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

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.

There is another (badly written) article entitled “African Savanna Elephant” that seems to contradict this article on several points. Can someone with some knowledge clear up the following points:

1) What is the taxonomy of this genus? This article lists two species and one possible species/subspecies. The other article lists a fourth subspecies not mentioned here. I notice however that neither of the references listed by that article actually mention L. a. oxyotis, though one does mention that L. oxyotis is a synonym for l. africana. Can someone confirm that this subspecies even exists, and if not can we delete that other article? At teh very least can we get a list based on current taxonmy and links to their respective articles?

2) What is the physical difference between a “bush elephant” and a “savanna elephant”. The other article says the savanna elephant “is easy to differentiate from other elephants, it has very large ears, four hooves at each front foot, and its front legs are noticeably longer than the hind legs”, but looking at the photos in this article that description seems to fit the bush elephant perfectly. The distinction certainly isn’t easy to see as claimed.

3) What were Hannibal’s elephants? This article claims that they were L. a. pharaohensis, biut the other article claims that L. a. oxyotis were painted for use in warfare. So who was using these savanna elephants in their armies, and where were they obtaining them if not from North Africa/ Mediterranean? I wasn’t aware of any sub-Saharan use of Elephants.

4) What are the size ranges here? This article says the record for this species is 13'8" in height, the other article says that that subspecies is the "largest of all the living elephants", yet gives a record height of just 13'2".

I’m struggling to reconcile these two articles, and frankly wondering why the savanna article even exists and whether it isn’t referring to an animal that never existed. But tis ain’t my field so I’ll leave it to others to investigate and edit. Ethel Aardvark (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that the African Bush Elephant and the African Savanna Elephant are one and the same, meaning that there should not be two articles here but one. See, for example, African Bush Elephant entry on Nature Conservancy site; Elephants Encyclopedia; BBC Wildlife Finder; African Elephants entry on World Wildlife Fund site. Unfortunately, neither the African Bush Elephant article here nor the African Savanna Elephant article is exactly a model of Wikipedia excellence. Given the recent research establishing unequivocally that the African Savanna Elephant and the African Forest Elephant are distinct species (study here and news article here), the articles on African Elephants could all really use some work. Moisture (talk) 15:00, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The savanna article shouldn't exist. African savanna elephant and African bush elephant are both names for L. africana, and thus the traits you mention fit descriptions of both. There are two extant species of Loxodonta currently recognized, L. africana (bush/savanna elephant) and L. cyclotis (forest elephants). While many subspecies of each have been proposed, none are widely recognized. I'm pretty sure Hannibal used L. a. pharaohensis, and I was not able to find a source saying the largest elephant was 13'8", but I was able to find many saying it was 13'2". Elephant940 (talk) 19:39, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The African Bush Elephant and the African Savanna Elephant are one and the same species, so there should be only a single article. See, for example, African Bush Elephant entry on Nature Conservancy site; Elephants Encyclopedia; BBC Wildlife Finder; African Elephants entry on World Wildlife Fund site. The term African Savanna Elephant seems to me to be the more common term, so I propose merging African Bush Elephant into African Savanna Elephant. Given the recent research establishing unequivocally that the African Savanna Elephant and the African Forest Elephant are distinct species (study here and news article here), there is likely to be increased interest in the African elephant articles, so this would be a good time to merge the Bush article into the Savanna article. Effecting the merger seems like a bit more than I can handle alone. Moisture (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is such a no-brainer that I would suggest to be bold and ignore the rules in so far as they are in the way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:29, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I'm not sure on which name is best, though. Bennetto (talk) 17:52, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that L.a. oxyotis was unmentioned in the article. If any merging is to be done here, L.a. oxyotis should be merged to land at L.a. africana, as the L.a. africana is still recognized and always has been. In fact, merge them and put the new article at Loxodonta africana africana; that way everyone is happy. Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. This is a no-brainer. Let's merge into the bush elephant, since that article's better. Ashwinr (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Important research has just been published establishing that the African Savanna and African Forest Elephants are distinct species, as far apart evolutionarily as the Asian Elephant is to the Woolly Mammoth. See Genomic DNA Sequences from Mastodon and Woolly Mammoth Reveal Deep Speciation of Forest and Savanna Elephants. See also Africa has two species of elephants, not one. Moisture (talk) 15:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The grassland is generally spelled "savanna" in English, Savannah, Georgia to the contrary notwithstanding. I have often made this error myself. Wetman 18:04, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Savanna is the proper spelling. --Andrew Phelps 22:36, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.

