Talk:Fox/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fox hunting myths

a note on something to put in here: it's often claimed by proponents of fox hunting that when foxes attack livestock they kill everything rather than only what they need to eat. This has been stated as false by David Attenborough, amongst others. -- Tarquin 14:09 Jan 13, 2003 (UTC)

That fact is true but is often misconcepted by ignorant people who are simply trying to "put down" the fox.

If a fox was to get into a livestock pen (such as chickens) it will kill every thing it can. This is not through malice or blood thirst as people may say. The fox will then take each animal one by one and hide it or bury it for future food. Tekana 12:58, 16 August 2005 (U

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.165.71.229 (talk) 00:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC).

Exactly, the fox would sense easy prey and kill everything, then bury the carcasses so that it would have food if it couldn't kill anything at a later date. Most carnivores would behave like this if given the chance to go on such a killing spree; it's like insurance. It's really just the same principle as humans storing excess cash in a bank.  :) --Luigifan 21:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Identifying a fox

Does anybody know the fox in the image? Is it really a red fox? (Compare http://www.northern.org/artman/publish/slide14.shtml ) It looks very different from the animal that I know as a red fox. -- Cordyph 17:08 Mar 28, 2003 (UTC)

I don't know anything about foxes, but I got this picture from http://www.photolib.noaa.gov/animals/anim0611.htm where it is identified as a red fox, vulpes vulpes. --Amillar

Maybe that it is a rare colour variant or subspecies. It is definitely not a common red fox. Anyone out there knowing more about this topic? -- Cordyph 14:10 Mar 29, 2003 (UTC)

I still don't know much about foxes :-) but I found a better picture we can use. --Amillar

I'm pretty sure that this is an Arctic Fox on the pic. --Conti

What's the difference, except that the coat is light (which could be due to lighting) and that it's fat (ate too much critters last week)? Both Amillar's and your photos show a clear white belly. --Menchi 08:41 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps this picture is just too ambiguous. I removed the caption. Amillar 13:59 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

Good thinking-it's difficult to tell if it's a lighting effect or really Arctic. jimfbleak 14:01 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

At least it is definitively not a Red Fox, the fox on the pic has too small ears. Either it's an Artic Fox or another not so well known fox species. Conti 16:51 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

I just realized that you're talking about the lower photo and not the upper one! :-D It looks like a colourless raccoon! Yeah, it doesn't look like an adult Red Fox. But it doesn't look like Artic Fox [1] either. Artic Fox has pure white coat, this unknown fox's coat is brown. It has a dark snout and nose, whereas only Artic Fox's nose is black, and Red Fox's snout's button-half is pure white. Almost all Foxes have enormous ear, this unknown one is apparently very young, before his ears even developed. I looked at about 600 fox photos, and found no fox with an entirely black snout. --Menchi 16:45 24 May 2003 (UTC)

Yep, I'm talking about the lower photo. And I'm really sure that this is a fox or at least some other doglike animal. The picture you are showing is definitively a fennek, you can see that from the big ears. Artic foxes change their fur and the color of their fur during the year, they can have indeed very dark and even black fur during some time of the year [2]. Maybe we should simply change the picture to a more clearly one. -- Conti 17:21 May 24, 2003 (UTC)

I still don't know the species. I checked dozens of images of Red Foxes, Silver Foxes, Grey Foxes, Arctic Foxes - without any result. I agree that it is NOT an arctic fox. Even in its summer fur the arctic fox looks completely different than the animal on the picture. -- Cordyph 14:18 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's another one of Arpingstone's plastic models, only with fur this time. :) Tannin

I just looked in a book on foxes at my local library. Yes, the lower picture is a red fox. The book said these color variations can even happen within one litter. For example, two red/white pups, one red/black pup, and one silver/black pup, all in the same litter. (Sometime we just have to resort to looking at those dead trees... :-) This agrees with the original NOAA attribution, and I'm inclined to think that the guys going out there photographing these animals have a better chance of knowing what they are looking at than we do. -- Amillar 23:39 15 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. I just added "colour variation" to the caption, so that readers will not be too confused about the different looks of the two foxes. -- Cordyph 08:25 16 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Should the sentence or two about the Red Fox's coloration perhaps be put on its own separate page? -- Nixve 20:33, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It may be a racoon dog.--70.165.71.229 00:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Or a hybrid of certain foxes.--70.165.71.229 01:24, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The picture is of a red fox. --Michael Johnson 01:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Can red and arctic foxes mix?--70.165.71.229 12:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Afox cant just be identified by color or physique,it could be a breed of the rare "black fox",this breed don't run in packs,but are instead rejected mavericks from birth...Ice-reaper 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Note

When you link to articles in other languages, note that this article is not on any specific species or genus. Andres 15:32, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC) This animal is a cross fox We should ad a range and habitat section68.9.203.166 19:05, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up

This article is listed as needing clean-up. Should it still be so listed? If so, why? Quadell (talk) 05:12, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)

Genera

There are a few genera with little information, particularly Lycalopex, Pseudalopex, and Dusicyon and this seems to be due to some disagreement among taxonomists.

