Raccoon 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 June 22, 2010.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2008 Good article nominee Listed December 21, 2008 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

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

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 90 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 2.

emerging infectious diseases Vol. 8, No. 4 April 2002 Baylisascaris procyonis, a roundworm infection of raccoons, is emerging as an important helminthic zoonosis, principally affecting young children. Raccoons have increasingly become peridomestic animals living in close proximity to human residences. When B. procyonis eggs are ingested by a host other than a raccoon, migration of larvae through tissue, termed larval migrans, ensues. This larval infection can invade the brain and eye, causing severe disease and death. The prevalence of B. procyonis infection in raccoons is often high, and infected animals can shed enormous numbers of eggs in their feces. These eggs can survive in the environment for extended periods of time, and the infectious dose of B. procyonis is relatively low. Therefore, the risk for human exposure and infection may be greater than is currently recognized.

Current evidence indicates that B. procionis infection is not in any sense "mild" ,mortality and disability is very high, the paragraph in Health does not reflect it, should a change be made? 74.243.219.174 (talk) 04:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that paragraph contradicts what's here. In the last sentence, the author admits that the disease is not currently recognized as a high risk. The author clearly wants it to be recognized as a greater threat, and think it might be a higher risk than we think, but unless reliable sources show that it actually is considered a high risk, we shouldn't change the article. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 15:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The math is still in error but when I checked this discussion-page today I found that the paragraphs pointing out that the math is in error have been removed.

To reiterate: The article says, under the "Habitat" heading, "While population densities range from 0.5 to 3.2 animals per square kilometre (0.2–1.2 animals per square mile) in prairies and do not usually exceed 6 animals per square kilometre (2.3 animals per square mile) in upland hardwood forests, more than 20 raccoons per square kilometre (50 animals per square mile) can live in lowland forests and marshes.".

Please insert comments within my comments to indicate which of the points you disagree with.

First, the instantaneous check: since a square mile is larger than a square kilometer, any assertion that there are FEWER animals in a square mile (0.2, 1.2, and 2.3, respectively) than in a square kilometer (0.5, 3.2, and 6, respectively) must be incorrect.

Do you agree with that or disagree?

If you agree, then why do you get it right when it comes to the end of the quote (20 animals per square km, and a LARGER (not smaller as above) number of animals (and a correctly-computed larger number at that) of (roughly) 50 animals per square mile)?

I have examined this in greater depth than I did last time and I now know why the error occurs. The writer is applying conversion-factors that would be correct if applied to "LAND-AREA per ANIMAL" (which resulted, earlier in the article, in the CORRECT values for the RANGE of ONE ANIMAL) and recklessly applying those same conversion-factors to "ANIMALS per LAND-AREA", in disregard of the fact that the latter object is the reciprocal of "land-area per animal" and so reciprocal conversion-factors should be used. It is true that an animal who has 0.5 square kilometers has 0.2 square miles. But it does not follow from the former being true that therefore one square kilometer holding 0.5 animals means that one square mile holds 0.2 animals.

Do you agree with that or disagree?

Here is the correct math (to a spredsheet degree of precision, which should be tweaked downwards to reflect the degree of precision in the collected raw observational data, which I can't do because that degree of precision is unknown to me):

0.5 animals per square kilometer is 2 square kilometers per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 0.7722 square miles per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 1.2950 animals per square mile (please agree?/disagree?).

3.2 animals per square kilometer is 0.3125 square kilometers per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 0.1207 square miles per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 8.2880 animals per square mile (please agree?/disagree?).

6 animals per square kilometer is 0.1667 square kilometers per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 0.0644 square miles per animal (please agree?/disagree?), which is 15.5399 animals per square mile (please agree?/disagree?).

In each case the resulting number of animals in a square mile is LARGER (as it should be) than the number of animals in a square kilometer.69.86.239.244 (talk) 06:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

I'm no IPA professional, but I speak the first syllable of Raccoon as though it were the first part of the word 'rack' or 'back', and I'm pretty sure that's not the "ae" sound indicated in the phonetic pronunciation... -Ayeroxor (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IPA ligature -- the two graphs joined, not separate "a" and "e" -- does indeed represent the sound you indicate; cf. (/[invalid input: 'en-us-Kansas.ogg']ˈkænzəs/) DavidOaks (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]