The correct spelling is savanna, and elephant should not be capitalized.

Move done. --File Éireann 23:05, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It appears the move was undone. Support, as per nomination. — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

None of the currently capitalized instances of the word "elephant" in the article should be capitalized, either. --75.58.54.17 01:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are incorrect. See WP:BIRD for the rationale. Several mammalian WikiProjects also use this rationale, such as WP:PRIM. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The spanish wikipedia has an exellent article on savanna elephants at http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elefante_africano, anyone able to translate? I've done some, but my spanish skills are a bit limited Crucible Guardian 20:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The article that the 4-meter specimen's body is "dissected" in the Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. The body is mounted, there, not dissected there. Saying that it is dissected is an outright factual error. I also corrected the name to be "National Museum of Natural History" and gave it a link. Freshyill 18:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Carthagians were not the only ancient nation to use African elephants. In fact, they were used by the Ptolemies (see enclosed sources), and later by the Seleucids as well. The Ptolemies did probably even use two species of African elephants: the extinct Libyan form and "Ethiopian" elephants. The latter species, certainly one of the two extant forms, were something they prided themselves on being the first to domesticate. Also, it could well be argued if Hannibal crossed the Alps with elephants. Before he had descended properly, all of them were dead. --Sponsianus 21:25, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hannibal used Syrian Elephants, not African Bush Elephants.--137.146.143.192 (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought there's only 1 species! How come I didn't tknow there's 2 species before? --68.97.69.115 18:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was aruond 2000 that the split happened, although some scientists are now arguing that they are just subspecies. For now, they are distinct species. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard a good argument that humans are actually the elephant's natural predator since the two species evolved along side one another and humans are the only ones that can take down and adult (and as noted in the article, they have a reason to hunt them as the elephant supplies lots of meat, etc). Can we get a biologist's opinion on this? David Youngberg 19:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, a small clarification: Whether we like it or not, humans are part of the world, the natural world. Hence humans are natural predators of any species they prey on. That includes elephants, whales, rabbits, frogs and snails. Having said that, humans are indeed the only 'remaining' and significant predator of elephants, although lions do prey on elephant calves in some areas. I can't tell you whether the Miocece ancestors of elephants had large predators to take them on, but certainly in the Pleistocene humans seem to have been the principal predators of woolly mammoths and elephants. Pitix 11:29, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just reference the colbert "population growth" in it's own section with a [pop cultural] subheading. Give the Colbertians what they want. You can't keep the page locked forever!

Just give the Colbertians what they want, let them have a population growth reference. You can even say it's a lie, as long as we get it on there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caboose127 (talk • contribs) .

Actually, yes, we can. Legitiate edits can be proposed here, while joke ones rebuffed. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is this article closely related to recent events? I vote for removal of the tag. Mzyxptlk 21:10, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that removal. Totnesmartin 22:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure that the photo under the North African elephant is infact an Asian. The caption says fairly certainly that it is not.

Here is why I believe it is:

• The ears are the correct shape for an Asian elephant
• The ears are not big enough for an African elephant
• The colour is that of an Asian elephant.

The photo says it was taken at Paignton Zoo, their website says they have both species of elephant: African and Asian. The photo of the Asian elephant in these external links looks far more like the photo in the article than the African elephant.

I think that this photo should be moved to the Asian Elephant article. Any opinions? Mehmet Karatay 20:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to mention, if the picture does show an Asian elephant, then it is male not female as stated. Female Asian elephants do not have tusks. Mehmet Karatay 20:29, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you are mistaken. Compare all of the ear sizes in the various pics to the head size. African's ears are as big as their head if not bigger. Asian ears are about half the size. The picture you dispute has ears the size of its head. Clearly African. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feed back. I agree with you now. For some reason I missed the fact that the Asian elephants have ears which start lower down the head, whereas the African elephant ears join the back of the neck. Thank you for replying, Mehmet Karatay 22:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not track that NA elephant was accepted subspecies or species, nor the name "Loxodonta pharaonensis" to any seroius zoological source.