In particular, the animal here called Pseudalopex vetulus (the Hoary Fox) is described on this page [3] as Dusicyon vetulus, and elsewhere as Lycalopex vetulus.

Here the genus Dusicyon is described as only containing the extinct Falkland Island fox. This should be revised to mention the various different taxonomies of South American foxes. --Saforrest 03:13, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Unknown fox species

Which species is the fox in these photographs? ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

File:Unknown fox 1.jpg

File:Unknown fox 2.jpg

I'd say it's either a Gray Fox or a Cape Fox, but I'm not sure.. --Conti|✉ 20:24, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, it must be a gray fox or an island fox. Cape foxes are much more slender. ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 20:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hibernation

I looked up this page to find out whether foxes hibernate. (Another source reports that red foxes don't. --81.187.165.108 10:50, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Kitsune

Perhaps it has something to do with the Japanese legends about foxes (in Japan known as kitsune)? Theres an exellent wiki page about them (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Kitsune) so i won't go into details, but there are many legends in Japan about foxes shanging shape into beautiful men or women in order to seduce humans and drain them of their energy/lifeforce. This could explain why it's alright to describe somone as "a foxy lady", but not to call them "a real fox" directly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.66.220.49 (talk • contribs)

While we're guessing ...! ;-) In General American English, the vowels of "fox" and of - excuse me, you may consider this vulgar - "fucks" are very similar. So my guess is that calling a sexy lady a "fox" is a pun. yoyo 02:33, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

...And, someone just added, "The foxes mate in the same way that humans do. The most 'active' female fox is the slur." I don't know what the hell he's talking about, so I'm guessing that "slur" is a corruption of "slut". In addition, foxes do not mate the same way that humans do; they engage in intercourse through mounting, like most other quadrupeds. Does anybody think it should be reverted? --Luigifan 21:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I suspect more than anything else the reason for the comparison between attractive women and foxes/vixens is the idea of them being sleek, fast, smart and the like - the traits often associated with foxes. --92.2.173.189 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

vocalization

I have seen a fox seemingly imitate an owl. I live in Orleans, on Cape Cod. The call was the standard 'who, who who who who, whoooo' Or, Oooo. This was outside my window, one bright morning. I wonder why a fox should make this sound. I also I hear this same sound, in the dark, at night. And it is answered, across the river. Local experts dismiss this as fantasy. I have sought an independent source to no avail.

Another thing, the article mentions all the vocalizations but not the famous 'yiff' which I could swear comes from foxes.

"Yiff" is not a real word for a sound foxes make--it was made up by someone roleplaying a fox on FurryMUCK, an online game. The fox's "bark" or "yip" is probably the sound that inspired the furry fandom word (which is usually used as a euphemism for sex, not a fox vocalization). --Krishva 03:41, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

As a Feminine Sex Symbol

In American (USA) slang, an attractive woman is sometimes referred to as a "fox" (though not in front of her -- that would be considered crass and rude). I also know for a fact that in Chinese folklore, foxes are also associated with seductive females (usually of magical origin or with magical power). Anyone know other instances of this? And any idea how such associations come about?

Cleanup

I did some cleanup on the page; it might be a good idea to incorporate some of the information in the external links, but at present I don't have the patience to do it. Do you think it needs more cleanup? Josh 05:40, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure. I think it could possibly be laid out better, though. Thanks for helping! ‣ᓛᖁᑐ 21:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Picture and table

• I've removed the cleanup tag, since this article has clear, concise text. However, I think a picture and a table of info (they're usually coloured red- like the one on Dog) would make this page much better. --Julie-Anne Driver 20:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

• Compare the classification table with that for Dog. That one includes the Trinomial classification of the domestic dog. Is there a wikipedia standard for these classification tables? If so, does it mandate including a binomial or trinomial classification where appropriate? And are all foxes binomially "Canis vulpes"? yoyo 02:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

interbreeding?

Can foxes mate with domestic dogs and have fertile offspring?...

• No, they can't do that with any animal besides other foxes. Different kind. Agape

• Yes, they can mate and produce offspring, but these may be sterile. My wife had a pet, from an Australian breeder of pedigreed Pomeranians whose prize bitch was served by a dog fox (species: Red Fox, introduced to Australia by the British) who broke into the enclosure. There were only two pups in the litter. The breeder kept one and my wife's mother took the other as a pet for her daughter. This was in 1965. The pet, called Vixen, used to climb the ladder in the hayshed. She was killed in an accident in 1973 or 1974. We have B&W photos somewhere. yoyo 02:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Are you sure about that? There's no room for doubt? Every source I've ever heard has said that foxes can't mate with dogs. Agpae

Fake Photo

The photo of the fox with the rabbit looks fake. I believe the fox is stuffed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.21.28.14 (talk • contribs) 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The photo is real. The fox and rabbit were alive. I chased the fox away after a while. It was not at all perturbed by my standing ten feet away with a camera. Oosoom ^Talk to me 10:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

