text:
Talk:Biomimetics

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2021 and 23 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Kunpeng Liu, SandraaaL.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 August 2020 and 24 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eastofthevalley. Peer reviewers: Annashott.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:47, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Terms
I'm doing some research on biomimicry to try and improve this article. I think that we should distinguish between the "term" (which was coined by Jane Benyus) and the "concept" which has been around as long as humans have been around. I think as others have proposed, we should include the term and concept of biomimetics since the root words and concepts are the same. I'm still looking for credible sources to verify how much these two terms overlap and if there are any significant differences (anyone know of any?). It appears that the Biomimicry Institute uses the word biomimetics somewhat interchangeably with biomimicry although I found no reference to Otto Schmitt (who coined the word biomimetics) in BI's website or affiliated websites (http://biomimicryinstitute.org, http://asknature.org, http://biomimicry.typepad.com) If anyone has thoughts about making a clear distinction between the "term" and "concept" of biomimicry and its relationship to biomimetics, I would love to discuss! Thanks,Flybmr (talk) 15:17, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks I like I was wrong in attributing the term "biomimicry" to Jane Benyus. A simple google scholar search on biomimicry will pull up articles in the early 90s with the term "biomimicry" being used already. From reading some of Professor Julian Vincent's articles on biomimetics, I would say that these two terms are basically synonymous. Jane Benyus book on biomimicry in 1997 created somewhat of a movement which emphasizes sustainability. However, the term biomimicry existed before her book and in itself does not necessarily carry that connotation. Flybmr (talk) 08:28, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me just tell you this before you go on off with your crazy merger things. The fundamental point of biomimicry is that as natural selection has been going on for billions of years organisms that are its products have not only evolved themselves but adapted to the environment. What is about to change now is the simplistic view of "things" existing in isolation and somehow magically interacting with each other while as we learn with physics is that they are constantly connected and tied to each other. Maybe you read this page and you make the creative association that this reminds you of "hippie bull****" and it makes you feel bad, but try to picture this: natural selection perfects energy efficient solutions, energy efficiency other than being a fundamental principle of pretty much everything it is also the one of the main principles in business.(Energy costs you know?) Now you can try to guess what will happen next.Arkos vahamaki (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Advertising
The introductory part of this article seems like a book advertising. Chmyr (talk) 02:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Couldn't agree more. Pure advertising.

Rewrite needed
existing economic systems do not reward efficiency as an absolute value, and they do seem to have to do with the difficulty of large scale cooperation.

The "reach" here is the assertion that Darwin is remembered mostly for ecological selection not sexual selection "because" of Victorian mores.

If someone wants to rewrite that, I won't object, but the idea that natural selection consists only of ecological selection has never been valid at all. Modern biologists are starting to believe that sexual selection matters more.

Copyedits needed
"Proponents argue that all natural life forms minimize and ecological niches remove failures."

This is not a sensible sentence. Could someone who knows what the intended meaning is please rewrite it?

Margulis
2004/08/15: Can someone provide the source for "its later codification as a field of study to Lynn Margulis."? I have not found any reference that Lynn wrote on the subject of Biomimicry.

Not Lyn Margulis
See: Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired by Nature by Janine Benyus

also go to: http://www.biomimicry.org

Seriously, Janine Benyus did not introduce this concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.175.108 (talk) 21:20, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merger
Biomimicry really should be a unique entry in Wikipedia.

As a current MBA candidate at Bainbridge Graduate Institute studying this important field in sustainability, I must argue against merging biomimicry with bionics. While I have not been able to cite all the current literary references to biomimicry a simple search on Amazon results in three (3) pages of books, music and other works citing the term.

Amazon Search Results of Biomimicry.

Biomimicry is clearly a major field of science in its own right and bionics is too easily confused with Prosthetic Enhancement, the bionic man and the bionic woman (inaccurate or unscholarly as that may be) it is human nature to think of bionics in this manner. If Wikipedia is meant to teach people about the true meaning of its encyclopedia entries, then it's important we keep biomimicry separate so they have a better opportunity to learn about this important emerging field.

Thank you for keeping this entry unique.

Toddrawlings (talk) 04:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose, there is enough information specifically on engineering solutions to explicitly copy biological systems to justify a full article. Probably if this article is expanded to cover more general uses that will become self-evident. I also changed the section heading to not support any position on the topic of merging, in accordance with the Talk page guidelines.

