'm not able to access, or they lead me to a primary source that contradicts their own claim. If anyone can find a genuine primary source that asserts a 60 lb weight figure (not including possible isolated cases of gigantism) I'd be interested in seeing it.

Here are five secondary sources I found giving a ~60 lb figure:

Forest Service - lists 5 sources for their figure. 4 of these sources are inaccessible to me and the other is a primary source from Alaska that recorded a maximum weight of 35 lb as part of a survey. Other information from Forest Service studies and employees give ~40 lb figures, and this particular source appears to be a forgotten relic from 2005 or so. I would consider this particular source to be unreliable. ❌

Animal Diversity Web - lists 6 sources. One is the Forest Service link above; one is from Encylopedia Britannica; one is inaccessible to me; the other 3 give 40 lb maximum figures. ADW as a whole is riddled with errors and appears to be held to lower standards of epistemological integrity than even Wikipedia, and thus is unreliable. ❌

Encyclopedia Britannica - lists 8 sources under 'Article History'. One of these sources apparently no longer exists. Three of these offer 50+ lb figures and are sites apparently geared toward children (Cool Antarctica, OneKindPlanet, AZ Animals - not exactly reputable). The remaining four are secondary sources: World Animal Foundation (some random mom blog) gives a figure of 45 lbs max; Defenders of Wildlife gives <35 lbs on average; National Geographic and another children's website give 40 lbs. Once again the article's claims are undermined by its own sources, and after discovering this is the kind of source material Britannica uses I no longer consider it reliable. ❌

University of Minnesota - lists 3 sources that include weight information. One is the Forest Service link above, one is the Animal Diversity Web account, and one is a secondary source (NatureServe) that gives a 15 kg average weight figure with no further source. Now, I'm not sure how I missed this before, but in the very next sentence after UMN gives a 60.6 lb maximum weight they say the maximum is actually 42 lbs. So I guess they're playing both sides! ❌✅

Wild Mammals of North America (1982) gives a ~60 lb maximum based on information in Walker's Mammals of the World. My 5th edition (1991) copy of Walker's bases their ~60 lb figure on information in Hall's The Mammals of North America (1981). I don't have this book and Internet Archive appears to only have the first volume and thus I can't verify, but the American Society of Mammalogists uses this same book as a source for their 39.9 lb weight figure. My intuition tells me the professional mammalogists are operating with the real average range given in Hall 1981 and the encylopedias are running with an isolated case of a statistical outlier. ❌

Now here are six sources giving ~40 lb figures:

University of Alaska, Fairbanks (1980) - 34.8 lb max recorded weight in survey in northwest Alaska. Primary source. ✅

University of Idaho (1996) pg. 19 - 27.3 ± 2.6 lb average weight for male wolverines. Primary source. Also mentions 3 studies elsewhere finding ~33 lb average male weights. Jeff Copeland, the author of this study, is recognized as a wolverine expert. ✅

Banci, V. Ministry of Environment, Lands and Parks, Wildlife Branch, Victoria, British Columbia, gives a typical maximum weight of ~40 lbs in a technical report published by the United States Forest Service (1994) pg. 99. ✅

The Northern Wolverine Project (2001) pg. 11 concurs with Banci but gives an even more conservative average maximum of ~31 lbs (too low for a maximum, but 31 lbs is a pretty common weight for adult male wolverines). This is one of the sources already being used as reference in this Wikipedia article, albeit with a dead link. ✅

The Wolverine Foundation also concurs with Banci's 40 lb maximum. The Wolverine Foundation is a nonprofit founded and run by professional wildlife biologists, including aforementioned wolverine expert Jeff Copeland. ✅

Mammals of the Soviet Union (1988) pg. 930 gives a maximum of ~42 lbs and also explicitly rebuffs accounts of wolverines weighing 55 lbs or more. It also mentions a study from 1959 giving a maximum weight figure of 40 lbs for North American wolverines. ✅

In summation there is no readily accessible evidence of 60 lb wolverines or any that even come close. Sources giving these figures are dubious at best and outright laughable and/or self-contradictory at worst. While it's certainly possible that there is a 60 lb wolverine out there somewhere, this individual would by no means be representative of the species as a whole. It'd be like an archaeologist digging up the bones of Andre the Giant and declaring that humans could get up to 7'4" tall! While possibly worth mentioning as a curiosity it absolutely shouldn't be used as a maximum in a range. Particularly with wolverines; a species often feared as 'dangerous' despite there not being one single recorded attack on a human by one. The species is badly misunderstood as is, it does nobody any good to propagate this giant wolverine myth.