"It was not at all perturbed by my standing ten feet away with a camera." The same likely could not be said for the rabbit. ;) 209.179.168.34 04:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Famous fictional foxes

Is there any reason why the section on famous fictional foxes can't be split out as its own article? I can see how it might be possible for the factional fox part of the article to swamp the biological fox part of the article. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. We should use a more common article name, tho, like Foxes in fiction (see Wolves in fiction). --Conti|✉ 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

common names and actual relationships in the Canidae

per a revert of some recent material:

i know that i didn't integrate my ideas in the best possible way with the existing article, but i think it still needs to be said. look up a sample of robert wayne's genetic research on canids (http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne2.htm); to call one dog a "fox" and another "wolf" tells you little if it doesn't inform you of some relationship between them. most african and asian jackals, while fox-like, freely interbreed with domestic dogs (genus Canis); the simien jackal is now known by all rights to be a wolf; the extinct falkland island wolf is also freely referred to as a fox; and many south american "foxes", while a distinct group of canids, are actually much closer to the genus Canis (dogs, wolves, jackals) and Lycaon than to Vulpes or Alopex. there are several major lineages within the Canidae who share no close living ancestors but express primitive, typically "foxy" traits - the bat-eared fox and the gray fox, for instance.

anyway, what i mean to say is that some mention might be made of the fact that the word "fox" doesn't refer to just one particular kind of animal - at least, not unless it's used in the particular, as in "red fox", or "gray fox", or "crab-eating fox". and this should be noted.

that is all.  ;) Metanoid 20:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your point. There has been an effort in recent years to bring common names more into line with the actual taxanomic position of species, so problems you are referring to will decline with time. In the context of Wikipedia these things are best dealt with by redirects and disambutation pages. -Michael Johnson 23:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

very true! Metanoid 04:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

little stuff

changed section title Ecobalance to Conservation. i'm pretty green myself, but even i think that comes off as a bit, well - hippyish! :) i removed the final sentence of General characteristics - "Foxes are also coming near houses searching food at arctic area in wintertime when we have -40 Celsius degrees" - by i-know-not-who, as it seems uninformative and devoid of context (no offense! :p) Metanoid 19:43, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Tribe?

Maybe I don't know much about biological nomenclature, but I've never heard the word "Tribe" used . . . I thought that Vulpini was a "sub-family" of the Family Canidae. Is "Tribe" an accepted scientific term? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.162.245.172 (talk) 21:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

Hi, i work on the french article on foxes, and i have some problems with nomenclature and classification. I also wonder about the classification used in the english article, can someone put a reference at the end of the article in order to verify the classification of foxes please ? thanx --90.20.104.91 11:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The normal order is Family - Sub Family - Tribe - Genus. So both Sub Family and Tribe are intermediate between Family and Genus, and to a certain extent are used interchangeably by different authors. --Michael Johnson 13:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

Can anyone add a comment on the intelligence of foxes? Even if it's just to disregard the commonly-thought 'cunning' nature of the animals. TomGreen 21:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Time on the Earth

Does anyone know how long foxes have been on Earth? If you do, please add that to the article. Radical3 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was hoping to learn more about the (1) EVOLUTION of foxes, and (2) their closest RELATIONS. Any help here would be a super addition. --Dylanfly 03:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Trivia? No thanks

The trivia section is really tacky. I mean, doesn't that belong on somebody's cutsie website? That is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. No doubt we could add cartoon characters and other inane trivia, but this is not the place. I nominate it's deletion. --Dylanfly 03:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: thanks to User:Zetawoof for removing Trivia section. --Dylanfly 18:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. I'm not much of a fan of "trivia" or "in popular culture" sections either. Zetawoof_(ζ) 20:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Lacking conservation status

This article lacks the conservation status image, and so it is not possible to tell if the foxes are an endangered species. Could somebody please add this? Would be greatly appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.93.4.238 (talk) 07:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC) and it is red.

I am sure that red foxes and most other vulpini aro not endangered. Only the cozumel fox might be extinct. We are not sure and I don't think Wiki is either. --Midnightfox1000 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

as food

are they eaten by people?^MY♥_INchile 23:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC) No they aren't eaten by humans.--Midnightfox1000 (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Midnightfox1000

Feral foxes

No information on foxes as an invasive species. Odd...? ですね--ZayZayEM (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See the Conservation section. Add more if you have referenced material. Bob98133 (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

See Also

   * Kitsune （Fox of contained the religion,yōkai, folklores and works in Japan）

Please - what does this mean? TheOneOnTheLeft (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Rabies in foxes

Can rabies get into artic foxes? I know it can get into reds but not artics--Midnightfox1000 (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Please reply if you find out--Midnightfox1000 (talk) 18:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relationship to dogs

This article needs a section on classification of foxes; are they a kind of dog, or are they considered something different from dogs and wolves, and what are the differences? Arsia Mons (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Broadcast Network

Does anyone have objections to putting this at the top?

This page is about the animal. For the television network, see Fox Broadcasting Company.