Biomimicry is unique from bionics and bi-inspired design in that in addition to learning from nature for inspiration, we also learn from nature for ecological principles of sustainability.

Oppose
I, too, think that biomimicry, although currently in its infancy, is going to be extremely important in the years and centuries to come. It is unique and should not be lumped together with bionics. This new paradigm in engineering, architecture, materials science, and agriculture is going to help usher in the New Industrial Revolution and has the potential to save our race from destroying the planet that we call home. Blueelectricstorm (talk) 03:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree
I agree it should be merged, maybe not with Bionics, as that term apparently has two different meaning, so it can be confusing, so I think it should be merged with Biomimetics. I really wonder why the term Biomimicry was created as it has the exact same etymological origin so it seems. It would be interesting to hear somebody explain why that was done other then for marketing purposes for the book and the consulting firm. Especially calling it a "new field in science" sounds a bit off to me, thinking about Gaudi, Da Vinci, Colani etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.216.53.146 (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Merger: Suggested Reasons
At the outset I must suggest that Bionics should have a disambiguation page with bionics as referring to prosthesis etc. being separated from bionics as referring to biomimetics. Google bionics today and top results refer to the former despite it being a more recent usage of the word. As for biomimicry, my understanding is that it has a specific insistance of 'sustainabilty' over bionics (look at Janine M. Benyus/biomimicryinstitute.org website and other media). Bionic solution uses nature for inspiration not considering sustainability as a guiding light. e.g. Neural networks in Computers has no relation to sustainablity.

Oppose merger-other issues
Agree with other posters that the intro is unbalanced. Benyus deserves ample credit as one who has raised the issue in the public eye, but there are quite a number of other groups that have been active in making fundamental and systematic contributions overe the years. Julian Vincent, George Jeronimides, Steven Vogel come to mind, as well as the organizations Bionis and the EU Biofutures program. Additionally, the link to sustainability is not universally accepted. Although clearly important, and a major thread through Benyus' writing and work, quite a few people use biomimetics for innovative engineering design. Indeed-this is implicitly acknowledged in the current wiki via the reference to the bat cane. Innovative yes, geared to sustainability, no. The present wiki reflects one contributer's idea, not the consensus of the state of the field.

Second, I also oppose the merger. Bionics, although not strictly defined, is more associated with engineering interventions in the human body-such may or may not be biomimetic (if the defining property here is the use of a biological principle). Again, it is not an issue with regard to an emphasis on sustainability or sustainability as an enpoint, as has been suggested.

Mjweiss (talk) 19:53, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Where the hell is actual biomimicry?
You know, when harmless insects look like poisonous ones? You know, where the term was actually first put into place, before it was co-opted. You know, science? Elijahmeeks (talk) 14:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Elijahmeeks, you might want to look at Mimicry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.207.80.251 (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Bionics into Biomimicry
From what I understand, after having read the talk pages of both articles as well as other pages on the internet, "biomimicry" and "biomimetics' are the proper scientific terms for most of the stuff on the "bionics" page, so I suggest we merge most of the material in Bionics into this article and leave the term "bionics" to the few areas where it's actually properly used (beside the Hollywood usage). From previous discussions on this page there seem to have been a proposed merger the other way around a couple of years ago, but it obviously didn't happen, for understandable reasons, as "bionics" is regarded an unscientific term. Perhaps it's time to merge the proper way? Thomas Blomberg (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

David Latapie (✒ | @) — www 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind a side-by-side comparison of the terms. "Bionic" is defined as something " having normal biological capability or performance enhanced by or as if by electronic or electromechanical devices," according to Webster's. But "biomimicry" seems to refer more to the design and engineering phase, as opposed to the finished product. They're almost like the two sides of a coin. Biomimicry is a design concept sometimes used to create bionic devices. It might confuse people to see the terms made synonymous. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I too would really like a side-by-side comparison of the term. It could very well end up as "biomimetics is really bionics with a new name (reason: Hollywood corrupted the word to the extent where a bionicist cannot be taken seriously anymore")". As long as it is clear, it is fine with me.--

User:Mr. Michael Greer (User_talk:Mr. Michael Greer) 22:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.222.179.17 (talk)
 * Seems to be quite simple; we are transferring the idea from biology to technology; transferring the movements and functions of body parts - biology to mimicking the movements and functions of body parts - technology. I realize that I am making this simpler than the scholars of late would like, but there you have it.--