Now leave my edits alone lol 2605:59C8:2553:7510:EC2A:A421:A960:4A92 (talk) 07:10, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Natural Enemies

The sentences at notes 32 and 34 contradict each other Billsmith60 (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

How so? Wolverines kill wolves. Wolves kill wolverines. One on one, a wolf is probably no match for a wolverine, but wolverines are loners and wolves have the advantage of numbers, so they usually win in most cases. I agree that the section is just kind of strung together, which is common in Wikipedia articles, where people often add random facts that they found interesting without much regard for overall coherency. The section makes it sound like wolves actively stalk and hunt wolverines for food, but I've never heard of that in all my years of living with both animals. Wolves are more likely to kill one while trying to steal its prey, and visa versa. For the most part, it's very rare for predators to actively stalk and hunt other predators. A bear or a wolf might eat one, or even a human, if it's really, really, really hungry. But as a general rule they don't usually prey on each other. Predator meat is usually tough and gamey, and wolverines are exceptionally oily and smelly.

That's not to say that they won't kill each other. Lions kill cheetahs, not for food, but simply because lions hate cheetahs. But does that count as being a predator of cheetahs? Wolves and wolverines are more apt to avoid each other, unless trying to steal the other's kill. There is only one animal I know of that is known to actively stalk and hunt wolverines for food, and that's a polar bear, but a polar bear will eat damn near anything. So I think the section could probably use someone to go through all the sources and try to make it a little more coherent. Wanna give it a try? Zaereth (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Your extensive reply confirmed my observation. Regards Billsmith60 (talk) 11:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

How so? I'm confused. Your limited observations don't really tell me anything. Zaereth (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Predators do hunt other Predators. Cats kill ferrets who are predators. 47.197.29.147 (talk) 16:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Finnish etymology wrong

The Finnish word "ahmia" is derived from the word "ahma", not the other way round: https://www.kotus.fi/sanakirjat/suomen_etymologinen_sanakirja/ajankohtaista_etymologiasta/ahmiva_ahma_ja_karhea_karhu.35729.news Juho Rujo (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

External link not working

This link in the external link section does not work.

http://www.rmrs.nau.edu/wildlife/forest_carnivores/wolverine/ 88.193.131.187 (talk) 05:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed ODFW Sighting Lincoln County, Oregon coast

As of March 2024, 4 sightings have been confirmed by ODFW as being a stray wolverine, in Lincoln County Oregon, which is along the central Oregon coast. Sightings included Cascade Head just north of Lincoln City, as well as near Newport. DNA samples of fur collected from near a footprint in Newport confirmed wolverine sightings. -JJF 2600:6C55:6300:A000:35C4:3871:86DE:C769 (talk) 19:14, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks for sharing. I don't mean to be a Debbie Downer, but this probably is something better suited to newspapers than an encyclopedia, because encyclopedias summarize a subject into rather large strokes and don't focus too much on small details. In other words, we report things in a much broader and long-term perspective. (See: WP:NOTNEWS) It would be different if, maybe in the future, this is confirmed to be a regular habitat rather than just some sample sightings. Others may disagree, though, but either way we'd need reliable sources for this anyway or else it doesn't mean a thing. Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2024

The weight figures given are incorrect. The correct figures in a previous version were correct and should not have been changed.

The following sentence: Weight ranges from 7–27.5 kg (15–61 lb); usually 11–18 kg (24–40 lb) in males, and in females 8–12 kg (18–26 lb). should be reverted to: Weight is usually from 11–18.1 kg (24–40 lb) in males, and in females 8–12 kg (18–26 lb).

The sources currently given indicate maximum weights of 18.1 kg, 16.3 kg, 27.5 kg (one source I am unable to access, and the other does not list a weight.) The 27.5 kg figure is wildly out of line with other figures given. The source for the Forest Service's 27.5 kg figure is from Peter Krott, a naturalist who studied wolverines in the 1950s. Peter Krott's writings were prone to embellishment and are not reliable. The Wolverine Foundation gives a maximum figure of 18 kg. The Wolverine Foundation is a nonprofit run by professional wildlife biologists and wolverine researchers. Their figures are correct and this source should be added to the citations. The average weight for an adult male wolverine is between 13 and 15 kg, as evidenced by every primary source on wolverines that includes an actual data table of their observations.