Mentioned as a taxon in doi:10.1556/AAnt.46.2006.1-2.17, which doubts the validity at least at species level. Adjusted text and add "citaton needed"/"verification needed". Also adjusted section title to more neutral orthography "elephants". Dysmorodrepanis 19:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MSW3 lists it as a synonym, which means it is not a valid subspecies. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No other source I've seen says the African bush elephant weighs 7,000 to 10,000 kg - the numbers are right, but they should be in pounds, not kilograms. Eight tons, or 16,000 pounds, or 7,200 kg is the usual maximum weight. The 7-10,000-kg weight given here is double the weight 3,000-5,000 kg given for the Asian elephant - and the African elephant most certainly does not weigh twice as much as an Asian elephant.Wlegro (talk) 07:29, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would be consistent with other elephant articles and comparisons to elephant size in articles on mammoths.68.94.88.100 (talk) 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, most mammoth species were smaller or just as large as modern elephants. Only the Columbian Mammoth and several other species were significantly larger than modern elephants —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.157.203 (talk) 02:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was bored, and was searching random things from the colbert report, and recalled the African elephent population thing, and this artical actually states that the population of African elephents has tripled over the last 6 months. Is this true, or was it just snuck in there discreetly by a fan of the colbert report? Passerby25 (talk) 12:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was vandalism. I've fixed it. Again. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The record specimen of 27,000 lb (12,200 kg) was shot on November 7, 1974 (not in 1955) near Mucusso, Angola. Lying on its side this elephant measured 13 ft 8 in (4.17 m) in a projected line from the highest point of the shoulder to the base of the forefoot, indicating a standing shoulder height of 13 ft (3.96 m). It measured 35 ft (10.7 m) long from trunk to tail, and it had a forefoot circumference of 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m). The figure of 12,274 kg in the article is also incorrect (27,000 × 0.45359237 ≈ 12,247), as is the conversion accuracy of 1 kg unjustified (not to mention amusing with the misconversion!), when the original accuracy appears to be 1,000 lb or ½ sh t.

The mistaken year is no doubt based on the previous record of 24,000 lb (10,900 kg), that was shot by J.J. Fenykovi on November 13, 1955 (Whoopi Goldberg's birthday, by the way), also in Angola. It was measured 13 ft 2 in (4.01 m) tall lying down, and probably stood at 12 ft 6 in (3.81 m) when alive. It's mounted skin can be found at the Smithsonian Institution's National Museum of Natural History. FROM THE COLLECTION : Washington's Prize Possessions. The fact that the 1955 specimen is 12 short tons, whereas the 1974 specimen is close to 12 metric tonnes, no doubt has further added the confusion.

Neither of these was the tallest specimen: a male of a more slender type, shot in Damaraland, Namibia on April 4, 1978, was measured 14 ft 6 in (4.42 m) lying down, and likely 13 ft 10 in (4.22 m) standing. Its weight was estimated at 8,000 kg (17,600 lb).

Wlergo (above) is right on the range of 7,000–10,000 kg: this is far above normal weight, only achieved by few extraordinary individuals. Earlier editions of Guinness had the male average at 12,500 lb (5,700 kg) with a shoulder height of 10 ft 6 in (3.20 m); later editions (1996 onward) replaced this with a range of 4,000–7,000 kg (8,800–15,400 lb) in weight and 3.0–3.7 m (9 ft 10 in–12 ft 2 in) in height. Based on what I've read, I'd say anything over 6,500 kg (14,300 lb) and 3.5 m (11 ft 6 in) is very large.

And I can't help but notice that applying the height/weight ratio of the Guinness average to the record specimens' "lying down" shoulder heights yields in results very close to their estimated weights – especially if the figures were truncated to full thousands: 12,500 lb × (164 in / 126 in)³ ≈ 27,563 lb for the 1974 specimen, and 12,500 lb × (158 in / 126 in)³ ≈ 24,647 lb for the 1955 specimen. If this indeed was the method used, and the Guinness average is for standing height, their respective weight estimates should be downgraded to circa 23,700 lb (10,800 kg) and 21,100 lb (9,600 kg).

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 19:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Several problematic statements.

The front is smoother and less convex than that of the Asian Elephant.

An elephant is not a car. Front of what?

I believe the forehead is meant. (See also in Asian Elephant). I've made that change. --Stfg (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is mostly due to their large brain.

An unscientific statement. Should it be 'their relatively large brain'?

I don't think there's any ambiguity here and, if there were, inserting "relatively" would just beg the question. When one says "a large X"", one means large compared to your average X, doesn't one? --Stfg (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the same section:

Herds are made up of related females and their young, directed by the eldest female, called the matriarch. Infrequently, an adult male goes with them, but those usually leave the pack when reaching adolescence to form herds with other elephants of the same age.

