Fossa (animal) 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 April 30, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 8, 2010 Good article nominee Listed August 7, 2010 Featured article candidate Promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on June 6, 2010. The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Fossas (pictured) have lengthy mating sessions because the male's erect penis has backwards-pointing spines along most of its length?
Current status: Featured article

This  level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality. Africa: Madagascar 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as Mid-importance).

More and more sources are starting to use the spelling "Fosa" to distinguish it from the animal with the latin name "Fossa Fossana". This name is used in both English language guides to Madagascar (by Bradt and Lonely Planet) as well as in the Bradt Madagascar Wildlife guide (where there is a part about cleaning up naming issues. This should be mentioned as alternative spelling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.196.21 (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The page recently read that "FOO-sa" was NOT correct pronunciation. I saw several websites that said this IS correct, and so I changed it and included links to those websites. I don't know much of anything about biology or animals so I'm leaving a note here, that I'm not positive this pronunciation is correct. TheMaster42 18:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merriam-Webster,^[1] Dictionary.com,^[2] American-Heritage,^[3] and MSN Encarta^[4] all disagree with the website links you provided and use the Latin pronounciation... maybe we can find someone from Madagascar to clear it up. -Dawson 19:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would note that of the links you give, American-Heritage has only the "ditch" meaning, Merriam-Webster has pronunciation only for the "ditch" meaning, Encarta uses the same wav file for both without evidence of actually knowing what they're talking about, and dictionary.com pretty much just copies everyone else. OED^[5] to the rescue. The common name for Cryptoprocta ferox is from the Malagasy, through French, and has variously been spelt (and presumably pronounced) foussa, fosa, fossane and fanaloka. So this is where it gets complicated: Fossa fossa is the Latin name for an entirely different Malagasy civet, and is pronounced as the Latin normally would be: fos-sa or foh-suh, per your continent. I suspect that despite warnings from writers, the similarity of names and creatures has led to a confusion of nomenclature, and consequently the names have bled together. Hence, the OED has only one entry for the two creatures, giving both spellings and both pronunciations as valid (for either species). FWIW, in general speech, I think for clarity and etymological fidelity, Cryptoprocta should be foussa and Fossa should be fossa,- but as far as the article goes, leave both as valid pronunciations.

Yeah, I thought "Foo-sa" was the wrong way to pronounce it.61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please use IPA for pronunciation so that it is clear for all readers. — 193.203.81.129 14:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please DO NOT change the pronunciation to the "Latin" version. That pronunciation refers to other uses of the word (which are many) and not the name of the Animal. The correct pronunciation is the one now given (foo-sah) and suggesting Latin pronunciation to a word of Malagasy origin is like suggesting a Latin to words like "atoll" (of Maldivian origin), taboo (of Tahitian origin) or "gesundheit" (of German origin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.205.80.12 (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, in Sarawak Malay dialect, the word for cat is "pusak" (poo-suck). Maybe the etymology is related? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.170.249 (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The fossa is extremely cat-like in appearance and behaviour. It is also more closely related to cats then other members of the Viverrid family are, but it is, however, not an ancester of cats, nor is it extremely closely related to the ancestor of cats."

English is not my native language, so can please someone check these sentences and correct them if necesarry.

It doesn't make any sense, it reads as though the fossa is a cat, and yet, still is a mongoose, too.--Mr Fink 04:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it means the fossa is related to cats more than other mongooses/civets, but it's still part of the mongoose/civet family.61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's rubbish. If it's a member of the civet family, then it's exactly as closely related to the cats as any other civet is. It might be (arguably) more morphologically similar to the last common ancestor of cats and civets than any other civet, but that is an entirely different thing. 131.111.200.200 14:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then let me ask you: are you more related to a chimpanzee or a gorilla? They're from the same family, yet one is more related to humans, the other isn't. Dora Nichov 11:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But the analagous point here would be that humans and chimpanzees are equally closely related to gorillas. Cats and civets are two distinct families which diverged, and so all civets are evolutionarily equidistant from that divergence. ImmortalWombat 23:32, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... Guess you have a point! Dora Nichov 11:44, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Fossae have no natural predators" Nile Crocodiles and Ground Boas are both capable of hunting and eating fossas. I think this statement should be changed.

The phrasing 'natural predators' I take to mean something that would typically, and normally hunt them down for food. I'm sure they are not part of the usual diet of either boas or crocs. Opportunistically perhaps, but fossae are not a part of the normal diet of either species. The Gray Reef Shark is also found in Madagascar, it would probably also eat a fossa, but they're not considered a natural predator of them. :) -Dawson 18:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know much about the predators of the fossa...61.230.72.211 09:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"[Fossa] and the boa constrictor are the only predators of all the lemur species." That's not true. Boa constrictor is not native to Madagascar at all - it's a taxon from South America. Presumably this should refer to Madagascar Ground Boa (Acrantophis madagascariensis).

Or more likely the tree boa (Sanzinia madagascariensis [= Boa manditra])

