Talk:Zebra

Zebra; ; Temporal range: Pliocene to recent 2–0 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N ↓
	A herd of plains zebras (Equus quagga) in the Ngorongoro Crater in Tanzania
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Perissodactyla
Family:	Equidae
Genus:	Equus
Subgenus:	Hippotigris; C. H. Smith, 1841
Species
	†E. capensis; E. grevyi; †E. koobiforensis; †E. mauritanicus; †E. oldowayensis; E. quagga; E. zebra
	Modern range of the three living zebra species

Zebra is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 31, 2021.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 25, 2020	Good article nominee	Listed
September 6, 2020	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Equine Top‑importance

	Horses portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa: Botswana Top‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Botswana portal This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (assessed as High-importance).

Mammals High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Guild of Copy Editors

This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 July 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

Diseases in zebras was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on October 5, 2013 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Zebra. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[London Zoo#London Zoo during the Second World War|the bombing of London Zoo]] The anchor (#London Zoo during the Second World War) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Running speeds

I think there are some issues with the paragraph “The zebra can reach a speed of 68.4 km/h (42.5 mph) compared to 57.6 km/h (35.8 mph) for the lion, but lions have a higher maximum acceleration” in the “Ecology and behaviour” section. 1) It seems ridiculous to me to give a speed down to a tenth of a km/h, given the difficulty in measuring speed, the terrain, the individual animal, the species of zebra etc. 2) If I click on the cited reference I can’t actually search the reference to back up the statement there. 3) The articles on Wikipedia cite different top speeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion ... about 80 km/h

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_zebra ... about 60-70 km/h

I suggest altering the figures in the paragraph to match the other figures on Wikipedia. Bringing in @LittleJerry who reverted this edit. BrightOrion (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The precision is ridiculous. I've linked the page number in the {{sfn}} template and combined the two sentences so it is now clear the one source gives maximum speeds, accelerations, and the conclusion about the 6 second window of opportunity for the lion. I've changed the numbers to 68 km/h (43 mph), i.e the best approximation of the source 19 m/s, and 58 km/h (36mph) for 16 m/s. I couldn't get the convert template to give the right numbers with right precision so removed them.

If the other articles have better sources for the speeds then they can be used instead, but now the text follows the source with sensible precision. — Jts1882 | talk 14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Jts1882! The only issue I still have is the figure for the lion's top speed. Numerous articles on the Internet suggest a lion can run at about 50 mph (80 km/h), which is a lot more than the 36 mph (58 km/h) given in this article. (Example: https://www.britannica.com/list/the-fastest-animals-on-earth) BrightOrion (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, but just wanted to deal with the precision issue you rightly drew attention to. The conversions are as follows:

Zebra speed: 19 m/s (68 km/h) and 19 m/s (43 mph) (conversions using templates)
Lion speed: 16 m/s (58 km/h) and 16 m/s (36 mph) (ditto)
68 km/h (42 mph) (wrong mph)
68.4 km/h (43 mph) (wrong precision for km/hr; needs to round both)
19 m/s (68 km/h or 43 mph) and 16 m/s (58 km/h or 36 mph) (preferred output; can a template do this?)

I prefer the latter format, which gives the speed as given by the source (in m/s) and then shows the two conversions in parentheses.

The best number for the top speed of the lion should definitely be given further consideration. — Jts1882 | talk 14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done: 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) — Jts1882 | talk 14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found this academic paper on the speed of lions. https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00477.x

Unfortunately, I can't open the whole document. I can see a section where it says: "the lion attained a lower running speed (10.4 m s−1 ) than …" BrightOrion (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the Wikipedia Library?

If you look at the beginning of the results (p216) it says:

In the hunting sequence, analyzed in this study, the lion attained a lower running speed (10.4ms-1) than in the multiple hunting sequences (13.5ms-1) analyzed by Elliott et al. (1977; fig. 5), which involved pursuit of wildebeest (the same prey species as in this study), as well as zebra Equus burchelli and Thomson’s gazelle. This could have been due to the predator not having singled out a particular prey individual during the filmed portion of the hunting sequence. Indeed, the hunt appears to have been unsuccessful.

This suggests not all measurements are equal and that the highest speeds will only be achieve under true hunting conditions. The Elliott number seems reasonably compatible with the slightly higher 16m/s currently quoted. — Jts1882 | talk 10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jts! And I just found a viewable copy here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230025975_Limb_bone_stresses_during_fast_locomotion_in_the_African_lion_and_its_bovid_prey

Yes, the figure of 13.5ms-1 is quite close to the 16ms-1 mentioned in this Zebra article.

Of course, there may be other studies showing lions running faster than this. I'll do some more searching. BrightOrion (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this discussion is getting so long. I found another academic paper called "Biomechanics of predator–prey arms race in lion, zebra, cheetah and impala". If anyone can access it, please post the data for lion speed here. Thanks. The video of that paper says lions are faster than zebras (at the 1:38 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVRkmPfkECE&t=98s BrightOrion (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is the purpose of talk pages. To decide on what information to include.

The paper is available as pdf here

The 98th percentile of speed was C - 19.9, I - 13.8, L - 13.9 and Z - 10.6 ms-1 which is 84, 78, 67 and 77% of the maximum achieved by three individuals which were C - 23.8, I - 17.7, L - 20.6 and Z - 13.8ms-1. So predators were faster than their prey and all species rarely approached their maximum recorded speed (Extended Data Fig. 5).

These numbers look good, although I'm not sure how to present it. The 98% percentile speed is a good measure to make the comparison, but the data shows the lion can exceed 20m/s in some cases. So a statement along the lines of the lion can reach 20m/s during a chase would be accurate, but isn't something explicitly stated in the source. — Jts1882 | talk 13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That article is already cited!!!!! LittleJerry (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LittleJerry, this issue relates to the paragraph in this article (Zebra article): "The zebra can reach a speed of 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) compared to 16 m/s (58 km/h; 36 mph) for the lion, but lions have almost twice the maximum acceleration, so a lion has to surprise a zebra within the first six seconds of breaking cover."

I dispute the idea that zebras are faster than lions--I think it's the other way around. BrightOrion (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's cited but I can't see the data in it. Does it say anything about a lion's speed? BrightOrion (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Try page 33. LittleJerry (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Page 40, it says 13.9 ms-1 for the lion and 10.6 ms-1 for the zebra. BrightOrion (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BrightOrion, Jts1882, make the change then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, one further comment. That source says "The 98th percentile of speed was C - 19.9, I - 13.8, L - 13.9 and Z - 10.6 ms-1 which is 84, 78, 67 and 77% of the maximum achieved by three individuals which were C - 23.8, I - 17.7, L - 20.6 and Z - 13.8ms-1." (C=cheetah, I=impala, L=lion and Z=zebra)

When talking about the speed of an animal, we should talk about the speed of the fastest individual, right?

So, I think we should use the figures of 20.6 ms-1 (46 mph) for the lion and 13.8 ms-1 (about 31 mph) for the zebra. But I'm still not convinced by this. A lot of webpages on the Internet say a zebra can run at 40 mph (17.8 ms-1). BrightOrion (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just become its popularly reported on the internet, doesn't make it true. Let's stick to acedemic sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, being used many times on the web says little about reliability. They often all just repeat a single source, which may or may not be reliable. It can also be taken from Wikipedia.

The Zebra article currently says 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) for the zebra and 16 m/s (58 km/h; 36 mph) for the lion following Caro, who references Garland 1983. I've found the Garland 1983 reference and it uses 64.0 km/h (17.8 m/s; 39.8 mph) for the zebra. So it looks like the Caro book is a conversion (to m/s) and an inaccurate one at that (19 instead of 18m/s). Garland also says the methodology of the estimate is unknown and cites Bourliere (1964), a general book on mammals. The Garland estimate for the lion (59km/h) cites another book (Schaller, 1972) and lists the method as "subjective estimate". Another recent paper (Bro-Jørgensen, 2013) also uses 59km/h for the lion, citing Janis and Wilhelm, 1993, who also use Garland (1983). I'm not convinced by that any of these estimates are based on rigorous scientific studies. The Wilson et al (2018) seems a much better source. — Jts1882 | talk 17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jts1882 and LittleJerry, how about changing the text to this:

(Ecology and behaviour section)

[When threatened by lions, zebras flee, and when caught they are rarely effective in fighting off the big cats.] **New Insertion**

Although it has been said anecdotally that zebras can run at about 17.9 m/s, the maximum speed reliably recorded is 13.8 m/s. This compares with a top speed of 20.6 m/s for the lion.**Add Wilson reference** A 2018 study found that zebras do not escape lions by speed alone but by sideways turning, especially when the predator is close behind. **Add Wilson reference (different page)** BrightOrion (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two potential problems there:

While I agree with your statement, we need a source to say the maximum speed reliably recorded is 13.8m/s. That is our conclusion about one study. Similarly its not for us to decide what is anecdotal evidence. We need a source saying it.
The Wilson et al (2018) makes estimates of speed using the 98 percentile value. They also mention a maximum speed. One must be wary of using extreme values from a data set as they could be statistical outliers. They say this maximum speed is "the maximum achieved by three individuals". If this means its the average of the fastest measurement by three individuals then it might be acceptable, but it might be better to say some individuals reached speeds of about 20m/s.

— Jts1882 | talk 17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, agreed. My next suggestion:

(Ecology and behaviour section)

[When threatened by lions, zebras flee, and when caught they are rarely effective in fighting off the big cats.] **New Insertion**

In one study, the maximum speed of a zebra was found to be 13.8 m/s while a lion was measured at 20.6 m/s.**Add Wilson reference** A 2018 study found that zebras do not escape lions by speed alone but by sideways turning, especially when the predator is close behind. **Add Wilson reference (different page)**

This doesn't eliminate the problem that those figures might be outliers, but I think it's the best we can do with the data available. BrightOrion (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't cite page numbers for journal articles. Just cite Wilson once at the end. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so if there are no objections. I'll make that change, unless anyone has another suggestion. BrightOrion (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Black with white stripes or white with black stripes

Despite the debate, scientifically they are black with white stripes.^[1]Lmharding (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

belated reflist

References

^ https://www.livescience.com/zebras-black-and-white

It's probably a good thing I'm not a professor, because I would hard fail any undergraduate paper, from freshman year up, that advanced the argument in that paper.

In mammalian biology, with a few notorious exceptions that cast the birds among the beasts, all of our cells contain all of our genes. It's not so different than the original security model of MS-DOS (aka none whatsoever) where all programs could access all memory. Species can go through phases where the regulatory system suppresses a gene globally (in the long term, a totally inactive gene will tend to degrade), but that vestigial gene can spring back to life again as the environment changes, in whole or in part.

So the argument from that paper above boils down to this: if the "default" is that every gene is turned on everywhere and always, then zebras are innately black. But there's no such default in mammalian biology. Most genes are turned off in most tissues most of the time, or we'd have sperm cells with hairy eyeballs.

A thick and contingent tapestry of suppression and activation is the only way this symphony has ever carried a tune, except as filmed by David Cronenberg.

The argument above is also [ed: close to] parallel to the argument that any human with XY chromosomes is inherently male, regardless of whether the special sauce in the Y chromosome is suitably activated (when it isn't, such a person typically becomes hyper-feminized). Yikes. Men have been nailed to crosses and then buried in stone crypts for suggesting less contentious perspectives on human nature. — MaxEnt 22:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge black and white distillation

Zebra meat was mainly eaten by European colonisers; among African cultures only the San are known to eat it regularly.^[1]^{[failed verification]}

References

^ Plumb & Shaw 2018, pp. 41, 132–133.

Reason from above:

From search for term "meat" in Google books (did not return page numbers): "As noted above, most colonizers didn't take to zebra meat, though Africans continued to eat it." Other snippets also suggest this was far from black and white.

— MaxEnt 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ISBN is the web verison of the book. And on page 41 it states

"Unlike European visitors, African cultures have rarely, if ever, hunted zebra for sport. Eating zebra, however, has always been a part of the San experience..."

LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

আপনার Shukkur8785-এর জন্য রিকোয়েস্ট করা নতু

MDali 2400:C600:451D:13A1:1:0:B68D:CCE6 (talk) 21:02, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2023

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Characteristics tab > Stripes > function > crypsis hypothesis > Sentence beginning "Melin and colleagues (2016) found that lions..", "expect" should be changed to "except". Catch a ride (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thank you for spotting this typo! Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use the same non-metric unit for height on all 3 species

In the table of extant species, Grévy's zebra is listed with a shoulder height of 4.10–5.25 ft. The other two species are listed with their non-metric heights in inches (43–57 and 46–57 for the plains and mountain zebras, respectively).

Recommend changing Grévy's imperial unit height to 49–63 in to match the other two. It'd also internally match the other non-metric measurements for body & tail length. Finally, listing shoulder heights in inches is an easy conversion to HH (yes, hh is supposed to be for the withers). Cjmcjmcjmcjm (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

2601:401:4300:3720:C8C:19DC:59D8:4D77 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: No reliable source is given for the Pliocene dating. The subgenus link should not be added per MOS:CIRCULAR. Jamedeus (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Characteristics": Change "amount of stripes" to "number of stripes". "Amount" pertains to a singular, "number" to a plural. Thank you. Walter Delahunt 24.222.182.150 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Jamedeus (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 zebra escape

This deletion attempt may be of interest to editors of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 24 M this is fake!!!,!!,!!,!!!!,!,!,!,!,!,!,!!!,,

=

[1] ttps://www.livescience.com/zebras-black-and-white

[FOOTNOTEPlumbShaw201841,_132–133-2] Plumb & Shaw 2018, pp. 41, 132–133.

[1]

[1]