If this statement is correct, then it need rewording, as it implies both that herds are made up of related females (and young), and also that some herds are made up of male adolescents.

Fair enough. I've inserted a word so as to call the male ones "bachelor herds" for now. Not perfect, but the section is completely unreferenced and it would be better, I think, to deal with that first and then use the terminology of the chosen source(s).

By the way, you've created duplication between this section and the following one. --Stfg (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several problematic statements.

The front is smoother and less convex than that of the Asian Elephant.

An elephant is not a car. Front of what?

This is mostly due to their large brain.

An unscientific statement. Should it be 'their relatively large brain'?

In the same section:

Elephant caverns are frequently unearthed in the Umdupe region of the DR Congo. Biologists disagree over the reasons behind the elephant caverns but most acknowledge that they are likely caused by recent human encroachment onto elephant territory. The elephant caverns are full of elephants.

'Frequently unearthed'? 'Full of elephants'? 'caverns'? Neither have I ever heard any reference before about the 'Umdupe' region. If no other opinion is added here, I will delete.Centrepull (talk) 08:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Little scientific research has been carried out into elephants' cognitive or perceptual abilities.

What? There is a whole Wikipedia article on elephant intelligence, which lists numerous examples from African elephants. The above claim seems patently false. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.32.94.171 (talk) 05:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Centrepull (talk) 07:45, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or should an animal as large, well-known, and important as the African Bush Elephant have a longer article on Wikipedia? Look at Lion, an equally important animal on a world scale; its article has been a featured article, and it is very long, detailed and well-written. I can't say the same for this one. It seems to need a significant overhaul.

Cdg123 (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing it's either a typo in the web address, or the webpage may have been moved. I'd fix it myself, but being a new user, I don't think I'm allowed to. (And even if I were, I don't know how.) This is the statement cited. (The museum's website states that the specimen weighs only 8 tons.)

Jdaniel314 (talk) 04:54, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What is the correct common name for Loxodonta africana? african bush elephant or african savanna elephant? I ask because other than wikipedia I rarely see the actual name and it kind of makes less sense, bush elephant? you mean that it lives in those plants of the savanna? or does it live in the savanna itself? I conducted a google search and come up that african savanna elephant gets 6,6 million results while african bush elephant gets 2.3 million, but, if you use "" then the situation is reversed as "african savanna elephant" gets 87k and "african bush elephant" gets 97k, so, I don't know, is there a consensus? Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:12, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of the animals MOST represented in many areas of popular culture. We should make a "In Popular Culture" section. Led8000 (talk) 22:53, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence:

 "African bush elephants are the largest living terrestrial animals, being up to 3.96 m (13.0 ft) tall at the shoulders (a male shot in 1974)"

To me this suggests that 13.0 feet is the record for tallest elephant and implies that the average would be less than 13.0 feet.

Next sentence:

 "On average, males are 4 metres (13.1 ft) tall at the shoulders and 8 tonnes (17,640 lb) in weight, while females are much smaller...."

This suggests that the mean height of male African Elephants (13.1 ft) is greater than the record height (13.0 ft)

72.238.1.29 (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:African Bush Elephant.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 5, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2015-06-05. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

A female African bush elephant (Loxodonta africana) in Mikumi National Park, Tanzania. These herbivorous mammals are the largest land animals on Earth; males average 3.3 metres (11 ft) tall at the shoulders and 5.5 tonnes (12,000 lb) in weight, whereas females average 2.8 metres (9.2 ft) in height and 3.7 tonnes (8,200 lb) in weight. Owing to their great size, adult African bush elephants have no natural predators except for humans. Calves, however, are preyed on by lions and crocodiles.Photograph: Muhammad Mahdi Karim

Archive – More featured pictures...

There's been some back and forth about the average height and weight of female elephants. Originally some rather exaggerated measures were cited, which I corrected according to the referenced source. One IP has repeatedly replaced those with the maximum values from the same source (www.wildlifecampus.com/Help/PDF/Elephant.pdf) - that'd be the ones in the table. As can be seen by reading on a little, the averages are given in the text in the next paragraph. After having that pointed out, the IP has now reinstated the max values with a justification of "they should be larger". I hope it's obvious that "should" doesn't win any cigars when you are making statements that purportedly reference sources - either you keep to the source, or if you think the information is wrong, find a better one and cite that. I suggest the next edit on this point better have a source to back up any changes. I have no intention of getting into an edit war over this, and it's basic and enforceable policy. -- Elmidae (talk) 12:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on African bush elephant. 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/20080907183554/http://animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/elephants/elephant_african.html to http://www.animalcorner.co.uk/wildlife/elephants/elephant_african.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.iucn.org/themes/ssc/sgs/afesg/pachy/pdfs/pachy31.pdf#page=17

