Talk:Zebra

	Zebra 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 January 31, 2021.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 25, 2020 Good article nominee Listed September 6, 2020 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

Diseases in zebrasDiseases in zebras was merged into this article. The discussion was closed on October 5, 2013 with a consensus to merge. The original page is now a redirect to this article. Its history now serves to provide attribution for the content in this article, and it must not be deleted as long as this article exists.

This  level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Equine Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Equine, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of articles relating to horses, asses, zebras, hybrids, equine health, equine sports, etc. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the barn.EquineWikipedia:WikiProject EquineTemplate:WikiProject Equineequine Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Botswana / Namibia / South Africa Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Botswana (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Namibia. This article is supported by WikiProject South Africa. 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. Guild of Copy Editors This article was copy edited by Twofingered Typist, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on 17 July 2020.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors

The content of Diseases in zebras was merged into Zebra on October 15, 2013. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Archives

1

I think there are some issues with the paragraph “The zebra can reach a speed of 68.4 km/h (42.5 mph) compared to 57.6 km/h (35.8 mph) for the lion, but lions have a higher maximum acceleration” in the “Ecology and behaviour” section. 1) It seems ridiculous to me to give a speed down to a tenth of a km/h, given the difficulty in measuring speed, the terrain, the individual animal, the species of zebra etc. 2) If I click on the cited reference I can’t actually search the reference to back up the statement there. 3) The articles on Wikipedia cite different top speeds.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lion ... about 80 km/h

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plains_zebra ... about 60-70 km/h

I suggest altering the figures in the paragraph to match the other figures on Wikipedia. Bringing in @LittleJerry who reverted this edit. BrightOrion (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

The precision is ridiculous. I've linked the page number in the {{sfn}} template and combined the two sentences so it is now clear the one source gives maximum speeds, accelerations, and the conclusion about the 6 second window of opportunity for the lion. I've changed the numbers to 68 km/h (43 mph), i.e the best approximation of the source 19 m/s, and 58 km/h (36mph) for 16 m/s. I couldn't get the convert template to give the right numbers with right precision so removed them.

If the other articles have better sources for the speeds then they can be used instead, but now the text follows the source with sensible precision. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:13, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for that Jts1882! The only issue I still have is the figure for the lion's top speed. Numerous articles on the Internet suggest a lion can run at about 50 mph (80 km/h), which is a lot more than the 36 mph (58 km/h) given in this article. (Example: https://www.britannica.com/list/the-fastest-animals-on-earth) BrightOrion (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I saw that, but just wanted to deal with the precision issue you rightly drew attention to. The conversions are as follows:

• Zebra speed: 19 m/s (68 km/h) and 19 m/s (43 mph) (conversions using templates)
• Lion speed: 16 m/s (58 km/h) and 16 m/s (36 mph) (ditto)
• 68 km/h (42 mph) (wrong mph)
• 68.4 km/h (43 mph) (wrong precision for km/hr; needs to round both)
• 19 m/s (68 km/h or 43 mph) and 16 m/s (58 km/h or 36 mph) (preferred output; can a template do this?)

I prefer the latter format, which gives the speed as given by the source (in m/s) and then shows the two conversions in parentheses.

The best number for the top speed of the lion should definitely be given further consideration. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It can be done: 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) —  Jts1882 | talk  14:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I found this academic paper on the speed of lions. https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7998.2008.00477.x

Unfortunately, I can't open the whole document. I can see a section where it says: "the lion attained a lower running speed (10.4 m s−1 ) than …" BrightOrion (talk) 10:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Have you tried the Wikipedia Library?

If you look at the beginning of the results (p216) it says:

In the hunting sequence, analyzed in this study, the lion attained a lower running speed (10.4ms-1) than in the multiple hunting sequences (13.5ms-1) analyzed by Elliott et al. (1977; fig. 5), which involved pursuit of wildebeest (the same prey species as in this study), as well as zebra Equus burchelli and Thomson’s gazelle. This could have been due to the predator not having singled out a particular prey individual during the filmed portion of the hunting sequence. Indeed, the hunt appears to have been unsuccessful.

