![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi, don't usually edit on wikipedia but I saw a blatant piece of vandalism and deleted it. I hope this doesn't conflict with Wikipedia editing procedure. Regards - JBenton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.253.159.135 (talk) 05:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Summary in this article amended to accord with the recently cited update on the Alpaca Fiber page. Hosaymerino (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
patrick is in scienceclass. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.214.44.98 (talk) 15:35, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
A lot has happened to alpacadom since 1911. There is now a large and fast-growing worldwide breeding program to meet the increased demand for fiber. Alpacas are bred in climates from tropical Florida through the Canadian plains. Australia has an especially active program, where alpacas are preferred to sheep because of the overbuilt wool industry.
For more information on the American industry, see www.aoba.org (the Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association website).
Guys, I added some commentary because the Alpaca is amazing and I can't help but say so. Holy crap, can you really read about this without gasping and saying awesome a couple of times? Please don't mark my changes as vandalism. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.238.85.143 (talk • contribs).
Notes on Alpaca Lies article published. A conflict of interest exists:
-- User:65.77.168.170 13:44, August 27, 2007 (UTC)
Why then, was the edit containing substantiated facts removed?
Land O Lakes effectively won the case in terms of the lower value. If there had been any suggestion that the US Davis study was somehow tainted and unreliable, by dint of the apparent connections referred to, I am sure it would have been discredited in the judgement. The link to the US Davis report should be re-instated, being a rare non-breeder's view of the prospects for alpaca breeding. Hosaymerino (talk) 15:54, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
This page says alpacas are Lama pacos, "derived from the wild guanaco" (Lama guanicoe), yet Camel mentions Lama glama pacos, which I'd credit as llamas, subspecies alpacas, how's that?
YOU ALSO NEED TO WRITE: What does it eat? How many "crias" does it get in each pregnancy? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rasmus1967 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
In 2001 the alpaca genus classification changed from Lama PacostoVicugna Pacos following the presentation of a paper on work by Dr. Jane Wheeler et al on alpaca DNA to the Royal Society showing that the alpaca is descended from the vicuña, not the guanaco. The abstract of the paper and access to the full paper Genetic analysis reveals the wild ancestors of the llama and the alpaca is available here at the Royal Society site.
Another reference is Dr Eric Hoffman's book The Complete Alpaca Book, Bonny Doon Press, California, 2003.
The relationship between alpacas and vicuñas was disputed for many years, but Wheeler's DNA work proved it. However many academic sites have not caught up with this, so it is something well known to alpaca breeders who have read Dr Hoffman's book, and to Royal Society members who have access to the current classification data, but not more widely known.
Providing proof of the reclassification at present is difficult. Proof is necessary when so many university sites still show the old classification, so I will continue to research so that when I make the change to the classification on the main page, I will have the necessary ammunition.
I don't have the expertise to come down on one side or the other but If one looks at the wikipedia entries for llama and alpaca they do not come down on the same side of any "lump it" or "divide em" debate about how different they are taxonomically one from the other. (I haven't even looked at the vicuna & guanaco pages.) Wikikd 21:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
i think you just must take one reference i work on the camelidae cytogenetic and systematic and i use as reference the wilson and reeder http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/msw/
or Nowak "mammal species of the world" you can't change the name on the basis of ONE article yes it's debating but not concluded but when you said a name always said witch classification you use
ps sory for my bad english
jean Mercier jean
Wikispecies also classifies alpacas as Vicugna pacos, see http://species.wikimedia.org/wiki/Vicugna_pacos, based on another of Wheeler's publications. Phaedrus86 11:28, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I'll not lose sleep over this but I think the article should accept that the classification is in question. The Royal Society is not the authority on the subject neither is Jane Wheeler (although I think her case will win in the end). The definitive authority (AFAIK) is the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, see http://www.zoobank.org/query.htm but that's not much help as it lists both forms as current classifications. As an experiment I've just searched ScienceDirect through the university where I work for peer reviewed articles, published in 2007 that contain both Alpaca and pacos in the abstract. Out of 8 articles from well established journals seven used Lama Pacos but only one used the Vicugna form. For what it's worth, Britannica and Encarta online also both use the Lama form. As an Alpaca breeder in Australia, I'd prefer a definitive decision in favour of the Vicugna form, but it's not there yet... --Kentcoast (talk) 10:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The article in its current form has a paragraph taken directly from this discussion, which includes this phrase: "well known to alpaca breeders who have read Dr Hoffman's book," without telling us what Dr. Hoffman's book is. The paragraph certainly belongs in this discussion, but not in the main article. I'm removing it. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, I cleaned the section up a bit, but I have one more thing to say. I'm not sure if it's important to mention Dr. Wheeler in the article. Her work definitely belongs in the reference section, but it would probably suffice to replace the entire sentence with something like this:『DNA studies have since shown that the alpaca is descended from the vicuña, not the guanaco,』and include the reference to Dr. Wheeler's paper. Any thoughts? —MiguelMunoz (talk) 21:29, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Really? --Rakista 20:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I know 100,000 has been done..... for "stud" males. Young 'uns generally go for $600 I believe. --PopUpPirate 22:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes. The current high seller was Snowmass Invincible who sold for $580,000 last February. What you are thinking of in the $600 range would be gelded males which are typically kept for fiber production and companionship with other animals. I would say the average selling price of a breeding female would be about $25,000.