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 06:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have conducted a quality review to see if this article could be classified up to B-Class. At this stage, it requires further references to support the existing text in those sections that I have highlighted. I have removed the "tag" by WikiProject Africa because that project states its objective to be "This project covers all articles about people, places, things, and events associated with the African continent, not already covered by other WikiProjects." In this case, WikiProject Mammals is that other project and therefore assessments should be conducted under WikiProject Mammals criteria. (This is what WikiProject templating is for - under which WikiProject should any assessments be conducted and under their criteria found on their Project page.) Based on the View History log, this article has been in existence since 2003 and has not progressed past C-Class in this time. Nobody has taken WP:STEWARDSHIP over it and this might be a good short-term step for any editor interested enough to further its development. Regards, William Harris • (talk) • 10:44, 1 June 2017 (UTC) on behalf of WikiProject Mammals[reply]

Hello Wikipedians, Our group chose the African bush elephant as a topic to expand on for our writing class. We added several topics and headings to the article along with about 25 new sources. We also expanded the lead section and edited work that was already published on the page.

Thank you! Abknych (talk) 20:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are some confusion about the weigth of the biggest elephant on record, the one that was shot in Angola and now this elephant can be seen in Smithsonian museum. There are plenty of sources: http://wildliferesearch.org/elephants-2/ https://books.google.pt/books?id=aD1CFpd3rmMC&pg=PA79&lpg=PA79&dq=african+elephant+12000kg&source=bl&ots=K42ybsSLlI&sig=5W1QmfYGOAqaxOgV7cFucSH2jXU&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS5_zO6P3YAhWENxQKHQJLBfEQ6AEIUTAI#v=onepage&q=african%20elephant%2012000kg&f=false https://books.google.pt/books?id=qjZEXvms4UAC&pg=PT111&lpg=PT111&dq=african+elephant+12000kg&source=bl&ots=54B0bBVEBr&sig=afquyL3ql7f4klZphJS7Y1zmJXg&hl=pt-PT&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjS5_zO6P3YAhWENxQKHQJLBfEQ6AEIXjAK#v=onepage&q=african%20elephant%2012000kg&f=false https://worldstrides.com/blog/2013/04/museum-natural-history/ I assumed this elephant was 12274kg (12.3 tons) because many other sources say this: https://www.flickr.com/photos/smb_flickr/2425380499 https://www.pairidaiza.eu/en/activities/the-big-five http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-encounter-with-an-african-elephant-in-the-selous-game-reserve-in-tanzania-26291641.html http://www.wiki30.com/wa?s=African_bush_elephant http://www.newtimes.co.rw/section/read/93519/ What is the correct maximum size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.210.235 (talk) 19:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to format your links, anyway, the quantity of sources doesn't matter but the quality, you linked a travels guidebook, a memory improvement book, a tour site, a photo site, a zoo website, an stock photo site, another wiki and a newspaper. None of those are specialized primary or secondary sources and they most likely parrot each other or copied Wikipedia at some point or another. The origin of the records is Wood (1982). There two often confused records are mentioned:

The Fenykovi elephant shot in 1955, claimed by the hunter to have measured it at 401cm lying on its side and estimated its weight at 24,000lbs (12 imperial tons, 10,900kg). Wood estimated that its standing shoulder height must have been 381cm. The skeleton of this individual and a taxidermy mount reside in the Smithsonian Museum.

Another male shot in 1974, claimed by the hunter to have measured it at 417cm lying on its side and estimated its weight at 27,000lbs (13.5 imperial tons, 12,200kg). Wood estimated its standing shoulder height at 396cm. Scientists never laid eyes or hands on the remains of this individual, we only have the hunter's claims.

In both cases Wood (1982) didn't offer improved weight estimates, just repeated the hunter's claims, which are not reliable, as further demonstrated by Larramendi (2016) who had access to measurements of the bones of the Fenykovi elephant and found them to be not even 10% larger than those of a 320cm tall individual so not even 350cm tall, clearly hunter's tall tales are not to be trusted and the much more apocryphal 1974 account should also be taken with a sac of salt. Furthermore, using data from real wild African elephants Larramendi computed a formula to better estimate the size of African elephants from their shoulder height which gives an estimate of 10,400kg for an hypothetical 4m tall African elephant. So who are you going to trust on the weight issue? some dubious hunter ego-driven guess? or a formula based on real data? Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this^[1] and this. Leo1pard (talk) 17:30, 19 April 2018 (UTC) According to Compion and Power,^[1] the weight of subadult elephants is less than half that of adult females, and that elephant which was taken by Savuti lions by no means looked that small. Leo1pard (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See this.^[2] Leo1pard (talk) 08:18, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manwë986 - do you get the gist of what I'm trying to tell you? If a given source exactly bears out the statement made in the article, and you have no reason other than "I don't believe it" for removal, then you don't get to remove it. Produce a counter-statement or demonstrate that the source has it wrong, or desist. This is becoming disruptive. Further edit-warring in this regard will be reported. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:23, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Power and Compion (2009) reported eight elephants killed and consumed by lions in Chobe NP in a period of 24 days in October 2005; the elephants were between 1 and 11 years old. Joubert (2006) also reported lions attacking and consuming elephants in Chobe NP. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC) corr BhagyaMani (talk) 16:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do they even stated that the elephants are adults since they were 1 to 11 years old? No. Then they were juveniles or subadults. This is a valid source that lions are capable of killing even subadult elephants.--Manwë986 (talk) 17:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When elephants are capable of reproducing, they are adult. In African elephants, this is the a case at about 9.5 years of age. So yes, the lions killed adult elephants!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:17, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want the book that mentions fully grown elephants? Leo1pard (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No. They can reproduce, but that doesn't mean that they are adults. The adult age is 18. The male and female must mate in order to reproduce, which happened when they're 20 years old. I already looked into the book through the reference, but it did not even contain the records or reports of sightings to prove the sentence of "lions capable of taking down full-grown elephants" is relevant.--Manwë986 (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one does. Leo1pard (talk) 17:54, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it, do you? Show us the records or reports of sightings that prove the sentence of " lion prides are capable of taking down full-grown elephants" is relevant, if the book have. Don't show us something that is no longer exists like cave lion or mammoth, as well as just that sentence. This is not enough.--Manwë986 (talk) 18:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manwë986 - stop waffling. A reproducing animal is an adult. An elephant 11 years of age that is sexually viable is an adult. We have a source that you can't refute with anything but rhetoric. If there are no better arguments, this removal is not happening. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:33, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, Elmidae. You don't get it at all. Just because animals that reproduce, doesn't mean they all have to be in adult age when they reproduce. For example, a human teenage girl can get pregnant even at the age of 16. The elephants reach adulthood at the age of 18. Search Google by typing "elephant adult age". I assume that you know nothing of animal life, especially human life. No wonder some people say that Wikipedia is untrustworthy.--Manwë986 (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and by any biological definition, a sexually mature human is an adult. Do you think biology checks your ID before turning on the gonads? - Well, I assume BhagyaMani's latest edit should hammer a bung into this particular barrel of chuckles. Vote of thanks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:13, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can say whatever you want, that book only contains that sentence of "lions capable of taking down full-grown elephants ", but without any records or sightings that prove it. The 2009 source showed that the lions are capable of killing subadult elephants. And for the "Well I assume BhagyaMani's latest edit should hammer a bung into this particular barrel of chuckles. Vote of thanks. My pleasure!!" You people think that was funny?--Manwë986 (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Manwë986 Do you mean a sighting like this? Why would that elephant, which is too big not to be an adult, want to escape a hungry, charging lioness, considering that elephants are happy to intimidate animals that are much bigger and stronger than lions, like rhinos and giraffes? Leo1pard (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC); edited 05:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IP adress has changed one of the pictures, to Geroge Bush, clearly that is vandalism.--The Animal Lover82 (talk) 14:00, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there a need to have both a male and female elephant image for the lead? There is nothing significantly different about them in appearance. A single image should be the default unless a good reason can be provided. LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): 32Dugg (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Erinkaline, Jlebo14.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicaphillips10 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a temperature regulation section to behavioral adaptations. I included information on how these animals are able to maintain their body temperatures in the intense African heat via homeothermy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32Dugg (talk • contribs) 14:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a great article to add details on a specific topic. There is already a layout that works for you to be able to add another sub header under the social communication section. Another section it could be in is the conservation section towards the bottom of the article.

Jlebo14 (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]