The following sentence: Exceptionally large males of as much as 32 kg (71 lb) are referenced in Soviet literature. should be reverted to: Exceptionally large males of as much as 32 kg (71 lb) are referenced in Russian literature, though such weights are deemed in Mammals of the Soviet Union to be improbable.

Mammals of the Soviet Union puts their own maximum figure at 20 kg, roughly in line with the Wolverine Foundation's figures. Mammals of the Soviet Union not only considers reports of 32 kg wolverines improbable, but "doubtful in the highest degree" and acknowledges Krott's figures as being incorrect. This sentence was changed as the wording was considered "opinionated", but Mammals of the Soviet Union is a reliable source and this is a matter of fact, not opinion.

The following sentence: According to some sources, Eurasian wolverines are claimed to be larger and heavier than those in North America, with average weights in excess of 20 kg (44 lb). should be changed to: According to some sources, Eurasian wolverines are claimed to be larger and heavier than those in North America, with weights reaching up to 20 kg (44 lb).

I cannot access the sources provided for this sentence, but 20 kg is the maximum figure provided by Mammals of the Soviet Union, which is a reliable source.

The highest reliable figure I have encountered is 21.8 kg, from The Wolverine Way (pg. 221) by Douglas Chadwick, a volunteer wolverine researcher. The individual was held in captivity and was overweight and elderly, not representative of weights achievable by wild wolverines. Chadwick puts his maximum for wild wolverines at 20.4 kg. Any figure given beyond 20.4 kg as a maximum weight is baseless and absolutely should not be presented as part of a legitimate weight range. This article, as currently written, contains misinformation. I am a mustelid enthusiast well-researched on this topic and have tried to correct this multiple times, only for other users with no comprehensive understanding of the topic to revert my corrections. Someone please tell me what to do to get the correct information added permanently. Mustelid Enthusiast (talk) 20:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

To add onto this further, wolverines have highly active metabolisms, little body fat, and rely on scavenging to survive winter. Your average 34 lb wolverine already constantly battles starvation; a 71 lb wolverine would not survive without human intervention. A 71 lb wolverine would occupy a similar ecological niche to a 90 lb black bear and likely have similar caloric requirements. But, unlike wolverines, black bears have large fat reserves and hibernate through the winter. This is the biological reason why wolverines are limited to a more manageable size.

For comparison, European badgers can reach similar weights to wolverines (up to 37 lbs) in late autumn as they build fat reserves in preparation for winter - wolverines do not do this, but cache their food for later retrieval instead. European badgers also enter a winter torpor, which wolverines cannot do. Even at a smaller size terrestrial mustelids begin exhibiting bear-like adaptations for winter survival. In lieu of these adaptations wolverines must be limited in their size. Sea otters and giant otters are also both larger than wolverines but have consistent access to prey in their marine and tropical wetland habitats.

Just to reiterate, wolverines cannot exceed a certain weight (roughly 45 lbs, which is itself exceptional for the species) without human intervention. Reports of 71 lb wolverines are apocryphal and - to use the words of the actual zoologists who wrote Mammals of the Soviet Union - doubtful in the highest degree. Mustelid Enthusiast (talk) 20:56, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Geardona (talk to me?) 00:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

I did, but here it is again (the following changes are under the "Physical characteristics" header):

1) The following sentence: Weight ranges from 7–27.5 kg (15–61 lb); usually 11–18 kg (24–40 lb) in males, and in females 8–12 kg (18–26 lb).

should be reverted to: Weight is usually from 11–18.1 kg (24–40 lb) in males, and in females 8–12 kg (18–26 lb).

Reliable source to add: [1]The Wolverine Foundation

2) The following sentence: Exceptionally large males of as much as 32 kg (71 lb) are referenced in Soviet literature.

should be reverted to: Exceptionally large males of as much as 32 kg (71 lb) are referenced in Russian literature, though such weights are deemed in Mammals of the Soviet Union to be improbable.

3) The following sentence: According to some sources, Eurasian wolverines are claimed to be larger and heavier than those in North America, with average weights in excess of 20 kg (44 lb).

should be changed to: According to some sources, Eurasian wolverines are claimed to be larger and heavier than those in North America, with weights reaching up to 20 kg (44 lb). Mustelid Enthusiast (talk) 21:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)