PING> If the two pages do not get merged, they should at least be removed as alternate forms in each other's ledes. At the moment, the ledes of BOTH articles make it seem the terms are analogous; however, they remain separate pages. The bolded alternates should be linked to each other, at least. —TedPavlic (talk/contrib/@) 06:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

New Example
I've tried several times to add an excellent example from the display field, a field from which one example, Mark Miles use of the etalon, was already in place:

Another display technology to use biomimicry is the PenTile Matrix family of subpixel layouts that were inspired by the human retina and its sophisticated neural processing to enable higher resolution displays with fewer subpixels per pixel. The human retina has nearly equal numbers of L and M Cones (which roughly respond to red and green colors respectively) while there are very few S Cones (which roughly respond to blue colors). These novel layouts use fewer blue subpixels and sometimes fewer red subpixels as well. The subpixel rendering algorithms use the very same center vs. surround fields as early vision processing in the retina to allow higher definition appearance.

Mr.Ollie keeps deleting it, unnecessarily... and I believe, incorrectly, stating that he believed that it was not "mimicking" the retina, only "corresponding" to it. This would seem to be pedantic at best. Especially since the article itself quotes a source that says, "Biomimicry is defined in her book as a "new science that studies nature's models and then imitates or takes inspiration from these designs and processes to solve human problems." "

"takes inspiration from" would negate Mr.Ollie's objection to inclusion of this example, even if the pedantry was correct regarding being only in "correspondence to" rather than strictly mimetic, which I dispute. DisplayGeek (talk) 02:24, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It seems that a rather large portion of your edits are related to Pentile pixel layouts. Are you associated with this technology in some way? - MrOllie (talk) 17:05, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Biomimicry in every profession
Biomimetics or biomimcry (I believe they are the same) is growing in every profession. The word is recently coined in architecture as biomimetic architecture (www.biomimetic-architecture.com). I believe it's different from bionics because it's changing how we are looking to everything. this word will be the new area we will search our science in. I believe Vincent is the first one who coined this word as his articles show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Messmanreturns (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure Biomimicry is same like Bionics?
Biomimicry ≠×≠ Bionics

biomimicry, biomimetics, bio-inspiration, bionics, biognosis, and close to bionical creativity engineering

At Simple Ennglish Wikipedia are not any of them.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomimicry

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bionics

--89.176.227.251 (talk) 22:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 * A bit of poking around in the literature shows they're generally synonymous. Mokele (talk) 22:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

 * What about Mimicry ?

 * I saw only term "Biomimethics" in literature and TV-documents so far.

''Similar terms
 * Mimetic is an adjective used to describe cases of mimicry, but is also used in mathematics (see mimetic). This should not be confused with memetics, the scientific study of memes.
 * Mimesis also refers to imitation, especially relating to the arts.''

 * --89.176.227.251 (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --89.176.227.251 (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Camera?
A camera seems an obvious example of biomimicry. OK, so the camera as we know it now has come a long way, but I have trouble believing that our own eyes weren't a major contributor to the basic design. Unless it wasn't until the 20th century that anybody studied eyes to see how they work, in which case the level of similarity is an interesting coincidence. Anyway, can anyone here confirm or refute the camera's eligibility for inclusion among the examples here? — Smjg (talk) 22:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

If Bionics is merged with Biomimicry
..it will make Wikipedia look ridiculous. They are not the same, and any sort of research on the history of how they are applied would show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.49.242.164 (talk) 15:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – the articles should explain what sets the two fields apart, with source citations. Likewise, if the two fields are one and the same, provide the sources that prove this.  Please don't merge them until proof that they are the same field is provided.  Thank you.  The Transhumanist 21:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Biomimicry or biomimetics
I think a more linguistic approach should be adopted as to the question whether the right term is "biomimicry" or "biomimetics". Both "mimicry" and "mimetics" stem from the Greek word "mimesis", meaning imitation. Now "mimicry" (which is basically the English adaptation of the Greek term) in biological science already had taken the specific meaning of "the similarity of one species to another which protects one or both" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mimicry). "Simple" imitation of nature (without being concerned too much with the consequences for the environment, maybe?) would be "biomimetics", whereas "biomimicry", as I conceive it now, is also concerned with this aspect of protection, of "blending into nature" and making the human society eternally recyclable without damaging nature, so to speak). Correct me if I'm wrong (needless to say).

O yes, and "bionics" is, in my view, in fact a blending of an organism and technology, prothesis, pacemakers, you name it. We know it from scifi, of course, but science in that respect is starting to catch up with scifi.

Please elaborate on this new turn I try to give to the discussion

--Joekiedoe (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect direction merge
The merge between Biomimetics and Biomimicry is in the incorrect direction with the primary name being Biomimetics and not Biomimicry. The comparative size of the articles and the fact that Biomimicry was written first on Wikipedia is not a suitable criteria for the direction of the merge since the term Biomimetics takes precedence both historically and in it's level of use internationally in the scientific community. The field had a well established name with university departments created prior to the promotion of the more recent term Biomimicry. Biomimetics also specifically concerns innovation of ideas from nature for technological and scientific progress whereas Biomimicry is concerned with the same thing but with it's use in social and environmental sustainability. Although they both fall under a common banner the term Biomimetics (again) has historical precedence and widespread adoption by almost 30 years SylvanD (talk) 16:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

If there aren't any reasonable objections I will go ahead and fix this merge SylvanD (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You were specifically instructed not to do this. We do not do cut and paste moves, and you have failed to move the primary page history.  I am now reversing your changes and requesting a page move per the proper process. The stub was correctly redirected to the primary topic which would allow for a complete page history move. Viriditas (talk) 04:12, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge to Biomimicry?
If Biomimetics is generally agreed to be a synonym of Biomimicry, shouldn't we merge the articles? Redirects will take care of any searches on either title (indeed, on any of the various titles for this concept), so we won't lose anything, but would gain in clarity. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Where are the source citations? What do the experts in these fields say?  Are there separate academic fields with their own university departments and journals?  (Again, provide source citations).  Start with the references, and act from there.  Please don't merge until sufficient proof is presented in the form of facts backed by citations of reliable sources. Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:16, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Biomimicry was the first article on the subject created and has the most complete coverage of this topic. This stub was created after biomimicry as an unintentional duplicate fork of the same topic. It remained a stub for 10 years without any expansion, with much of the content consisting solely of external links and quotes.  For these reasons, I've redirected the article. Viriditas (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

This merge is at the least in the incorrect direction. The size of the article and the fact that it was written first on wikipedia is irrelevant since the term Biomimetics takes precedence both historically and in it's level of use internationally in the scientific community. The field had a well established name with university departments created prior to the promotion of the more recent term Biomimicry. Biomimetics also specifically concerns innovation of ideas from nature for technological and scientific progress whereas Biomimicry is concerned with the same thing but with it's use in social and environmental sustainability. Although they both fall under a common banner the term Biomimetics (again) has historical precedence and widespread adoption by almost 30 years. SylvanD (talk) 15:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Links moved to Talk section
…because there relationships to the title subject are unclear, and so near to practically useless to readers (and so they are not easily reviewable by editors). Please, if interested in having these appear, check the link, and add them back with a parenthetical expression making very clear the actual relationship to the title concept. E.g., though the Benz model has a parenthetic expression, its perceived relationship to the title subject us not clear (and I am one relatively familiar both with the car and the article).

 * Bright green environmentalism
 * Holistic management
 * Mercedes-Benz Bionic (concept car)
 * Mimicry
 * Technogaianism
 * Biomorphism
 * Bionics
 * The Water Cube (Beijing National Aquatics Center)

Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I suspect that the common factor in all of these is a certain amount of unsubstantiable (hence, uncited) greenwash, which makes use of the sales value of the term "natural" to imply unstated benefits from the vague imitation of some aspect of nature. The Water Cube, for instance, makes use of a sort of foam bubble structure which is not unlike certain kinds of pith or parenchyma. Whether that qualifies as biomimetic would require PhD-level quantities of further research. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Biomimicry → Biomimetics – Cleaning up after a bad copy and paste merge that failed to move the correct, primary page history. Target was a duplicate stub created two years after the primary topic. It remained a stub from 2004-2013 while this topic (Biomimicry) was the primary topic. Recently, an editor decided to copy this material from here to biomimetics instead of requesting a proper move. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 12:02, 6 August 2014 (UTC) Viriditas (talk) 04:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

 * So, just throwing this out for consideration: the top journal for this specific area is titled "Bioinspiration and Biomimetics" (http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-3190/). I've heard "biomimicry" used as synonymous to both.  However, I'm only associated with the field via collaborators, so take that with a grain of salt. HCA (talk) 13:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , it sounds like you are supporting this move request. Please make that support explicit. Viriditas (talk) 04:37, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yep, put me down as Support. HCA (talk) 13:52, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Comment. This topic appears to be a serious accidental fork with mimicry.  If this article is supposed to be about technological design inspired by natural designs, then it is very ambiguous a title, and I'm not sure that the proposed rename does enough to fix that.  I think it needs a more descriptive title.  I also think it there is a lot of WP:NOR ingrained in it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

 * Support. I have commented earlier in talk about this but I'll just mention it again for completeness. Biomimetics is a scientific field that has been in existence for some time, there are a number of labs and departments in universities around the world that are either wholly or partially dedicated to it's study and application. Most of the people in the field worldwide use the term biomimetics to describe it rather than biomimicry, although the terms are widely considered synonymous biomimetics is far more common and also technically correct since it also has historical precedence by about 30 years. The majority of literature also uses the term biomimetics and most of the links on this article page link to resources and departments named biomimetics. Also as pointed out above biomimicry is sufficiently like mimicry as to be confusing as an article title and there are also other articles that use biomimetic as part of their description already.SylvanD (talk) 18:50, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * you need to explicitly say Support, which is what you intended. I'm not at all sure what SmokeyJoe is talking about as the article on mimicry has nothing to do with biomimetics.  It's very possible that SmokeyJoe briefly glanced at this move request and left a passing comment, but considering the evidence, I think it is safe to say that his comment should be completely disregarded as it is entirely erroneous  In other words, biomimetics is not a fork of mimicry, accidental or not, nor is it ambiguous.  Further it does not have any original research.  Finally, the term "biomimetics" is the correct descriptive title, and a cursory search of Google Scholar, Google Books, and university websites will show this to be true. Viriditas (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Viriditas I've corrected the note above to show support.

 * Support. OK, yes, it is quite different to mimicry.  But yes, the current title is ambiguous with mimicry, and then when I scanned the article I saw what seemed to be a weird extrapolation of mimicry.  Yes, actually reading the article helped, but renaming to "Biomimetics" makes it sound like what it is.  As an aside, I do maintain that it has a small WP:NOR issue, with excessive treatment of examples, citing primary sources, with little secondary source material on the general topic.  But this is no great problem.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

 *  Oppose Support. My oppose is based on the trends shown for these terms on Ngram Viewer. This supports SylvanD contention that the term biomimetics had historical precedence by about 30 years. But a cross-over occurred about 10 years ago and biomimicry now appears as the preferred term. Indeed the trend continues to accelerate decisively in favour of biomimicry. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Drop the s and see what happens. https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=biomimetics%2Cbiomimicry%2CBiomimetic&case_insensitive=on&year_start=1960&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cbiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimetics%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBIOMIMETICS%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cbiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimicry%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2CBiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bbiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBiomimetic%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BBIOMIMETIC%3B%2Cc0  The ngram tool is very clumsy, is biased, and requires a lot more care than this.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. Changed to support per my omission to look at the adjective --Epipelagic (talk) 13:08, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

--Gary Henscheid (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)Gary Henscheid== Proposal to add "Reverse engineering" to "See also" list ==

Reverse engineering is defined by Eilan, Eldad (2005) on Wikipedia (original source below) this way: "Reverse engineering, also called back engineering, is the processes of extracting knowledge or design information from anything man-made and re-producing it or re-producing anything based on the extracted information.[1]:3

Eilam, Eldad (2005). Reversing: secrets of reverse engineering. John Wiley & Sons. ISBN 978-0-7645-7481-8.

Reverse engineering is distinct from biomimicry only in that reverse engineering attempts to analyze and re-produce man made things and biomimicry attempts to do the same with living things. Someone researching one of the subjects would very likely also be interested in researching into the other, so I propose including "Reverse engineering" under "See also".Gary Henscheid (talk) 04:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gary Henscheid (talk • contribs) 11:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC) Gary Henscheid (talk) 04:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Biomimetics. 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/20131213022851/http://www.swedishbiomimetics.com/biomimetics_folder.pdf to http://www.swedishbiomimetics.com/biomimetics_folder.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121218010854/http://www.abi.auckland.ac.nz:80/uoa/home/about/our-research/projects/biomimetics to http://www.abi.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/home/about/our-research/projects/biomimetics
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090817164045/http://www.bath.ac.uk:80/mech-eng/biomimetics/ to http://www.bath.ac.uk/mech-eng/biomimetics/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140507042100/http://biomimetics.mit.edu:8100/wordpress/ to http://biomimetics.mit.edu:8100/wordpress/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120925071450/http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomim/home.htm to http://www.reading.ac.uk/biomim/home.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104095655/http://www2.esm.vt.edu:80/~staplesa/ to http://www.esm.vt.edu/~staplesa/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:46, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