-Zeus- 16:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

No one objected, so I'm adding it. -Zeus- 23:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by -Zeus- (talk • contribs)

The article title is Fox Broadcasting Company, so the link should be directly to the article, as per Wikipedia policy. --Michael Johnson (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Michael Johnson. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>`} 04:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Foxes as pets

The fennec fox isn't the only species of fox that can be tamed (though I'm not sure if you could exactly call them domesticated - there is some difference). I've seen examples of tamed red foxes. The particular foxes I'm thinking of were taken off of fur farms, and as such were born in captivity to human rearers, and as a result are quite tame. I believe the "fennec fox is the only one normally kept as a pet" section should be revised to suit this. Examples can be found on Youtube, such as: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEbfvYEle8o

Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agHwrWVLd6E

And: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xHrodbufm0

And finally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xontE6n60CQ 72.139.225.161 (talk) 07:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

rabid fox bites person

This really shouldn't be on this article, its ridiculous that someone would put in rabid fox bite as the defining relationship between foxes and humans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.45.94 (talk) 01:12, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Foxes mate for life?

I'm not certain about this (its actually why I looked up foxes on wikipedia). I've head this a couple of places. Is it true? Do foxes mate for life? Yes they do , foxes mate for life, but if there mate passes awat i think they find someone new? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.156.96.173 (talk) 19:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

They definetlely do, but before they do they mate with a few foxes but then settle with one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightFox7 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Omnivores?

Foxes are NOT omnivores - they are in the canine class which makes them carnivores the reference to "5" states at the bottom of the page that this source was written by students and was not reliable. Same reference for dogs ... which are also carnivores —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.46.108 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 September 2009

Confusion here between "Carnivora" and "carnivorous", both of which can be called "carnivore". The Carnivora are a taxonomic group, including cats, weasels, foxes and dogs, and yes, most are at least partly carnivorous (meat-eating). However, in fact not all of the Carnivora are wholly carnivorous. Many are omnivorous (including bears, badgers and foxes) – and a few are even wholly herbivorous (eg giant panda). Also of course many carnivorous organisms are not part of the Carnivora (eg shrews, sharks, many bats, spiders, thylacines, killer whales etc – and also sundew, pitcher plant etc). Richard New Forest (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

They are omnivores, eating whatever they can find, but they are classified as carnivores a lot of the time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MidnightFox7 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Fennigan

Star Trek: this is an interesting comparison to news stations. There was a Star Trek episode where what some of the charactors would think, would actually start to manifest on a planet they were visiting. Modern media could be compared with audiences this way. What some people think, and if enough believe in whatever those things might be, everyone sees the effects of those things in one way or another. Tigger75.202.149.78 (talk) 20:17, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Young

The article says that young foxes are called pups, but I've never heard this before: in my experience they are always called cubs. However, looking this up on Google all instances seem to be British - is this a regional variation? Should it be put in? 80.254.146.20 (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Genus links

In the "Genera" sidebar, all the links except for "Vulpes" and "Urocyon" redirect you to pages with different names. Would it be possible for someone to correct that so that the links just sent you there in the first place? You know, like this:

Cerdocyon

Chrysocyon

Dusicyon

Otocyon

It's not a big deal, but it bothers me a little. -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:NOTBROKEN--such links still work, there's no need to fix them. Ucucha 15:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I know that, it's just an aesthetic thing for me. I'd still appreciate it, though. (And, on a related subject, why isn't there a "Lycalopex" link on that list? Is that not part of Vulpini even though all its members are called foxes?) -Agur bar Jacé (talk) 16:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Neolithic introductions

{{editsemiprotected}}koikjjvbjhbolThere is no evidence in the archaeology of Gobekli Tepe to suggest that foxes were introduced. Yes, they are carved on the pilars, and yes, there have been fox bones dug up, but this doesn't imply introduction. Turkey is very much within the 'natural' range of the fox. Please delete this section - or back up with proper references (Historians - what historians!)... Cultural reference to foxes are legion through human history (I've written a thesis on it) and this one is certainly remarkable for it's artwork, but not biologically - this page is about fox biology.

 Done as it's unreferenced anyway. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 17:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Weasel words in Hunting section

"Fox hunting has been frowned upon in more recent times in some areas. Many argue that is an inhumane and unnecessarily violent pastime when attempted for sport alone; many others question whether or not it should even be deemed a "sport" due to its contents."

Needs citations, weal-words notifications and/or deletion

Nairax (talk) 14:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

This wording also presents arguments from only a single side of an issue it acknowledges as controversial - a clear demonstration of bias. Trypnotic (talk) 06:20, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

This article forgot to mention foxes' slyness

Tisane ^talk/_stalk 03:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect term used.

The gray fox is one of only two canine species known to climb trees; the other is the raccoon dog.

Blatantly Incorrect, neither species are canines, or of the tribe Caninae, Should be Canidae.

ZeroFTW (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

also if you youtube dog in tree Im sure you would find something other than foxes climbing trees, Ive seen a small dog climb a somewhat sideways tree with great skill..//. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.1.103 (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 68.114.141.61, 21 December 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Under the section "Relationships with Humans" the following should be corrected for grammatical errors. "In June 2010, a 9-month-old twin girls were bitten..." A simple one word addition/replacement can fix this tiny error. Little errors like this make people think wikipedia is full of inaccuracies. Thanks.