This suggests not all measurements are equal and that the highest speeds will only be achieve under true hunting conditions. The Elliott number seems reasonably compatible with the slightly higher 16m/s currently quoted. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Jts! And I just found a viewable copy here https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230025975_Limb_bone_stresses_during_fast_locomotion_in_the_African_lion_and_its_bovid_prey

Yes, the figure of 13.5ms-1 is quite close to the 16ms-1 mentioned in this Zebra article.

Of course, there may be other studies showing lions running faster than this. I'll do some more searching. BrightOrion (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry this discussion is getting so long. I found another academic paper called "Biomechanics of predator–prey arms race in lion, zebra, cheetah and impala". If anyone can access it, please post the data for lion speed here. Thanks. The video of that paper says lions are faster than zebras (at the 1:38 mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UVRkmPfkECE&t=98s BrightOrion (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This is the purpose of talk pages. To decide on what information to include.

The paper is available as pdf here

The 98th percentile of speed was C - 19.9, I - 13.8, L - 13.9 and Z - 10.6 ms-1 which is 84, 78, 67 and 77% of the maximum achieved by three individuals which were C - 23.8, I - 17.7, L - 20.6 and Z - 13.8ms-1. So predators were faster than their prey and all species rarely approached their maximum recorded speed (Extended Data Fig. 5).

These numbers look good, although I'm not sure how to present it. The 98% percentile speed is a good measure to make the comparison, but the data shows the lion can exceed 20m/s in some cases. So a statement along the lines of the lion can reach 20m/s during a chase would be accurate, but isn't something explicitly stated in the source. —  Jts1882 | talk  13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

That article is already cited!!!!! LittleJerry (talk) 12:51, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi LittleJerry, this issue relates to the paragraph in this article (Zebra article): "The zebra can reach a speed of 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) compared to 16 m/s (58 km/h; 36 mph) for the lion, but lions have almost twice the maximum acceleration, so a lion has to surprise a zebra within the first six seconds of breaking cover."

I dispute the idea that zebras are faster than lions--I think it's the other way around. BrightOrion (talk) 12:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's cited but I can't see the data in it. Does it say anything about a lion's speed? BrightOrion (talk) 12:56, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Try page 33. LittleJerry (talk) 13:05, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Page 40, it says 13.9 ms-1 for the lion and 10.6 ms-1 for the zebra. BrightOrion (talk) 13:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

BrightOrion, Jts1882, make the change then. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, one further comment. That source says "The 98th percentile of speed was C - 19.9, I - 13.8, L - 13.9 and Z - 10.6 ms-1 which is 84, 78, 67 and 77% of the maximum achieved by three individuals which were C - 23.8, I - 17.7, L - 20.6 and Z - 13.8ms-1." (C=cheetah, I=impala, L=lion and Z=zebra)

When talking about the speed of an animal, we should talk about the speed of the fastest individual, right?

So, I think we should use the figures of 20.6 ms-1 (46 mph) for the lion and 13.8 ms-1 (about 31 mph) for the zebra. But I'm still not convinced by this. A lot of webpages on the Internet say a zebra can run at 40 mph (17.8 ms-1). BrightOrion (talk) 15:42, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Just become its popularly reported on the internet, doesn't make it true. Let's stick to acedemic sources. LittleJerry (talk) 15:52, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, being used many times on the web says little about reliability. They often all just repeat a single source, which may or may not be reliable. It can also be taken from Wikipedia.

The Zebra article currently says 19 m/s (68 km/h; 43 mph) for the zebra and 16 m/s (58 km/h; 36 mph) for the lion following Caro, who references Garland 1983. I've found the Garland 1983 reference and it uses 64.0 km/h (17.8 m/s; 39.8 mph) for the zebra. So it looks like the Caro book is a conversion (to m/s) and an inaccurate one at that (19 instead of 18m/s). Garland also says the methodology of the estimate is unknown and cites Bourliere (1964), a general book on mammals. The Garland estimate for the lion (59km/h) cites another book (Schaller, 1972) and lists the method as "subjective estimate". Another recent paper (Bro-Jørgensen, 2013) also uses 59km/h for the lion, citing Janis and Wilhelm, 1993, who also use Garland (1983). I'm not convinced by that any of these estimates are based on rigorous scientific studies. The Wilson et al (2018) seems a much better source. —  Jts1882 | talk  17:02, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Jts1882 and LittleJerry, how about changing the text to this:

(Ecology and behaviour section)

[When threatened by lions, zebras flee, and when caught they are rarely effective in fighting off the big cats.] **New Insertion**

Although it has been said anecdotally that zebras can run at about 17.9 m/s, the maximum speed reliably recorded is 13.8 m/s. This compares with a top speed of 20.6 m/s for the lion.**Add Wilson reference** A 2018 study found that zebras do not escape lions by speed alone but by sideways turning, especially when the predator is close behind. **Add Wilson reference (different page)** BrightOrion (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

There are two potential problems there:

• While I agree with your statement, we need a source to say the maximum speed reliably recorded is 13.8m/s. That is our conclusion about one study. Similarly its not for us to decide what is anecdotal evidence. We need a source saying it.
• The Wilson et al (2018) makes estimates of speed using the 98 percentile value. They also mention a maximum speed. One must be wary of using extreme values from a data set as they could be statistical outliers. They say this maximum speed is "the maximum achieved by three individuals". If this means its the average of the fastest measurement by three individuals then it might be acceptable, but it might be better to say some individuals reached speeds of about 20m/s.

—  Jts1882 | talk  17:27, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes, agreed. My next suggestion:

(Ecology and behaviour section)

[When threatened by lions, zebras flee, and when caught they are rarely effective in fighting off the big cats.] **New Insertion**

In one study, the maximum speed of a zebra was found to be 13.8 m/s while a lion was measured at 20.6 m/s.**Add Wilson reference** A 2018 study found that zebras do not escape lions by speed alone but by sideways turning, especially when the predator is close behind. **Add Wilson reference (different page)**

This doesn't eliminate the problem that those figures might be outliers, but I think it's the best we can do with the data available. BrightOrion (talk) 17:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

We don't cite page numbers for journal articles. Just cite Wilson once at the end. LittleJerry (talk) 21:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

OK, so if there are no objections. I'll make that change, unless anyone has another suggestion. BrightOrion (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Despite the debate, scientifically they are black with white stripes.^[1]Lmharding (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

belated reflist

It's probably a good thing I'm not a professor, because I would hard fail any undergraduate paper, from freshman year up, that advanced the argument in that paper.

In mammalian biology, with a few notorious exceptions that cast the birds among the beasts, all of our cells contain all of our genes. It's not so different than the original security model of MS-DOS (aka none whatsoever) where all programs could access all memory. Species can go through phases where the regulatory system suppresses a gene globally (in the long term, a totally inactive gene will tend to degrade), but that vestigial gene can spring back to life again as the environment changes, in whole or in part.

So the argument from that paper above boils down to this: if the "default" is that every gene is turned on everywhere and always, then zebras are innately black. But there's no such default in mammalian biology. Most genes are turned off in most tissues most of the time, or we'd have sperm cells with hairy eyeballs.

A thick and contingent tapestry of suppression and activation is the only way this symphony has ever carried a tune, except as filmed by David Cronenberg.

The argument above is also [ed: close to] parallel to the argument that any human with XY chromosomes is inherently male, regardless of whether the special sauce in the Y chromosome is suitably activated (when it isn't, such a person typically becomes hyper-feminized). Yikes. Men have been nailed to crosses and then buried in stone crypts for suggesting less contentious perspectives on human nature. — MaxEnt 22:40, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Zebra meat was mainly eaten by European colonisers; among African cultures only the San are known to eat it regularly.^{[1][failed verification]}

References

1. ^ Plumb & Shaw 2018, pp. 41, 132–133. sfn error: no target: CITEREFPlumbShaw2018 (help)

Reason from above:

From search for term "meat" in Google books (did not return page numbers): "As noted above, most colonizers didn't take to zebra meat, though Africans continued to eat it." Other snippets also suggest this was far from black and white.