User:cbutlerjr The Snowmass auction of 2010 produced a sale of $675,000. ````R. Shroyer--205.175.225.22 (talk) 00:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
The paper quoted in the History of the Scientific Name section provides convincing evidence that the alpaca belongs to the Vicugna genus, not the Lama. If you want to change this, please provide some reasons, don't just rely on out of date textbooks.
Presumably the prices quoted are US dollars and refer to the US breeding industry - perhaps this could be clearer? I imagine the minimum price might get a little lower elsewhere in the world!
Wurzeller 01:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
The US closed their alpaca registry to imports in 1999. This appears to have had the effect of boosting prices of local stock, probably because of the lack of cheaper imported competitors. See http://www.alpacas.com/AlpacaLibrary/Ship.aspx for some discussion about it, and for price statistics on the US market. Prices in Australia are certainly substantially lower than this.
User:phaedrus86 12:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If these animals (llamas, alpacas, vicuñas, guanacos) can all interbreed and produce fertile offspring, how can they be separate species, let alone genera ?
Juicy 23:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: the definition of things being members of the same species is that they can produce fertile offspring. Therefore, either:
there is only one species (with four subspecies) OR the offspring (hybrids) are not fertile OR they cannot breed together at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.151.150 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
I think it is important that information about the wool -- and the associated industry go at Alpaca wool. It would be great to draw info from this article for it, because that article would be about a textile and animal product, not about an animal. — Донама 02:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Please add the National Association, Alpaca Owners and Breeders Association (AOBA) link: www.AlpacaInfo.com
I removed a link http://www.bonnydoonalpacas.org/ from the External Links section because it looked like it was just advertising an individual breeder's site. Then I discovered the site was actually that of Eric Hoffman, see the link to his book in References. Dr Hoffman is considered to have contributed a great deal to knowledge of alpacas, so warrants inclusion. To make amends I changed the reference to his book to add links to the book web page. I discovered that bonnydoonalpacas and Bonny Doon Press are the same thing. I thought about restoring the link in External Links, but it seems a bit redundant since it is already in References.
Phaedrus86 00:50, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
The newspaper article referred to was for sheep's wool, not alpaca! Not very relevant in an article about alpacas unless it is provided for comparison. Here it just seems like a non-sequitur.
Phaedrus86 12:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not an advertising facility for commercial operations. The external link to Hunter Valley Alpacas has been added and removed a couple of times. Please don't add links to individual alpaca studs.
Phaedrus86 01:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
It would be nice to have some more information on the limitations of what an alpaca needs to live, breed, and produce good wool, and some information on alpaca husbandry.