68.114.141.61 (talk) 16:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done CTJF83 chat 18:20, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

On early relationship with humans

see/hear this: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/19/133898499/mans-first-best-friend-might-have-been-a-fox. Then some-one should go to the original article and include the info.Kdammers (talk) 12:50, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Etymology, The bushy tail is also the source of the word for fox

Lithuanian: uodegis, from uodega, "tail" <-- this is not true. in Lithuanian fox is called Lapė. Please delete that part — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.5.125 (talk) 21:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Aerodynamics

From "General Characteristics" "Foxes are not, by nature, aerodynamic.[7]"

Why is it important to note this and why is the source an economics books? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.89.12.255 (talk) 04:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I found the relevant passage in "The Armchair Economist". And I've concluded that this sentence, along with the reference, is intended as a joke. And should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.183.136.7 (talk) 11:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Number of "Fox" Species

Regarding a statement in the introduction: Members of about 37 species are referred to as foxes, of which only 12 species actually belong to the Vulpes genus of "true foxes". I count 26 species from the genera listed (12 in Vulpes/Alopex, 1 in Canis, 1 in Cerdocyon, 1 in Chrysocyon, 1 in Dusicyon, 6 in Lycalopex/Pseudalopex, 1 in Otocyon, and 3 in Urocyon if we include the still-undescribed Cozumel fox). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.139.170.161 (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Average weights?

I've added a reference to a BBC article which links to three primary sources. The sentence it refers to reads, Reynards (male foxes) weigh, on average, around 5.9 kilograms (13 lb) and vixens (female foxes) weigh less, at around 5.2 kilograms (11.5 lb). Although the figures do not correspond exactly to those cited in the article I haven't attempted to change them. Given the worldwide distribution of the different species and subspecies of fox and their geographical size variations, it seems to me that there is a problem of false precision here. which I don't feel at all qualified to address. —MistyMorn (talk) 12:45, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

foxes in The Glacier Fox

Wondering what species of fox are in the documentary The Glacier Fox (1978)? I assume they are red foxes. --EarthFurst (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Completely bad wikipedia

The wiki should highly note that not all agree that a fox is of the canine family, many many argue that it is in the feline family due to its heavy feline-like characteristics, and completely different than what is portrayed in the canine family. These range from its eyes and looks to its behavioral characteristics. The fox page needs highly edited over this. According to many scientists the fox does not belong in the canine family, and is a major misconception.

Which "scientists" exactly? Taxonomists classify animals based on certain diagnostic criteria which traces their ancestry (that includes genes). Foxes display all the criteria to be a canid, and none to be felid.

The shape of the eyes and how nimbly they can climb trees does not a cat make.-- OBSIDIAN†SOUL 18:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Protected status

That's fairly anti-Wikipedia. Have people been posting slander or been sabotaging in regards to these foxes?

I would assume it's semi-protected because there's a viral video out there about a Fox, and rather than edit every single time someone says "what does the fox say?" they're just keeping it safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.42 (talk) 14:42, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't seem so... Check the latest edits, the last two vandalisms were unrelated to the viral video. 179.209.206.32 (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe it would help if the legitimate question about fox sounds would be answered. Animal_sounds 135.19.217.11 (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Sound

But what does the fox say? Jcwf (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Suggested copy-edit

Semi protection preventing my doing this myself –

In the Domestication section, I suggest the wording

". . . the Russian silver fox, a domesticated silver fox by the Siberian Institute of . . ."

be changed to

". . . the Russian silver fox, domesticated by the Siberian Institute of . . ."

This removes the clumsy repeat of "silver fox" and the tautology of "domesticated", already in play from the preceding sentence. (Was actually only looking in to check the etymology of "Fox", having just encountered a place called "Foxen Farm" in Kent, England, and wondered if it could derive from ME with the Germanic -en plural.) {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 212.95.237.92 (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Foxes now disambiguation

Just for the record, Foxes no longer redirects to this article as there are at least 3 notable uses of the name Foxes beyond the plural for fox: a Grammy Award-winning singer, a well-regarded movie, and the soundtrack album for the aforementioned movie. Of course I included a link to this article too. If someone disagrees with this, feel free to put it back but keep in mind we'd need to include links to the singer, movie and soundtrack in the DAB statement at the head of this article; better to keep it separate. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Info box image

The image does not represent well a wild animal. Too much of a 'fluffy bunny' rather than typical. The photographer refers to the animal as being tended by humans. I will try to look for a better image in Commons when I have time. SovalValtos (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems a possible candidate, though it could benefit from cropping tighter

Rød ræv (Vulpes vulpes)

SovalValtos (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Confusion of genera and sources

There seems to be a legacy of sourcing for one genera now being applied to all. eg how come Quail keeping is acceptable? SovalValtos (talk) 18:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused about what you mean. Would you mind rephrasing so I have a better understanding? Thank you! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I think I understand what you mean- information on the genus Vulpes or on the species Vulpes vulpes encompassing the whole "what makes a fox" question. A lot of the sources that revolve around Red foxes have a very nice, in depth, section on what makes a fox, a fox in general! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 17:46, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Educational Assignment

Assignment Goal:

A group of 4 students, User: Narange1, User: Oas22, User: Jit3893, & User: MSarahKurahashiSofue, wishes to make changes to this article for a course whose banner may be found at the top of this Talk page. We wish to create/improve sections for behavior, distribution and habitat, and taxonomy and evolution. Sources for these edits will be posted here in the near future, as we are gathering them now. Narange1 (talk) 18:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, we wish to revamp the Conservation section as it mostly contains information that should be under the Human Interaction section; we will add actual Conservation efforts to those species of fox with which they are being done. Under the Human Interaction section, we will add a sub-section going into more detail about foxes in urban settings - spreading disease, foxes as pests, etc. MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 20:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey folks. This is a good start, here are some suggestions:

1. The proposal needs more substantial information: not only the sections you will work on but also what information you are planning to add to them; an initial list of sources and references and where you will get them from; whether and how you will get images/multimedia and to which sections you will add them.
2. Look at other similar articles, e.g., Gray wolf is evaluated as a Good Article and Coyote is a B-class (see criteria here), so you can see what those pages have that Fox page does not have and see what improvements are needed.

Happy editing! LeshedInstructor (talk) 19:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

One suggestion I would have is that you can keep an eye out for where your sources can play double duty and work as citations for multiple claims. It looks like you are working from a number of books, which often have a wide variety of information in them. Keep an eye out for where tangential sections can be expanded and where they need citations. Looking over this article, I notice that the Behavior section has no citations, and the reproduction and vocalization sections need to be expanded if possible. The "In culture" section looks a bit like a list of trivia, and may need to be merged into other sections, culled entirely or expanded as appropriate. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've gone through and tagged a few places where citations are needed to point you in the right direction. The citations that are there will also have to be cleaned up at some point if you want to get all the way to GA status. The best practice is to use the {{cite}} templates. Additionally, you may want to see if you can find some public domain or creative commons licensed media for the "vocalizations" section. You may check with GLAM, as they may be able to put you in contact with someone who would be willing to donate media related to foxes. Best of luck with your project.0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 14:37, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help and input! Unfortunately though, we only planned to fix and expand certain sections I previously listed- Conservation, Human Interaction (Urban Foxes), and most of the General Characteristics. As our project only lasts a couple of months (we are at the tail end of it), we only had time to do a few things. I will see to making those changes if we have time after delivering what we proposed. Thank you again! MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 15:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Working Bibliography:

To revamp the Conservation section, we will first look at the IUCN Red List to start our search for information of foxes that are endangered or critically endangered - Darwin's Fox and the Island Fox. We will use the Red List to gather basic information about these two foxes. We will then use research articles like Habitat and Diet of Darwin's Fox (Pseudalopex Fulvipes) on the Chilean Mainland, Double Allee Effects and Extinction in the Island Fox, and A population viability analysis for the Island Fox on Santa Catalina Island, California to lay out conservation efforts done to acknowledge and help these species.

In the Relationship with Humans section, we will explore more research articles and news articles to better show the impact of foxes on humans and human civilization. A large portion of the "urban fox" population consists of the red fox - Vulpes vulpes. Some articles include:

•Fox Contact Behaviour and Rabies Spread: A Model for the Estimation of Contact Probabilities Between Urban Foxes at Different Population Densities and Its Implications for Rabies Control in Britain. This article explains the spread of rabies among urban foxes in Britain.

•Distribution and density estimates for urban foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in Melbourne: implications for rabies control is a similar article where the research took place in Melbourne, Australia.

•High prevalence of Echinococcus multilocularis in urban red foxes (Vulpes vulpes) and voles (Arvicola terrestris) in the city of Zurich, Switzerland will help explain the prevalence of foxes in Zurich, Switzerland.

MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 16:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The book "Urban Foxes" should be of help in the Relationship with Humans section as should "Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids" in the Conservation section. The latter also provides more specific information about arctic, island, swift, kit, Blanford's, red, bat-eared, and patagonian foxes in the form of case studies. In addition to the above, "The Red Fox", "The Wild Canids", "Behavior of Wolves, Dogs, and Related Canids", and "Urban Carnivores" will help our studies.Narange1 (talk) 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Updates on the Article

• Moved some parts that were in the Conservation section to the Human Interaction section
• Edited/Fixed the introductory paragraph to the Conservation section
• Added two species that are under conservation efforts
• Edited/Fixed the introductory paragraphs to the article itself
• Split the General Characteristics section into smaller subsections
• Renamed the General Characteristics section to Biology
• In Morphology- Kept the average weights and features. Added information about their stance and whiskers
• Added Pelage section- Kept fox examples. Added coat color, changes due to season and age, and moulting
• Added Dentition section and information
• In Behavior- Kept lifespan, solitary/groups, climbing, and omnivorous. Added hunting technique.
• Added Sexual Characteristics and information
• Vocalization- completely change the information and added some more!
• Urban Foxes- Added this section and expanded the corresponding subsection of its main article, Red fox

MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good work, @Narange1, @Oas22, @Jit3893, and @MSarahKurahashiSofue. Here are couple of suggestions for you to improve the article:

a) Great work in Vocalization part! Just a thought, can you try to find different audio features of their voices, and then compare those with other animals'? If this sounds irrelevant, just ignore.

b) Again good work on Sexual Characteristics. This section looks solid.

c) You can take a look at the "Gray wolf" article to see if you get more ideas to expand the Relationship with Human section. You may want to add a photo if possible.

d) I think the cultural part can be extended by bringing in more sources from literature, movies, paintings, and other sources.

IshtiaqueAhmedCornell (talk) 03:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Final Edits:

• Updated the culture section, expanded the sentence into a paragraph
• Gave examples of depictions of eastern and western culture of foxes, complete with a Wikipedia article on all of them

Jit3893 (talk) 02:01, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Added the missing images of Ethiopian wolf and the Falkland Islands wolf to the classification table
• Added citations for etymology section

Oas22 (talk) 03:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Classification table

This is a good idea, but not a good use of space. Might this be a case where a gallery would aid the layout? SovalValtos (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It might well. For the time being, I've trimmed some of the white space off the images on the right hand side (they were using <gallery> tags, instead of image links), which I think helps a little. I'm not very impressed with the image used to illustrate Lycalopex, either - I suggest that if we can't find a better one, we leave it out. Anaxial (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Lycalopex image was the one than drew me in most! It gives a great feel for the creature in it's world. Personal stuff aside, there may be a better one to point differences between types.SovalValtos (talk) 23:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing against the image per se, but, personally, for this specific purpose, I'd prefer something that shows more clearly the similarities/differences between it and other species. But I don't feel strongly about it, so I'll leave it as is for the time being. I've tried to make better use of the space by listing all of the individual species in the table, but this still leaves rather a lot empty. Anaxial (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It was suggested to us to clean up the genus list and their pictures because the first formatting just had the pictures under the whole list of genus considered "fox." So it wasn't very pleasing to the eye or easy to understand which picture related to which genus. I could only think of a chart-type layout to better list the genus and what these animals look like. I do agree that a lot of it is white space. Is there a better layout idea? As for the foxes themselves, a lot of the differences are based on size, bat eared fox's dentition, and very little- morphology. These differences, for the most part, are hard to show on one 2D picture.MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 17:35, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't feel that strongly, if others prefer the existing one, but the sort of image I had in mind was something like this:

Anaxial (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a great picture @Anaxial! I do completely agree that the picture of Lycalopex foxes isn't great. I had to click on it to actually find the fox in the distance running away from the photographer!MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 17:56, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Not either or, so consider both please. The great value of the distant shot is that it does compel one to draw in.SovalValtos (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

A distance shot, however, doesn't allow one to make out the obvious physical differences (though minor) of that one genus of fox versus another one. The fox in the distance shot only allows me to see a sleek tan body (caudal side) with a bushy tail and pointed ears, with possibly something in its mouth. Comparatively to the other pictures, this one does not show the viewer a good frontal shot showing the body's sagittal plane. It rather shows us the transversal plane. MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 05:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Project Peer Feedback

Hello! Zy87 and I have taken a look at this article, and here are a couple of our suggestions.

Content: This all looks pretty solid! Great job adding all the new sections and information in a way that is clear and easy to understand. Make sure to read through the entire article again to catch any little errors such as awkward wording.

Organization and style: We see that you've structured the article differently from similar ones such as the Gray wolf and Coyote articles. Why did you decide to name the entire section Biology?

Zy87 suggested that you consider moving the Diet section into the overarching Biology section. since we noticed that the Diet section is a bit small as a standalone section. Also, the pictures of various foxes under Classification looks a bit cluttered, so maybe you could consider reorganizing the pictures perhaps into a chart or a different format?

Sources: One major thing we noticed is that you relied heavily on one source, "The Red Fox", for a majority of the Biology section. After talking a bit with the professor and TA, this seems to be problematic. It's especially noticeable since you cite almost every sentence in the entire section - you don't need to cite every sentence that comes from one source, you can just do one citation for the last sentence that comes from the source. It would probably be helpful to look into other sources to cite for this huge section, because with only one source, it seems that you are summarizing one book, and that may be less reliable then drawing from a variety of sources.

Also, we noticed that there are quite a few places marked with 'citation needed' (2 in Etymology, 1 in diet, and 1 in In Culture), so you should look into adding sources for those pieces of information.

Overall, your contributions look good and you've made great progress in improving the article! Keep up the good work. :) - Mwong850 (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

We compared our Fox page to the bear page as both are similar in terms of the word “fox” and “bear” encompassing many genera and species rather than being a species (with subspecies) on its own. The fox, not being a monophyletic group, makes it incredibly difficult in writing about what makes a fox, a fox; this is a major reason why the entire section is called biology, rather than morphology or characteristics.