— MaxEnt 22:12, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

The ISBN is the web verison of the book. And on page 41 it states

"Unlike European visitors, African cultures have rarely, if ever, hunted zebra for sport. Eating zebra, however, has always been a part of the San experience..."

LittleJerry (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Characteristics tab > Stripes > function > crypsis hypothesis > Sentence beginning "Melin and colleagues (2016) found that lions..", "expect" should be changed to "except". Catch a ride (talk) 09:13, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

 Done Thank you for spotting this typo! Deltaspace⁴² (talk • contribs) 09:49, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

In the table of extant species, Grévy's zebra is listed with a shoulder height of 4.10–5.25 ft. The other two species are listed with their non-metric heights in inches (43–57 and 46–57 for the plains and mountain zebras, respectively).

Recommend changing Grévy's imperial unit height to 49–63 in to match the other two. It'd also internally match the other non-metric measurements for body & tail length. Finally, listing shoulder heights in inches is an easy conversion to HH (yes, hh is supposed to be for the withers). Cjmcjmcjmcjm (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

{{[[Template:Automatic taxobox |Automatic taxobox ]]}} 2601:401:4300:3720:C8C:19DC:59D8:4D77 (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Not done: No reliable source is given for the Pliocene dating. The subgenus link should not be added per MOS:CIRCULAR. Jamedeus (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Under "Characteristics": Change "amount of stripes" to "number of stripes". "Amount" pertains to a singular, "number" to a plural. Thank you. Walter Delahunt 24.222.182.150 (talk) 00:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

 Done Jamedeus (talk) 02:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This deletion attempt may be of interest to editors of this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Several theories have been proposed for the function of these patterns, with most evidence supporting them as a deterrent for biting flies.

This requires a citation. TheSatelliteMind (talk) 00:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

No it doesn't. Read the article. LittleJerry (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

"Several theories have been proposed for the function of these patterns, with most evidence supporting them as a deterrent for biting flies." This line requires a citation. 68.71.19.180 (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Partly done: Added {{cn}} - FlightTime (open channel) 22:32, 30 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Undone. Citations are not needed in the lead paragraphs. The statement is supported by the article body which states "This hypothesis [fly protection] is the most strongly supported by the evidence.[69][70]" LittleJerry (talk) 01:38, 3 December 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposal: add 2025 perception/vision-science hypothesis about rump stripes.

I’d like to add a brief, attributed mention of a recent hypothesis about zebra rump striping.

In a recent perception/vision-science study, Alex Muhl-Richardson, Maximilian G Parker, Greg Davis (2025) used human observers viewing zebra images filtered to approximate lion/spotted-hyaena vision, alongside computational salience modelling and pursuit simulations, and proposed that broad rump stripes may remain visually salient during pursuit and bias predator attention toward the rear, potentially reducing capture probability.

^[1] Fleurzinha (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

I found misinformation in the passage "Zebras sleep for seven hours a day, standing up during the day and lying down during the night. They regularly use various objects as rubbing posts and will roll on the ground." - in the "Behaviour and ecology" section.

As a source of this information there is provided Estes, R. (1991). The Behavior Guide to African Mammals, but I cannot see any information of sleep length in Zebras in this book. In fact I cannot find any source that would give this info. However I know plenty of credible resources that indicate, that zebras sleep about 2 hours per day, e.g. in "Siegel J. M. (2005). Clues to the functions of mammalian sleep. Nature, 437(7063), 1264–1271. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04285" we can see that similar herbivores (like horses and donkeys) sleep only 2-3 hours per day. Info about short zebra sleep is also present in well-known handbooks like Pinel, J. P., & Barnes, S. J. (2021). Biopsychology. 188.33.36.157 (talk) 09:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Its on page 236. LittleJerry (talk) 21:17, 21 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Why use a colorized (fake) image of the quagga? Isn't the actual, documentary, B/W image good enough for Wikipedia? And if for some reason sensitive WP readers couldn't be expected to stomach the real picture, why not at least say in the caption that it's fake? 94.191.138.42 (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Should the biting fly hypothesis go first? LittleJerry (talk) 06:04, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

COArSe D1RTxxx, please revert your edits or I will call the administrators. You should discuss reverted bold changes per WP:BRD. LittleJerry (talk) 00:43, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

From the other post you made on my talk page: Can you explain why putting the best-supported hypothesis at the top is "not helpful,"? What about splitting a massive paragraph? — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 02:54, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Because the validation on the fly biting hypothesis is recent. The function of zebra stripes had been debated for over a century before that. Also its not a normal paragraph but a bulletin, so splitting it doesn't work. I wouldn't debate this further until you revert your edits. LittleJerry (talk) 04:20, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

That isn't a reason. Just because it was debated for over a century doesn't mean the evidence doesn't currently support a hypothesis. It's not like I removed every other paragraph just to keep that one.

Also, I didn't actually restore the paragraph-splitting edit. I'll admit it was a bit of a hack. I'm sure there's a better way to split paragraphs within a bullet-point. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Could you at least explain why they're "bold"? I mean, it's not like I deleted a paragraph. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

Its bold because you changed the consensus. When I reverted it back, you should have set up a discussion. Now, revert your edits or I will call an administrator. LittleJerry (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

… the consensus? Was there a discussion to have the paragraphs in exactly that order? Yeah, man, call an admin. I'm sure you have one on speed dial, right? — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 08:36, 29 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

• Comment There seem to be two problems with this RFC. First, the header of this section ("Unhelpful edits") is not neutral, as WP:RFCNEUTRAL requires. Secondly, I do not see that the requisite prior discussion, before using up community time on a formal RFC, has taken place as in WP:RFCBEFORE. Unless the first can be corrected and I'm incorrect about the second, this should be closed as a premature and non-neutrally written RFC. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:07, 30 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: This is frankly some tantrum like behavior on behalf of the instigating party of the RFC, where no (helpful) friendly discussion has taken place, and where they seem to have started this RFC to "call the administrators". I think people sometimes lose sight of the fact that Wikipedia is almost entirely volunteer led, monitored and maintained, and as such there is no real way to a solution in disagreements without being willing to commit to at least a little discussion, and there are definitely no "call a moderator" commands. Lflin16 - :) (talk) 02:32, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply
• Comment: This disagreement on the order of a list has escalated rather unpleasantly. According to my reading of the history:

• COArSe D1RTxxx made an edit to move fly biting hypothesis to the top of the list, asserting that this was the best-supported hypothesis, but providing no source for this claim.
• LittleJerry reverted this change without explanation (as required by WP:BRD), although later edit summaries gave the reason as reverting to the consensus/existing version while the matter is discussed.
• COArSe D1RTxxx started to edit war and LittleJerry started this discussion as an RfD and threatened calling for administator intervention.

My interpretation of WP:BRD is that following a bold change that has been reverted, the change should be discussed on this talk page and the status quo version retained until consensus for a change is reached. The key question is should the current chronological list of hypotheses by retained or should the hypotheses be put in order based on support, in which case independent sources for this order are required. Surely this is something that can be discussed civilly. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:36, 31 May 2026 (UTC)Reply

… asserting that this was the best-supported hypothesis, but providing no source for this claim.

The source is in the paragraph. — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

I should have put independent source, as I did later my comment. Those sources are the people promoting the theory and naturally they believe their theory and evidence is best (you'd hope this is true whenever anyone proposes a theory). For an encyclopaedia to make the claim that it is the best supported theory it needs an independent source reviewing the evidence. There is also the question as to whether its the only function of the stripes. It's hard to see how they would evolve to protect against fly bites rather than the protection being an additional benefit after evolving stripes for another reason.  —  Jts1882 | talk  11:43, 1 June 2026 (UTC)Reply

It is certainly an odd reason to evolve stripes, but the hypothesis has multiple sources all suporting it, while the other hypotheses aren't really like this, with most either being disputed or outright refuted. The confusion hypothesis is the second-best-supported one, but it only really has theoretical evidence and is also somewhat disputed. I wouldn't say—with the 13 different citations in that paragraph as support—that the fly protection hypothesis lacks an "indepentent source". — COArSe D1RTxxx (talk) 08:49, 2 June 2026 (UTC)Reply