Why does the article's text say the Fossa is a member of the Viverridae family, yet the infobox claims it's Eupleridae? I was going to change it, but I wasn't really sure which was right, though i'd go with the infobox by default--overall, i think the article is very ambivalently worded when it comes to the classification. Conflicting information is a big no-no, so can someone please change it to its correct taxonomy? --Wikiwøw ­­ 15:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of "Eupleridae", I'd go for Viverridae... Dora Nichov 13:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you haven't heard of it, why not try to find out what it is before giving an opinion? The Wiki page for Euplerinae is quite thorough, except it lacks a reference. The derivation of this taxonomy comes from Wozencraft (in the 2005 edition of Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World a Taxonomic and Geographic Reference), according to a number of sources, not least of which is the IUCN [6]. Anyway, the Taxonomy section should certainly be re-written in light of that paper, as it seems the rest of wikipedia has been. ImmortalWombat 13:26, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Well if you haven't heard of it, why not try to find out what it is before giving an opinion?", how rude. Anyways, that was what I thought, and you have no right to stop me. It's not like I said anything rude. I think "Eupleridae" is a rather controversal family, and I'd still put the fossa in the civet/mongoose family. In fact, I find Wikipedia uses a lot of families/orders that aren't accepted as much as their traditional classifications. (Eg: The "tenrec order") Dora Nichov 09:36, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I should have said "before giving a recommendation". Regardless, if further studies show Eupleridae to be spurious, then the whole lot can be reverted. Personally I would rather leave it consistant if controvertial than to change everything. I rewrote the phylogeny section of the article, but if you feel that qualification is needed, please do add it. ImmortalWombat 07:24, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. Even if I don't agree with this classification, I can't say it's wrong... Dora Nichov 10:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rewrote the phyogeny section. See what you think. IDora Nichov 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've found numerous websites claiming that the fossa is Madagascar's largest carnivore (http://www.earthwatch.org/site/pp.asp?c=cdKLIPNpEoG&b=1340387, http://www.waza.org/conservation/projects/projects.php?id=67, etc), yet, as wiki states, the Nile Crocodile would seem to be much larger. can anyone shed some light on this? SamuraiY 23:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are two likely explanations. Firstly, it could be that people simply forget that the crocodile lives on Madagascar, or forget that carnivory is not limited to the mammals. The crocodile is unusual, being the only large reptile on Madagascar, it's semi-aquatic, so gets overlooked by terrestrial and marine biologists, etc. Secondly, perhaps more likely, especially in scientific contexts, is that "carnivore" often refers specifically to mammals of the Order Carnivora, which obviously the crocodile is not. The fossa is of course the largest mammalian carnivore in Madagascar. ImmortalWombat 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay to add a reference to the movie Madagascar? In the movie, fossas played a significant role as the only predators of the lemurs. The lemur colony enlisted the aid of Alex the Lion to protect the lemurs from the fossas. Therefore, this seems to be a major cultural reference to fossas that many people could relate with. Also, regarding the pronunciation debate above, in the movie they were pronounced 'foo-sa'. (if this helps at all) CougRoyalty (talk) 19:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference to the movie should not be controversial, since they play a major role as the antagonists, & is how 95% of everyone has heard of the Foosa. (Until I found this article, I thought Foosa were a fictional animal.) Unfortunately, some Wikipedians have a rabid prejudice against "X in popular culture" sections -- which is where the fact of their appearance in the movie would fall -- & adding that section would probably trigger an edit war. :-( -- llywrch (talk) 16:20, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:TRIVIA. Honestly, a lot less than "95% of everyone" have heard of fossas. I give tours at the Duke Lemur Center, and most of our guests don't recognize the name, even when I mention the animated film. – Maky ^« talk » 20:21, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maky had kindly provided us with an example of what I ranted about, & proof of how the inmates are running the asylum. Sheesh, if you ask any number of people at random what a "Foosa" is, more will say "That creature in that movie" than "A predator in Madagascar". TV, Hollywood movies, talk news radio, & word of mouth is how the vast majority of us gain knowledge about facts not in our area of experience. Ignoring these vectors of information -- or misinformation -- simply proves Wikipedia articles are written by elitist, unrepresentative pendants more concerned with actual trivial details (such as proper scientific classification -- who the fuck actually cares if they are more closely related to civets, mongooses, or felines?) than making the information relevant. I see responses like this & I wonder why I should bother to contribute any more. -- llywrch (talk) 00:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "95% of everyone" refers to the fact that 95% of the people who do know of the fossa probably learned of it through the film - not that 95% of all world's people know of the fossa. I, for one, don't know if I would be that familiar with the fossa if I hadn't seen the film... and proceeded to look up the fossa on Wikipedia. I think a lot of people will look through the Madagascar film page to find the creature - and, appropriately, that article has a link to this page - but I think it would help if the reverse were true too. "Foosa" redirects (again, quite appropriately) to this article; people who type that in are almost surely looking for the creature from the film, thinking about the animal's pronunciation in it. And thus, I propose, the film deserves a mention in this article, to clarify the connection for the casual reader in that situation. Simple_butpowerful 22:08, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I somehow got here from a mention in the article on Kosher animals, I immediately realised that these are the things from Madagascar the movie, and looked for the popular culture section to confirm this. Was really surprised not to find one at all. I would also add that the very vast majority of people in the world only really know lions, elephants, crocodiles penguins or even wolves and bears, from cultural references and not from scientific interest or personal experience. It would only enhance the article to recognise this. Goffmog (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, it falls under WP:TRIVIA. If it were added, only a single (short) sentence would be needed: "The fossa was depicted as the antagonist in the animated film Madagascar." It's trivial, and an entire section does not need to be created for it. It *might* be possible to make a mention of their antagonist role in the film in the "Human interactions" section where taboo is discussed... but then people will continue to visit the article and complain about the lack of a "Popular culture" section because they didn't read the article and see that the information was already included. I know a lot of articles use "Popular culture" sections, but almost all of them are low-grade articles, not featured articles. When you see that section, it usually means you're looking at an underdeveloped, unorganized article, which this article is not. – Maky ^« talk » 17:55, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with that argument, Maky, is that it prioritizes form over function. I can't rattle off Wikipedia guidelines by name, but I feel like that's a good philosophy to follow. The form of a featured article is only good if it is useful, and it seems that it would be useful to include this fact about the movie - so let's find a way to fit it in. Simple_butpowerful 01:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll find a way to work it in. If you would, please help me find a reliable source. – Maky ^« talk » 22:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So are the Vaunerable or Endangered? The bottom fo the article says one and the Conservation status marker says another.