The Diet section has been moved and merged with the Behavior section! And the Classification section is now a chart, it has a lot of white space, so any suggestions to make it look more full? or less big? Thank you for pointing those out!

We have also looked up many more journals and books for the Biology section and added sources for those missing. For the most part, these were sources mentioned in the book, The Red Fox.

MSarahKurahashiSofue (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys, I'm not going to re-assess the article because I'm not really familiar enough with animal articles that I feel comfortable changing assessments (plus I don't consider myself a member of either of the relevant WikiProjects), but I think you guys did a great job here. I'm guessing that if this doesn't get bumped up from C to B it will only be because fox is such a huge topic and the difference between C and B is based on how comprehensive the coverage is (so for relatively topics the difference between C and B isn't nearly as much work as for very broad topics). It's clear you put a lot of work into this and it turned out great. Sorry I'm about 3 weeks late in this response, hopefully you're still monitoring the page. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 02:28, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2015

Superdouh (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a change.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 14:48, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Fox's Evil

So, any idea why early modern England apparently called baldness Foxes evill? Seems like an interesting bit of cultural lore to source and include. — LlywelynII 01:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Quality Assessment

The article is validated at B-Class for both WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Mammals. Some uncited material has been tagged, some unnecessary material removed, some material relocated, and single-sentence paragraphs merged with larger paragraphs. The are some references to books that do not include the page number and there would be value in following these up. There is material requiring citation - at B-Class this needs to be provided or the material removed. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:18, 1 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Dogs and WikiProject Mammals.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fox. 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/20150320071411/http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm to http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/about/faqs/animals/names.htm

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) 01:08, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Fox (Deva)Hunting

Remove the part about 'Foxes prey on native species and lambs'. That has nothing to do with the sport of fox hunting and comes off as moral posturing to attempt to promote a sport not even known for preventing this. The page is locked so I cannot remove it. Add an entirely different section if you want to have that there. It is unrelated to the sport, and glaringly unprofessional and bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.219.225 (talk) 03:59, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Urban foxes

The article should say something about urban foxes - an interesting phenomenon. Ben Finn (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2012 (U

I wholeheartedly agree, as I live in a city and have seen foxes roaming about the streets, backyards, playgrounds and parking lots. Thus far there's been little mention of this in the news, and though people in my neighborhood are aware of them, their natural elusiveness makes them difficult to identify, as from a distance it's easy to mistake a fox for a dog. John B.

There was a section and now it's gone because of a blatant "I Don't Like edit" (see WP:IDL) by self appointed judge and jury on the matter: User:A loose noose (an obvious sockpuppet because they only editing like a pro in March 2018)86.129.0.58 (talk) 15:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 October 2018

216.21.162.16 (talk) 15:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

FOXES RULE

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. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Err

Hi,

There is an error to be corrected in the text: it's been now close to sixty years that some silver foxes from the experiment in Russia have been bred - not fifty years, as the article claims.

It's always a pleasure to help, --104.221.59.252 (talk) 18:00, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019

The fox's vocal repertoire is vast: Yelp – Made about 19 days later. The kits' whining turns into infantile barks, yelps, which occur heavily during play. Explosive call – At the age of about one month, the kits can emit an explosive call which is intended to be threatening to intruders or other cubs; a high pitch howl. Combative call – In adults, the explosive call becomes an open-mouthed combative call during any conflict; a sharper bark. Growl – An adult fox's indication to their kits to feed or head to the adult's location. Bark – Adult foxes warn against intruders and in defense by barking.[2][24] Gekkering - Kits use this sound to let their parents know that they are hungry or cold. Or, they might be seeking out attention. Waymore80 (talk) 04:53, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. It's not clear what changes you want to make. Please make a precise request. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:18, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Fox hybrids

Are there any hybrids? 2A00:23C5:C10B:A300:9CD3:C891:C1FA:BA70 (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes there are. Rzvas (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Arctic fox social behavior

Arctic foxes are not solitary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.30 (talk) 19:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Source? Rzvas (talk) 05:38, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Second paragraph edit/clarity inquiry

In the second paragraph of the article, it is written: "Approximately another 25 current or extinct species are always or sometimes called foxes;"

It is unclear why the species of foxes might be always or sometimes called foxes. Is it always? Is it sometimes? Can it be both? Could the sentence be written differently in order to convey its valuable content?

Additionally, the reference to MacDonald, D.W.'s "The Biology and Conservation of Wild Canids" really only encompasses the latter portion of the sentence. Additional references are desirable.

Musicalscholar29 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, can see how that'll be an issue for observers. I'll investigate it. In the meantime, rather than asking Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request, I've asked a friend for access to the MacDonald ref and will read it (but not a lot of it) first. ApproximateLand (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Image map

Could someone turn the first image into an image map? I would do it myself but I don't know how. Thanks!

Macadamia of the LeafWings | HEAR ME ROAR!! | Contribs | My Guestbook📖 17:28, 26 July 2021 (UTC)