Talk:Atlas bear

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Extinction Low‑importance This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinction and extinct organisms. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.ExtinctionWikipedia:WikiProject ExtinctionTemplate:WikiProject ExtinctionExtinction articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Africa: Algeria / Morocco Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Algeria (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Morocco (assessed as Low-importance). Tunisia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tunisia, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Tunisia. For more information, visit the project page.TunisiaWikipedia:WikiProject TunisiaTemplate:WikiProject TunisiaTunisia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 18 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Colinoneill1.

Above undated message substituted from

Is the Atlas Bear a true species? I think that it was only a North-African subspecies of Brown Bear, and its scientific name may be Ursus arctos crowtheri.--Menah the Great 00:34, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I also heard it, and even rumours that this was not [a] valid race at all. Jurek

It was a separate breeding population, with no contact with other groups (except for human interference). There are two tendencies in biological classification: 'Lumpers', which tend to decrease the number of species and 'Splitters', which tend to increase the number of species. These trends have come and gone over the years and for much of the 19th Century the Splitters were predominate. Bears in particular suffered from this, with sometimes it seems that every new specimen was considered a new species (dinosaurs and other fossils were another group that suffered this; so did wolves). I've got one book that indicates that Modern thought is that the Atlas bear was not a separate species, but a subspecies of European Brown Bear; but species have been established with far less reasons. I do not know if there are sufficient remains left to do a DNA analysis to settle this. CFLeon 01:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most reliable sources that I have seen suggest that the Atlas Bear was a subspecies of the Brown Bear. However many subspecies have their own articles (

Asiatic Lion, etc). I suppose if the subspecies is distinct enough or notable enough, it warrants its own page. Anyone got any sources? Elostirion (talk) 04:37, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

No, the bear never occured there. I plan to edit this out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Raggz (talk • contribs)

What's the significance of this statement being in the lede? As it seems to be speaking of a different population/species of bear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rowd149 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, perhaps to mention another distinct brown bear population in the region? I would think it would need to be clarified, otherwise readers might assume these two populations are related.--Mr Fink (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's odd, especially when the two sources are publications that discuss the uniqueness of the mitochondrial DNA found in Atlas bears, which suggests that at least the female lines all derived from the lost Atlas subpopulation. I could only read the abstract online without paying, so the publication might have speculated about the possible translocation of male bears by Romans, but if so, I would think they would have cited their source (which I'd guess were historical or anthropological rather than from DNA) and this wiki article should cite THAT source.Paddling bear (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anywhere available for these purported cave paintings of polar bears in Andalusia? I've removed the bit about it being a short swim for Poplar bears to North Africa as this is just original research claim in this context.2001:8F8:1F22:D10F:2:3:DB33:DA6A (talk) 17:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]