Pinothyj (talk) 02:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)…[reply]

Vulnerable, at least according to the IUCN website, who do the listings. Sabine's Sunbird talk 03:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no source for the claim that the Fossa can live for 60 years in the wild. I can find sources to say that it hasn't been studied:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Cryptoprocta_ferox.html

The source of the change appears to have occurred here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fossa_%28animal%29&action=historysubmit&diff=282378436&oldid=281955981

The IP address that made the change seems to have been associated with vandalism in the past so I thought it might be an idea to review this change. Xxcv (talk) 12:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-Went ahead and made the change, seems no one noticed this talk page. Added source for the change to the references. Xxcv (talk) 15:10, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, I'm wondering if anyone else thinks that the disambig page should be re-examined? What's the most common use of the word fossa? Should the disambig page be renamed to Fossa (disambiguation) (which already exists as a redirect)? If not, maybe the disambig page list should be re-ordered? Do the categories have to be alphabetical?

Secondly, there is maybe one or two other species within the genus Cryptoprocta: Cryptoprocta spelea (the Giant Fossa) and C. antamba. Currently, the article has Cryptoprocta redirecting to it. What's the best way to organize these into articles? If we follow the approached used by Aye-aye, Daubentonia, and Giant Aye-aye, then we will need to make Cryptoprocta into its own article. Alternatively, we could talk about all of them in just this one article. Which approach is best? Whatever we choose, I may also follow with the Aye-aye articles since the situation is nearly identical, including the volume of material for the subfossil species (I think). – VisionHolder « talk » 19:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another parallel situation is Hypogeomys. I don't think this animal is the primary topic for the term "fossa", as there are so many uses for the word, including a pretty prominent anatomical one.

I don't think we have to worry about C. antamba, which is apparently just a freaky C. spelea. The taxonomically cleanest way would be to have separate articles on C. ferox, C. spelea, and the genus, but I expect that there would be very little information specifically on the genus. Therefore, it may be best to treat the genus and C. ferox together in a single article. C. spelea can get its own article. Ucucha 19:24, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a crack at the dab page. I've been dealing with them a bunch lately on WildBot patrol. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Duh... should have said I'd done the dab. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 16:48, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Returning to VH's original question, I disagree with Ucucha. I think we should follow the pattern set by the Aye-aye articles. It's ok if there isn't much on the genus - it'll just be a stub. If that's how it is for a long time, there's no problem with that. If we didn't have the fossil species to deal with, there'd only be one article, but once we introduce a second species (extant or extinct) there should be a separate article for the genus. I will be bold and start the genus article. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, shall we get this party started? - UtherSRG (talk) 06:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly! I will be ready to contribute in a day or two since I have some other Wiki work to do tonight. As I've stated before, I'm probably best equipped to write an "Evolutionary history" section. I can also share a small paragraph about references to the animal in Malagasy culture, as well as help in other sections. The question remains: Do we want to work towards DYK credit to give the page extra publicity when we near completion? If so, that will take coordination. Otherwise, I'm all for pushing this article all the way to FA. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready to start adding stuff. I'm partial to getting a DYK (it's good for publicity and gets me 10 WikiCup points), but won't be fussed if that's too difficult to coordinate. Sasata (talk) 16:44, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. I don't have any resource materials with me, and won't be able to get my hands on any reasonably until we're close to the end of the collaboration, but start writing and I'll edit. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 16:49, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a sandbox to contain two (sub?)sections I'll work on, Habitat and distribution, and Diet. It's just a bare minimum start for now, but I'll poke at it for a week or two while I read the relevant literature. Feel free to add any comments or change/add/copyedit whatever. Sasata (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I copyeditted and left some comments here. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've sandboxed a description, worked entirely from the HMW1 listing. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:43, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I may do the mating section next. Hubba hubba! - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the link Ucucha posted. It looks like it's full of information. Maybe if Ucucha or someone can get digital copies of it, the 2003 article by Hawkins from The Natural History of Madagascar is an excellent source of information. As for me, I'll try to start my sandbox after work this evening. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:04, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'd lost my way finding that PDF. It's got some good stuff, including duplication/verification of data in HMW1. I'll work on expanding my description tomorrow. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it must be tomorrow already because I've expanded my description sandbox with info from the "General Characters" section of the PDF. ;) I've also addressed the comments from Sasata. I want to include some information from the "Form" section of the PDF, particularly the first paragraph (general external features), the last paragraph (comparison to felids, herpestids and viverrids), and the dental formula (perhaps with a little from the next paragraphs - maybe). The next-to-last paragraph is quite interesting, but I'm a pervy kind of guy. LOL! I think we can skip most of the rest of the "Form" section, depending on how much is included in other sections of the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys! Alright, it seems you’ve pretty much divided the stuff up among yourselves. What section would you like me to work on? What about a “Fossa in popular culture” section? :) Just kidding. So what do you need me to work on? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:30, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't know. It seems that UtherSRG is covering anatomy (though more detail is still needed), and Sasata appears to be covering ecology. UtherSRG also mention mating behavior, but I don't know if he intends to write an entire behavior section, or just a "breeding and reproduction" section. Along with the evolution/taxonomy and Malagasy cultural references sections that I'm working on, I think that may round out the article... I'd work with Sasata and UtherSRG to see if there are some details you can work on, or if you could write the behavior section. If not, you're welcome to write the lead and review what's been written. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot... what about a Conservation section? Just searching Google Scholar for "Cryptoprocta ferox" is already yielding quite a few papers related to conservation. Maybe Sasata can help obtain copies? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arbiter - if you could do behavior, that'd be great. I only mentioned mating stuff 'cos I'm that kind of a guy. LOL! I'll stick with the anatomy for now. Many topics have an overlap: anatomy and behavior have some over lap, behavior and diet have some overlap, anatomy and diet have some overlap... it's all interrelated. Once each of our sections or sets of sections are done, we'll put it all together in one sandbox, smooth out the overlap areas, then put it up in the article space. I think that's the plan. LOL! Yeah... I'm getting punchy.... 2 weeks until I start my travels home... - UtherSRG (talk) 04:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm starting my sandbox. Comments are welcome once I'm able to add some content. It appears that the taxonomy is a huge mess right now, so this could prove to be an interesting section. Unfortunately, most of the gory details belong on other pages, such as it's order, suborder, family, subfamily, etc. Anyway, feel free to copy my refs if you need them. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I want to give everyone a heads up. I'm still working on extracting notes and quotes from my sources, and that will probably fill the rest of my evening. (Sorry, I'm slow!) Unfortunately, I work from 8am until after midnight on Fridays, and have very limited time on Saturdays and Sundays. Everyone else is moving so quickly that I hope I won't hold everyone up. However, it should go pretty quickly once I have time to write it from the notes & quotes. My only recommendation for everyone is that if you haven't seen the Hawkins article, someone please try to make a copy available. It appears to cover just about everything in amazing detail. If people can't get to it, I will try to scan the 3-page article and email it out. The book is massive and my scanner is tiny. I don't even have a copy of Acrobat Pro, to make things worse. But if you guys need it, I will try to set some time aside Saturday morning and will then email it to as many people as I can. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More articles to assist in development:

• Infant development and behaviour in the Fossa Cryptoprocta ferox
• Why Be Diurnal? Or, Why Not Be Cathemeral?

Sasata, can you do me a favor and send me the following articles?

• Evolution and systematics of the feliform Carnivora - Ewa Barycka, Mammalian Biology, Volume 72, Issue 5, 3 September 2007, Pages 257-282, DOI: 10.1016/j.mambio.2006.10.011
• Predation, Communication, and Cognition in Lemurs, DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-34810-0_5

You may send them to my gmail account if you can obtain them. Thanks! – VisionHolder « talk » 04:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Both sent. Sasata (talk) 18:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My description section is updated with the remainder of the anatomy information and is ready for comments. I'm going to start a "mating and breeding" section in the same sandbox. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• If there's anything for my sections in those refs, please send me a copy. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mating and breeding is done, although the middle section which is supported only from one source could use some rewriting. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Lead - VH
• Description - UtherSRG (User:UtherSRG/Fossa description#Description)
• Breeding and reproduction - UtherSRG (User:UtherSRG/Fossa description#Mating and reproduction)
• Behavior - Arbiter (User:The Arbiter/Sandbox 2#Behavior)
• Diet - Sasata (User:Sasata/Fossa#Diet)
• Habitat and Distribution - Sasata (User:Sasata/Fossa#Habitat and distribution)
• Evolution/taxonomy - VH (User:Visionholder/Sandbox9#Evolution, phylogeny, and taxonomy)
• Conservation - unassigned (Arbiter?) (User:The Arbiter/Sandbox 2#Conservation)
• Malagasy culture - VH (User:Visionholder/Sandbox9#Malagasy cultural references)

Above is a listing of the section headers we need (feel free to add/amend) and who is working on them. Also, feel free to suggest an ordering for the sections as they will appear in the completed article. Damn... we might be done before June even starts! LOL! - UtherSRG (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing left for me—I am writing on the giant fossa instead. I wrote above that we perhaps don't need a separate article on Cryptoprocta, as we can hardly write anything useful there: what do others think about that? Ucucha 18:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We still haven't heard back from Arbiter, so maybe you can have one of his two sections. You're also welcome to thoroughly critique what I manage to write on the evolution (since you're so damn good at it). Otherwise, PLEASE do write Cryptoprocta spelea. The article would perfectly complement this article and subfossil lemur topic I'm gradually working on. I'll help if you want. Otherwise, I support your suggestion to keep this article and Cryptoprocta together as one article. In fact, I may eventually do the same for Aye-aye, Daubentonia, and Giant Aye-aye. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ucucha, I didn't mean to cut you out! Look over the list of sections. Is there anything we've missed? Would you want to write the conservation section? Also, we are all needed to review all of the sections. (My sandbox could use another set of eyes!) Also, I just yesterday split the genus article off. See up above a section or two where I mention that and give rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I'll just copyedit and further improve C. spelea (now at GAN). Ucucha 07:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have access to "Observations anatomiques sur quelques mammifères de Madagascar" by Alphonse Milne-Edwards, Alfred Grandidier (1867). That illustration of a fossa skull should be in the public domain now and would make a nice illustration for the article. Alternatively, if someone has the tools, we might be able to extract it from the PDF file of Köhncke & Leonhardt (1986). – VisionHolder « talk » 01:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll extract it... give me a moment. Sasata (talk) 01:28, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There it is. Sasata (talk) 01:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoinked it into my sandbox. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh duh! We also need a lead section! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered the sections. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome work, everyone! Alright, I'll work on behaviorand conservation. I’ll be working in my Sandbox 2. Let’s turn this article into something great! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 15:47, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have scanned the 2003 Hawkins article and miraculously managed to convert it to a 3.3 Mb PDF file. I have emailed it to Ucucha, Sasata, and UtherSRG. I have also emailed Arbiter through Wiki to get an email address to mail it to. Once you've received the file, please email me back. If you have not received the file, please post here. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My two sections have been completed and could use a thorough review. How is everyone else coming along? Arbiter, we haven't heard much from you lately. If two sections are too much, just say so. I'm sure Ucucha would love to help with one of them. Anyway, once everyone feels fairly comfortable with their sections, I'll gladly pull them together into my sandbox to construct the new article and write the lead... unless someone else is dying to do it. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I don't have any constructive criticism. Your writing abilities are better than mine, but I haven't done any significant writing since I started WP:PRIM... that said, I believe I'm done incorporating Hawkins into my sections. I'm worried I've over referenced some parts, and under tagged others. Otherwise I'm ready for you to incorporate. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on mine slowly. Will be done by the weekend, then I'm taking a two-week holiday. I'll review your section later tonight or tomorrow. Sasata (talk) 02:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys, I have sudden commitments in real life, so I won’t be editing Wikipedia for a while. So please, if you could assign my sections to Ucucha or somebody, that will be great. I hope to be back soon. Cheers! The Arbiter^★_★^★ 01:06, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, so who wants the remaining two sections? Ucucha? Once we at least have a behavior section written, I'll start compiling what we have, write a lead and post the article (and submit for DYK for everyone involved). Of course, that doesn't mean that we'll be done. It will just mean that we can start editing on the article directly, giving us the green light to clean it up and submit for GA. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll give it a try, probably tomorrow. (I have a few other articles I want to write, and need to check proofs for a paper, so may not have much time.) Ucucha 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have pieced together the existing work that has been divided between three sandboxes, standardized the references, and posted the initial draft of the new article. I hope everyone is satisfied with any changes I've made. I've also submitted the nomination for the DYK credit since we have met the required 5x expansion requirement (counting solely at body text). I have shared DYK credit everyone who has actively written and reviewed, including Ucucha because I know he will eventually re-write the general "Behavior" and "Conservation" sections. Before I go to sleep tonight, I will re-write the lead. From here on, we can edit the article directly. Once the last two sections are complete and everyone has a chance to review the article, I will submit it for GAC. Following success there, we will move on to FAC. – VisionHolder « talk » 05:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good - nice range map! I don't anticipate any problems at GAN, but we'll have to tweak and recheck the literature before FAC. I'll leave things in all of your capable hands for the next couple of weeks during my Wikileave. Sasata (talk) 05:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Looks like we've done good. :) I've made a few small tweaks, but nothing out of the ordinary. Enjoy your wikileave! (Hrm... now what are we going to do through June - the month we're supposed to be working this article! LOL! Actually, I'll mostly be on wikileave, too, since i'll be home in NJ for most of June.) - UtherSRG (talk) 07:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the FAC process will consume a week or two. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the map caption read "Original distribution"?--Wetman (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why? This distribution is significantly less than that listed here. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• We should mention C. spelea in the article.
• The cladogram is not supported by the source, which does not have Eupleres sister to Fossa–Cryptoprocta, or Galidictis to Salanoia. MSW 3 says Eupleres and Fossa are sister, but I haven't been able to find other genetic studies of euplerids which address this.

  Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't the title of the first section just be "Taxonomy"?
• Would it make sense to place the "Malagasy cultural references" section with the piece about conservation I'm going to write into "Human interactions"?
• Taxonomy should have something about internal taxonomy, like the possibility the black and red fossas are something different.

Ucucha 17:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about all four issues. I remember the cladogram was a pain to piece together, so I may have mixed up references. I was also hoping someone would reply to my request about adding dashed lines to {{Clade}}. Feel free to additions and other changes. I'll be tied up today with several lemur articles and probably won't have time until later this week or sometime next week. Sorry. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There are some references to Animal Diversity Web, which is an unreliable source.

  Sources removed and replaced. In one case, I had to remove a sentence, but the source Animal Diversity Web referenced for the statement did not contain the information. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I like the way we had C. spelea in the taxobox before this edit, and think we should at least mention it somewhere. Ucucha 20:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Alright, sounds like a discussion is needed. Before we can go FAC, we need to know if this article and "Cryptoprocta" are going to be one or two articles. At this point, I favor one article. In which case, C. spelea should be mentioned in the taxobox. UtherSRG disagrees. What other opinions are there? Please support your arguments. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be mentioned in the article, in the taxonomy section. By forcing this to be both a genus and species article, while knowing there is another (extinct) species, we're going against the set style and precedent of splitting off a stub genus article. there's nothing wrong with a stub, even if it will never grow. It's useful for navigation and for clarity. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  In my opinion they should be separate articles. Yes, I understand that it will be difficult/impossible to fill the genus article without repeating info from the two species articles, but so what? Aren't there hundreds of other genera with only two species (take Glyptemys as a non-fungal example that comes to mind)? Should we lump all those together as well? Sasata (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  If you think so, I'm willing to give in. However, what is special about Cryptoprocta (and a few other genera, like Daubentonia and Hypogeomys) is that there is exceedingly little to tell about the genus itself, as the second subfossil species is little more than a larger version of the living species. For a genus like Glyptemys or Transandinomys, there is a lot to say about the differences and similarities between the two species, their evolutionary history, etcetera. For Cryptoprocta, that isn't possible. That's the difference I see between Cryptoprocta and most other bispecific genera. Ucucha 19:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I have to agree with Ucucha, both in a willingness to concede, and on all the points made. Ucucha mentioned Daubentonia as a similar issue, and sticking with my area of specialty, I'd also like to add Varecia, the ruffed lemurs. However, unlike the Daubentonia, Cryptoprocta, etc., both species of Varecia are still alive (for now...) and very little distinguishes them. In fact, the only three differences I can name are: coloration, geographic range, and one vocalization. As a consequence, I have been unable to write articles for the two species without duplicating copious information in the existing FA-class genus article. I'm wondering if situations like these need a broader consensus, beyond the discussion on this specific talk page. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  (ec) I appreciate the distinction and limited availability of genus-specific info, but is it enough justification to warrant straying from the regular wiki conventions for taxon articles? Some more opinions from the TOL people might be a good idea. In the meantime, maybe we'll be able to dig up some info that could be appropriate for the genus article during our lit search for this one. I'll keep my eyes peeled. Sasata (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Fossa (animal)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Xtzou (Talk) 14:02, 7 June 2010 (UTC) Hi, I am reviewing this article and have entered some comments below. (I may add more as I read through it again.) I hope you don't mind my minor copy edits.[reply]

Thanks for taking up the review. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has some links needing disambiguation:[7]
  • Taken care of. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• There seem to be some common words linked, like"fish", "birds" "insects", "fowl etc. Should they be delinked per WP:Overlinking?
  • Removed a couple of those. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Description

• Too many short paragraphs.
• There are a couple of paragraphs in the middle that compare the Fossa with other families. Then the section returns to description of the Fossa again. Could these comparison paras be put together and placed under a sub heading (as the section is rather a long read, somewhat disjointed without subheadings)?

  I've started to clean this section up by joining two of the paragraphs and by following your second suggestion. The rest of the paragraphs seem to be fairly focused. I also can't think of any other subheadings. I'm open to suggestions, though. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:56, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Behavior

• "The animal generally does not reuse sleeping sites, but females with young do return to the same place." - does this imply that they carry their young with them, so that returning to the young is not the reason they return to the same place. Below (under "Breeding"), a "den" is mentioned. Should "den" be used here also, for continuity?
  • Used "den". The source didn't say that females carry their young. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• and a call of fear, consisting of "repeated loud, coarse inhalations and gasps of breath. - needs a close quote
  • Closed quote. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Breeding

• This section has many short paras, making for choppy flow.

  Related paragraphs have been joined. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Human interactions

• Is there evidence that it sometimes preys on humans?
  • None that I can think of. It seems unlikely; it's too small for that. Ucucha 16:31, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ucucha's fast! He was one step ahead of me on several edits, so I just let him handle it. Anyway, none of the sources report attacks on humans—only that the Malagasy sometimes believe that they do. I'm sure it's possible that small children could be taken (since it hunts the largest living lemurs), but I have no source for that. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All is addressed. Article passes. Xtzou (Talk) 12:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality: Well written

   B. MoS compliance: Complies with required elements of MOS

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources: Reliable sources

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: Well referenced

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects: Sets the context

   B. Focused: Remains focused on the topic

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: Great illustrations!

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail: Pass!

Congratulations! Xtzou (Talk) 12:07, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, everyone! Well, we've managed to get our DYK and pass GAC! The next logical step is to push onward to FAC. However, we have 2–3 team members out on temporary leave, and Ucucha and I already have FAC nominations in the queue. That gives us a week or two to review the article in our spare time and polish up text and any outstanding issues. Ultimately, we're going to need to resolve that genus / species article split debate, but given that only two people have voiced opinions and I'm sitting on the fence (for now, though leaning towards merge), maybe FAC will be a good place to get feedback on the issue. Either way, before this can be a featured article, that point has to be successfully resolved. Otherwise, please post comments if you feel that the article is not comprehensive or needs further clean-up. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to review the article myself once again, and check for comprehensiveness using Web of Science etcetera. I also think we should try to get your map of Cryptoprocta subfossil localities in this article, as it's also informative about C. ferox, with a couple of localities outside its current range.

By the way, I don't think we wouldn't be able to nominate this article now—as I understand it, you and I can still co-nominate other articles even though we have FACs up ourselves. However, we should make sure the article is as good as we can make it before it goes on to FAC. Ucucha 17:14, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, at this moment we'd need UtherSRG or Sasata to nominate it and have them list us as co-nominators. Anyway, I too want to review this article one more time before nominating, just to make sure details weren't omitted from the description and behavior sections. As for the subfossil range map, that would be easy to create. One of us would just need to open the SVG file used on Cryptoprocta spelea and hide the layer containing only C. spelea subfossil sites. (The layer is labeled.) Then just save it and upload under a new name. If you don't want C. spelea covered at all on the map, I'd just have to change some dot colors and merge two layers. Just let me know exactly what you want, and I'll try to get to it after I publish a preliminary draft of Subfossil lemur (for DYK) tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:02, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can just use it as it is now; just as it is instructive on the C. spelea article to also have the sites for C. ferox listed, here it is informative to also list those for C. spelea. Ucucha 18:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My last FAC just recently passed, and my co-nom with Ucucha, the related article Cryptoprocta spelea, should pass any day now. I'll try to look this article over tonight after reviewing the literature. I encourage everyone else to do the same. Once the C. spelea article passes, I'll nominate this one. – VisionHolder « talk » 11:52, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hold up on that nomination, the article needs a thorough lit review first (as Ucucha mentioned above). I'll start looking tonight. Sasata (talk) 15:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry. I wasn't planning on nominating it until both you and Uchcha say it's okay. I'll also post back here when I'm done reviewing it... hopefully tonight. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright... I'm pretty happy with the content from the sources I have. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a selection of recent papers I get when searching for "Cryptoprocta" with the ISI Web of Knowledge. There were quite a few hits, so I actively filtered for results I thought would be most useful (based on title and abstract scans); Ucucha may think some of the others I glossed over should be considered as well. I didn't include any conference abstracts. I stopped at 2003, on the assumption that info published before that time would already be in the article, acquired from the secondary sources. I suggest that we work through the list in our spare times, crossing off each one by one, with maybe a little note explaining why it was or wasn't used. Sasata (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: An unusual case of cooperative hunting in a solitary carnivore

Author(s): Luehrs, Mia-Lana; Dammhahn, Melanie

Source: Journal of Ethology Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Pages: 379-383 Published: MAY 2010

 Done Added couple sentences. Sasata (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: An assessment of carnivore relative abundance and density in the eastern rainforests of Madagascar using remotely-triggered camera traps

Author(s): Gerber, B; Karpanty, SM; Crawford, C, et al.

Source: ORYX Volume: 44 Issue: 2 Pages: 219-222 Published: 2010

This is a short article which basically says that camera traps may be useful to study population densities of Malagasy carnivores. Don't think it needs a mention here though. Sasata (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Characterization of 26 microsatellite marker loci in the fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox).

Author(s): Vogler, B. R.; Bailey, C. A.; Shore, G. D., et al.

Source: Conservation Genetics Volume: 10 Issue: 5 Pages: 1449-1453 Published: 2009

 Done Added the following: "A suite of microsatellite markers (short segments of DNA that have a repeated sequence) have been developed to help aid in studies of genetic health and population dynamics of both captive and wild fossas." Sasata (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Bushmeat hunting and use in the Makira Forest, north-eastern Madagascar: a conservation and livelihoods issue.

Author(s): Golden, C. D.

Source: Oryx Volume: 43 Issue: 3 Pages: 386-392 Published: 2009

 Done Added: "a study published in 2009 reported that 57% of villages (8 of 14 sampled) in the Makira forest consume Fossa meat. The animals were typically hunted using slingshots, with dogs, or most commonly, by placing snare traps on animal paths." Sasata (talk) 21:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: [Fossa cats. Secretive predatory animals in captivity.]