We have a suri at home, I will try and get a good photo (all the current ones arent much good because he kept on trying to eat my camera). ViridaeTalk 03:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
Please rework this section so as to make it less sexy; as it stands, it is entirely inappropriate. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Babylicious2 (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
we should have somthing about their diets
Alpacas' primary diet is foreage, pastures or hay at 10-14% is ideal. Many breeders supplement their diet with peleted feed to add weight, or to supply nutrients that may be lacking in their hay. A powdered free-choice mineral supplement is also normally used. Is that what you had in mind, or more? AllAmericanAlpacas 04:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be interesting to know where the prices of Alpacas are now compared to what they were in the late 90s. Also, what is the cost of Alpacas in South America and Australia? I have been told that Alpacas are now selling geldings for the same price as Llamas. Is this true? I know breeder female Alpacas are still quite high. But, with the artificial market produced by the lack of imports in the US, the prices will be this way for a while? Where have the prices been and where are they now? --BlindEagletalk~contribs 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
I do think this section should be moved into the section talking about the life and hygiene and whatever of the Alpacas. I did change it some for readability last night, but it still seems awkward, and doesn't fit in the section it is in, and I don't know how to move it. Witchzenka 13:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
i have several pictures including the mating position of alpacas and the prcess of the animal being born, as well as some really cute pics of babies
i dont want to create an account on wikipedia
is there another way to upload an image?
signed from australia 24/4/2007
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 124.189.192.95 (talk) 11:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
Trying to remove the Einstein stuff. That Colbert, what can you do.
We need to lock this page down as soon as possible.
I have no idea as to why the ALPACA entry was locked, however it appears that it was locked by someone who has become semi retired in may of 2007. Not wanting to step on any toes, but is there any reason why this page is so scandalous that should STILL be excluded from the free flowing evolution and improvement that typifies wikipedia? GrinchPeru (talk) 18:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Gosh Alex, (thanks for your quick response!), anyway I had no idea that these lovely little beasties could be so controversial. Would you be able (if for hostory´s sake if nothing else) be able to summarize what type of vandalism was occuring? Being a newbie CONTRIBUTOR (though a long term mooching non contributing USER!!), the RFPP page seems a rather formal process for the grownups, probably requiring that I make a proposed rewrite in its entirety, rather than being given personal access during a defined period of time. GrinchPeru (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
I am sorting out Category:Textiles. Please add this to subcat Category:Animal hair products, due to the content describing alpaca wool and fibres. "Animal hair products" is primarily for hair, fur, wool, etc used as textile fibers, and this would sit alongside articles such as Mohair and Fur. Thanks. Bards 18:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The article says "erect neck". Although they are clearly capable of having their necks quite erect, they seem to spend much or most of their time grazing, mouth to the ground, neck going forward and down, not at all erect.-69.87.199.131 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Someone please add information about water requirements, drinking habits, etc.-69.87.199.131 20:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to give people a head's up as to my reasons for changing the image in the infobox. First, and most importantly, it looks to me as if the particular alpaca in the USDA photo is a cria. I may be wrong, but this brings me to the second reason...which is that it is both an odd perspective (from up high a bit) and framed poorly. I just don't think it's that great an image technically and aesthetically. I chose the current image to replace it because the focus is good (negating, imo, the barnyard background), the framing (head to toe, straight on) is better, and your can clearly make out the species' features. Remember that the image in the infobox is there for people who've never seen an alpaca before, and need to have a very clear picture of what it looks like to differentiate it from other camelids. VanTucky (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
We need to go through the article and preserve NPV. This reads like pro-alpaca propoganda!
Okay that was half in jest, but seriously, there is some oddly placed bias in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.76.245 (talk) 04:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Angora wool is a separate article from angora rabbit. I suggest for consistency we go to summary style and split off the section about alpaca wool into its own article. Thoughts? DurovaCharge! 17:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep good idea D. ViridaeTalk 01:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I went through and trimmed down the list of links- since recently this got reverted, here's a link by link reason why I thought they didn't belong:
So, feel free to tell me I'm wrong and there is valuable info in these sites, or whatever. I just thought if I was going to get rid of so many sites I should say why. 79.145.112.74 (talk) 08:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems odd to me to leave the two you did as one cant be opened and the other is a link to an organization that caters to owners.. Hmmmm wonder why you made that choice. I have no problem leaving the external link section the way it is but the reasons you posted and the choices you made are simply questionable. Look at the sheep page and you will understand a bit more. Where else would information come from other than someone who is raising them? I could understand removing all the links you did IF they were solely marketing something. The links you removed do not require the reader to sign up they can read the forums and blogs and whatever else is on the pages. If they wanted to join in the discussion then yes they need to register just as you do here. My opinion is still the same the removal of these links is not warranted. We are all allowed to have an opinion and that is mine. Good Day.. (Ifoundit77 (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC))