Talk:Marmot

Marmota monax monax

What deters Marmots from coming in a persons yard

"Arctomys" - Hoary marmot?

Etymology of "marmot" The source for the etymology of "marmot" presented need to be cited. I can't find any evidence for an "Old French marmotan". Certainly the Robert and Larousse make no mention of it. For its part, the OED calls this etymology "disputed". Here's what it has to say on the subject:

Old French marmotte is perhaps (as explained in Französisches Etymol. Wörterbuch s.v.) < a Gallo-Romance base *marm- to murmur, to mumble (ultimately imitative in origin; compare probable cognates marmoset and marmot s.v. MARMOSET n.; perhaps related to the Indo-European base of MURMUR v.; compare possible cognates in mar- listed s.v.) + -otte, variant of -ot -OT suffix, and so called probably on account of the sound made by the marmot when eating. Probably cognate with Old French marmotte is Italian marmotta (14th cent.), while Spanish marmota and Portuguese marmota are probably borrowings from French. If this etymology is correct, post-classical Latin mus montanus marmot (5th cent. in Polemius Silvius) probably represents a Latinization of a Gallo-Romance form, and Romansch (Obwalden) murmont probably results from a similar Latinization. Alternatively, the Gallo-Romance forms have elsewhere been explained as arising from post-classical Latin mus montanus, rather than from an independent base. Old High German murmunto, murmuntīn, only attested from Swiss sources, is probably < the Romansch form or a cognate; compare also Middle High German mürmendīn, German regional (Bavaria and Lucerne) Murmentel, Murmetli, and (after Tier animal: see DEER n.) Middle High German murmeltir, murmurtier (14th cent.; German Murmeltier). The German word has derivatives in the Scandinavian languages and in Dutch."

Linguoboy (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the etymology section pending investigation. --

talk) 21:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Image gallery cleanup

I removed the image gallery cleanup tag, because I both didn't understand its comment (what is "AN ILLUSTRATED TEXT OF THIS GALLERY"?) and checked that the gallery conforms to

WP:IG: it shows exactly one example of each species of marmot, so that it makes "a point of contrast or comparison". It certainly isn't a random collection of images. —hike395 (talk) 04:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

How big are they?

We need some information about how big these critters are Msfolly (talk) 11:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plague

We need some more information on Plague....Simply saying that they can carry it is not enough. Is there history involved? If someone would be kind enough to expand this section that would be appreciated.98.182.55.73 (talk) 18:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be removed. Primary pneumonic plague results from inhalation of fine infective droplets and can be transmitted from human to human without involvement of fleas or animals. Secondary Pneumonic plague is spread from advanced infection of an initial bubonic form. If it can be shown Marmots are a common carrier of bubonic plague first, then this section has merit, otherwise it has no place here. Unless corrected or brought up for discussion for correction it will be removed on 8-Dec-2011--75.17.207.229 (talk) 23:24, 28 November 2011 (UTC)Dr. S[reply]

See Transmission of Pneumonic and Septicemic Plague among Marmots - Frederick Eberson and Wu Lien Teh - The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Feb., 1917), pp. 170-179 - Oxford University Press. Orenburg1 (talk) 18:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The section on the "Plague" has been modified, the first (6) "verification" a very small mention in a newspaper is not a verification.. The second (7) is more an argument that the most famous of Black Plague outbreaks was not even caused by the "plague". Again, the section on the plague should at this time be removed until true verification is provided. And the "see The Journal of Infectious Diseases" also is not a verification, if I need to find a 94 year old book (Journal) to verify an entry it is not verifiable by Wikipedia Standards..--75.17.207.229 (talk) 04:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC) Dr. S.[reply]

Not sure that you have quite grasped what is an acceptable source for WP – a newspaper article can be acceptable if from a reputable newspaper. In respect of the paper from The Journal of Infectious Diseases I am not aware that there is a statute of limitations on scientific papers - Fleming was reporting on penicillin not many years afterwards – does this mean we have only about 10 years before that too becomes invalid? The point about the paper is that it deals with the mechanism of the outbreak of pneumonic plague in Manchuria during the winter of 1910-1911 and answers your question as to whether it can be shown Marmots are a common carrier of bubonic plague.

If however you want something more recent see Centers for disease Control and Prevention, 1512 Emerging Infectious Diseases, • Vol. 9, No. 12, December 2003, Other Infectious Diseases, or Volume 17, Number 7—July 2011, Riehm JM, Tserennorov D, Kiefer D, Stuermer IW, Tomaso H, Zöller L, et al. Yersinia pestis in small rodents, Mongolia [letter]. I must say the article entry would probably better refer and link to ‘plague’ rather than only pneumonic plague. Orenburg1 (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have a "grasp" what is an acceptable source for "WP" and although a newspaper article can be acceptable if from a reputable newspaper, the one provided is a mention and not an acceptable source. As for writing that I, or anyone else can find a book for a reference, makes me wonder who has a grasp on what an acceptable reference is. Your last statement: "I must say the article entry would probably better refer and link to ‘plague’ rather than only pneumonic plague." however, would certainly be more accabtable!--75.17.207.229 (talk) 16:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Dr. S.[reply]

Not sure what you mean by 'As for writing that I, or anyone else can find a book for a reference...'? Orenburg1 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure at this point what it used to say, either I didn't proof-read my thoughts before putting them to ink or it was vandalized. At any rate I want to know who removed the text in the Plauge section and why? Why does it not show up under the Revisions (History section)? This is quite odd as all revisions of that size show up.--75.17.209.19 (talk) 17:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)Dr. S[reply]

"generally large"

Perhaps the first sentence should be changed from "Marmots are generally large ground squirrels" to "marmots are large ground squirrels". The way it currently is stated with "generally" makes it sound like sometimes marmots are not large ground squirrels, but generally they are.ajpruns (talk) 03:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image

There seems to be a slow edit war over the choice of image for the Infobox. I thought we should bring the issue to this talk page, to hash it out and resolve it. The choices are:

In favor of Tuolumne marmot

Feel free to add more arguments:

• Featured image
• Natural pose

In favor of Dana marmot

Feel free to add more arguments:

• Featured image
• Cuteness

Discussion

• Neutral for now: I would like to hear if there are any other arguments. —hike395 (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is the

This article states that the creatures "mostly live in mountainous regions such as..." then included in the list is the "Eurasian steppe," the largest flattest area on the planet. This makes no sense. Does it mean they live in the mountainous regions within the Eurasian steppe (Urals/alti etc.), or aside from the eurasian steppe, they mostly live near mountains? Or is it just completely wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.250.60.87 (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at several of the species, e.g. groundhog and tarbagan marmot, it sounds like they live on any rough grassland, including the majority of the plains in asia and north america. I'll take the reference to mountains out. 176.26.158.220 (talk) 11:55, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent catch! That error has been in the article since 2003. —hike395 (talk) 16:42, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Marmot. 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/20100205172035/http://newsminer.com/view/full_story/5722944/article-Alaska-to-celebrate-its-first-Marmot-Day- to http://www.newsminer.com/view/full_story/5722944/article-Alaska-to-celebrate-its-first-Marmot-Day-

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.

• 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) 20:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]