Author(s): Reiter, Jochen

Source: Rodentia Volume: 9 Issue: 4 Pages: 54-57 Published: Juli-August 2009

• In German, and I can't access it. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't find it either. Ucucha 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: A novel mating system in a solitary carnivore: the fossa

Author(s): Hawkins, CE; Racey, PA

Source: JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY Volume: 277 Issue: 3 Pages: 196-204 Published: 2009

 Done Good stuff; I added a couple of sentences to summarize this research. Sasata (talk) 05:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: The importance of taboos and social norms to conservation in Madagascar.

Author(s): Jones, J. P. G.; Andriamarovololona, M. M.; Hockley, N.

Source: Conservation Biology Volume: 22 Issue: 4 Pages: 976-986 Published: 2008

• This is similar to one that's already being used (and probably has the same content, but I haven't checked), but perhaps it's a more reliable source (being a refereed journal publication rather than a conference publication)

Title: Phylogeny of the small feliform carnivores (Mammalia, Carnivora)

Author(s): Veron, Geraldine

Source: Bulletin de la Societe Zoologique de France Volume: 132 Issue: 4 Pages: 261-268 Published: 2007

• We already have some of his (her?) earlier publications, why not this recent one?

• Answer: It's in French, and I can't access it. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Her. From the abstract, it sounds like it's just a review of the recent results, nothing new. Can't easily get it though. Ucucha 18:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Predation on Lemurs in the Rainforest of Madagascar by Multiple Predator Species: Observations and Experiments

Author(s): Karpanty, Sarah M.; Wright, Patricia C.

Source: Primate Anti-Predator Strategies Pages: 77-99 Published: 2007

This is a book chapter. It's more from the lemur point of view, i.e. what mechanisms they use for predator avoidance. There is some data on long-term studies fossa predation on the Propithecus edwardsi population, and generalizations drawn from that species (eg. the fossa eats all sex and age classes, predation is seasonal (May-September, in the cold dry season when infants are 1-3 months old), but I'm not convinced this level of detail about one species of prey needs to be here. Sasata (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, I may want to get my hands on a scan of this someday... especially when it comes time to re-write/re-vamp the Milne-Edwards' Sifaka article. It's either that, or just a highlight of the details. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done PDF emailed. Sasata (talk) 04:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Semen cryopreservation and the conservation of endangered species

Author(s): Fickel, J; Wagener, A; Ludwig, A

Source: EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH Volume: 53 Issue: 2 Pages: 81-89 Published: MAY 2007

• Meh, nothing worthy... they've got some fossa semen in a cryo-spermbank in Leibniz. Sasata (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Molecular systematics of the Hyaenidae: Relationships of a relictual lineage resolved by a molecular supermatrix

Author(s): Koepfli, KP; Jenks, SM; Eizirik, E, et al.

Source: MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION Volume: 38 Issue: 3 Pages: 603-620 Published: MAR 2006

• Essentially reiterates what the article already summarizes in the first cladogram: Fossa (Viverridae) & two Herpestidae species sampled are sister to Hyaenidae. Sasata (talk) 01:50, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Mosaics of convergences and noise in morphological phylogenies: What's in a viverrid-like carnivoran?

Author(s): Gaubert, P; Wozencraft, WC; Cordeiro-Estrela, P, et al.

Source: SYSTEMATIC BIOLOGY Volume: 54 Issue: 6 Pages: 865-894 Published: DEC 2005

• Big paper on evolution and phylogeny that from cursory examination looks like it would be more appropriately discussed in the genus article. Sasata (talk) 01:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure why; it looks only at C. ferox for all I can see. Ucucha 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Silky sifaka predation (Propithecus candidus) by a fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox).

Author(s): Patel, Erik R.

Source: Lemur News Volume: 10 Pages: 25-27 Published: August 2005

 Done - Fairly easy add. Please double-check me to make sure everything flows well. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Low population density of a tropical forest carnivore, Cryptoprocta ferox: implications for protected area management

Author(s): Hawkins, CE; Racey, PA

Source: ORYX Volume: 39 Issue: 1 Pages: 35-43 Published: 2005

• Values of 0.18 adults/km2, and 0.26 individuals/km2 were obtained for population density, similar to what is already given in the article (sourced from the same author in 2003). Lots of discussion about conversation status and implications for management (I think the article is currently a bit thin on this aspect). Sasata (talk) 17:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: [Latest findings on the biology, keeping and raising of fossa (Cryptoprocta ferox).]

Author(s): Winkler, Achim

Source: Zoologische Garten Volume: 73 Issue: 5 Pages: 296-311 Published: November 2003

• In German, and I can't access it, but it sounds promising from the abstract. Sasata (talk) 02:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Will have a look in the library. Ucucha 18:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I looked through it and added some bits. There's a lot more on the way fossas are held at Duisburg, but I don't think that's relevant for this article. Ucucha 19:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title: Fossa behavior and exhibit use at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo.

Author(s): McCarthy, Sean T.; Lukas, Kirsten E.; Sironen, Alan L., et al.

Source: IZN International Zoo News Volume: 50 Issue: 7 Pages: 396-406 Published: October-November 2003

Please send me the one on the Silky Sifaka. After I finish my work on Subfossil lemur, I plan to clean up that article and push it to FA (as a favor to Erik Patel. Thanks. As for the rest, feel free to send articles to me to help review, if you want. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:58, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Easy - that one's available online here. Sasata (talk) 04:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I forgot about promising to do this one. It's now been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:25, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna jot down stuff I find interesting while digging through the papers above (I'm working from the bottom up, btw). Feel free to comment, or add directly to the article. Sasata (talk) 05:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• a 2000 estimate says "Today, there are 55 fossa in captivity worldwide, and a zoo in Duisburg, Germany, has bred 13 of the animals." from Croke (current ref #4)
• info on population: McCarthy et al. (2003) "Because of over-hunting and destruction of habitat, fossa numbers have dropped below 2,500 individuals and it was upgraded from Vulnerable to Endangered status in 2000" citing Zachariah 2000 (Animal Diversity Web), who cited Nowak, R. (1999). Walker's Mammals of the World. Vol I. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. Keep eye out for more recent numbers. The McCarthy paper has more info about Fossas in captivity; is it worthwhile adding a section about this? There are papers about breeding in captivity.

I would definitely recommend including material (or a section) on captive populations and captive breeding success. It's certainly worth a mention. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to the content to add it to the article. Is this all that's missing? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:42, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I'm just taking my time. Will hopefully get finished this weekend. Sasata (talk) 05:49, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• "Several diseases have been isolated from the Fossa, some of which are thought to have been transmitted by feral dogs and cats." This probably should be "disease-causing organisms", no? Some specifics would probably be good here. Sasata (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Das habe ich geschrieben; ich muss also mal gucken was die Quellen davon sagen. Ucucha 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I reworded this. HMW really talked about "diseases", but I used "pathogens". Ucucha 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe Ucucha could read the German version (GA) sometime and see if they have anything we're missing. Sasata (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will. Ucucha 21:06, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have some coverage of the skull and dentition, more detailed than here, and of internal anatomy.
  • They mention the way of killing: the fossa holds the prey down with the forefeet and kills it with a bite in the neck. Ucucha 17:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Visionholder, can you use your Malagasy contact to get a photo of Fossa scat? Would be an interesting addition methinks. Sasata (talk) 02:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll ask Erik Patel, since he's had issues with Fossas when studying the Silky Sifaka. Outside of that, I'm not sure if anyone's bothered to take photos of the scat. It might be an interesting request, but I have no single Malagasy contact, and my requests receive very few replies, especially from the established wildlife photographers who supply Conservation International. I usually get my stuff from PhD candidates from the field. However, I wouldn't hold up a FAC run over this. It could take weeks or months. – VisionHolder « talk » 03:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure why we need the list of individual sifaka species in the "Diet" section. Ucucha 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Removed. Please read over it and make sure it sounds alright. If we need to explicitly mention the "eastern rainforest sifakas" as a group, we can add it back in. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• In the scat from Andringitra, can we specify "insectivores" to tenrecs and "rodents" to nesomyines, or did it also contain Suncus and introduced murines? Ucucha 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "Even other large prey items, with the average prey size being 40 grams (1.4 oz), in contrast to the average prey size of 480 grams (17 oz) in humid forests and over 1,000 grams (35 oz) in dry deciduous forests."—missing a verb, and not sure what it's intended to mean. Ucucha 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• "This wide variety of prey items taken in various rainforest habitats is similar to the varied dietary composition noted^[1][2] occurring in the dry forests of western Madagascar, as well."—not quite sure what this means, or why the sentence is necessary. Ucucha 17:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Broad phylogenetic studies like Flynn et al. (2005, doi:10.1080/10635150590923326) cannot resolve the relationships between Fossa, Cryptoprocta, and Galidiinae within Eupleridae, and do not even sample Eupleres. I think it would be better to leave out the cladogram of Eupleridae, which is more resolved than it ought to be. A more recent study using cyt b only, doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2009.10.033, actually gets (Fossa,(Cryptoprocta,Galidiinae)). Ucucha 17:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we've covered most of the sources. So aside from outstanding issues with the title and the inclusion/exclusion of the genus article—both issues that would benefit from feedback from a wider audience—are we ready to submit this article for FAC? My last nomination just passed, and my plate is clear for this nomination if you guys are ready to go. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ready for it to have a run. I'll give it another read-through after I get a couple of GA reviews finished. Sasata (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The current disambiguator in this article's title is not a very good one: after all, Fossa is also an animal. I can't think of any better alternative than Fossa (Cryptoprocta), though. Ucucha 16:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not the best title, but what other examples can we compare it to? Honestly, I'm okay with the current title as long as we have the disambig information at the top. I think it's very well worded and should help direct people appropriately. I'm just not sure how the FAC reviewers would respond if this were the only disambig animal article that wasn't titled "Name (animal)". But if there's not a standard, then let's compare with what's out there. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't; compare Attalea (genus) and Ambondro (genus). I guess the situation of this species is unique (common name identical to the scientific name of a different, closely related genus). Ucucha 17:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the situation is unique. I've had to memorize large lists of common and scientific names for school before, and I could swear that there were other examples. Let me think on it for a while. I'll try to post back here after work. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm drawing a blank. I can't think of any similar situations off-hand. However, I'd like to see what everyone else has to say on this matter. Alternatively, we could raise the question during the FAC to get a slightly broader range of opinions. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In some of the languages in Indonesia, "fosa" or "posa" means "cat" and might be connected to "pusa" in Tagalog. I put it in "trivia" section of the article, but maybe it belongs to another section. Jiwa Matahari (talk) 10:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a reference for this? Without a reference, an uncited claim will only degrade this featured article. Otherwise, the etymology of the name can either go in an etymology section, or we could work it into the "Taxonomy" section since it covers a little bit of etymology already. If you find a verifiable source that does not involved original research, I'll gladly help you work it into the article. Otherwise, "trivia" sections are generally frowned upon. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:26, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed a likely origin for the Malagasy term; see [8]. Ucucha 19:41, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. You and I have been working with this source, but I got a little lazy and didn't bother to check it. We should try to work this in somewhere based on what this source says. Do you have a preference on where to place it? Start an etymology section (for this and the existing etymologies), or work it in with the others in the "Taxonomy" section? – VisionHolder « talk » 20:13, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've got the information added in a new "Etymology" section. Let me know if it looks okay. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw these animals on "Deadly 60." I can't believe I've never heard of them before. I love them. :3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.33 (talk) 02:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here an article on genital organs of the female, with drawings. The author, Einar Lönnberg, died in november 1942, so his work is in public domain the first day of January 2013. Totodu74 (talk) 11:09, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]