New quality assessment
The article was greatly improved today. I think I will improve the quality scale during the next days, after an accurate revision.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:58, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mikeblas what do you think? Do you have any sugeestions for the newbies?--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

 * "Improved" carries a touch of hubris with it, a risky word. The other risky word is "application", which implies applying something in practice, i.e. commercially. That is a big claim, and far too much for many (most?) instances where, often, all that has happened is that a research project has demonstrated the theoretical possibility of something biomimetic. It would be far preferable to talk about "technologies" when a technological mechanism or material has been developed, and "applications" when a technology has actually been applied. In the "unimproved" version of the article, up until yesterday, this distinction was maintained. I'd strongly suggest we put back that structure, i.e. fold the new materials into it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dear User:Chiswick Chap I thank you for your comments and feedback on our work. From our perspective, "application" does not necessary carry the same meaning as "commercial application". There are plethora of scientific articles available online that use the word "application" to highlight that the research or "technology" is "applied" to some extent and could eventually be transfered into the real world as a "commercial product/application". We think that "application" is a neutral word in that sense. Previously, the section only had two sub-sections, called "prototypes" and "technologies", where the content included work of researchers that are obviously not commercially available yet. Also some commercial products were already included in both sub-sections without distinction. Furthermore, we have expanded the content quite significantly in addition to sorting and classifying the content. Your comments are appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yapadaryko (talk • contribs) 14:36, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * IMHO, it was improved. That comment even strecthing the definition of overconfidence, lacks the aspect of foolish pride. It could be too much optimistic, but nothing more than that. I am just happy for them and wiki, and I did not do the job... the core trigger of hybris is af far as I know centered on the ego of the protagonist. Is this the main problem you have found? If so, that means the article is probably improved because it is enlarged with minimal or at least much better defined problems, as far as I can summarize so far. I will keep reading especially in the week end.
 * Coming back to the title of the paragraph, I kinda agree with the Ph.D. students here. you said in the object that with respect, they'll be applications if and only if they are *applied* commercially. Maybe I am not a native English speaker, but it's the first time I see the word "application" linked to a commercial use. Do you have a dictionary definition? I am quite intigued by this concept. here you can see that is used in a generic way i.e. a way in which something can be used for a particular purpose. There are technologies that are applied but not all technologies are commercial. Some very sophisticated processes are applied only in laboratories but they're called applications in any case. Many advanced or specialist research lines might require applications of technologies that are never made commerically available. Even in the example of the dictionary the application of this research in the treatment of cancer cannot be considered commercial strictu sensu. it might be an inevitable consequences in some of our current economical models, but not in our language.--Alexmar983 (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Merge with Bionics?
After a decade of trying to develop the two articles separately, they seem to be very similar now. Bionics is bolded in the lede here (!) and appears 16 times in the article + its references; on the bionics page biomimetics or biomimicry appears 18 times.

Both articles spend far too long talking about the confusion between the terms. It would be better to have a single article with a thoughtful Etymology and Usage section and a more coherent and balanced set oc sections addressing both chemical/molecular mimicry and engineering/mechanical mimicry. – SJ + 03:07, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Class Project
Hi- I had this topic for a college course, called Technology and Culture. I chose biomimicry. I added research about Venus flytrap and added a few wikilinks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlysEder (talk • contribs) 05:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Biomimetics


text:
User:Devotchka

de:Benutzer:Devotchka Devotchka

Ahem.

Contributor to Wikipedia since 2001!

Ornithischian

 * Styracosaurus
 * Gallimimus
 * Claosaurus
 * Dryosaurus
 * Zuniceratops
 * Pachyrhinosaurus
 * Agathaumas
 * Amygdalodon
 * Nodosaurus
 * Barsboldia
 * Dyoplosaurus

Saurischian

 * Carcharodontosaurus
 * Byronosaurus
 * Saltriosaurus
 * Adasaurus
 * Majungasaurus
 * Omeisaurus
 * Succinodon
 * Coeluroides
 * Laevisuchus

Other

 * Glen Rose Formation

Gulls

 * Yellow-footed Gull
 * Lava Gull
 * Slaty-backed Gull
 * Relict Gull
 * Glaucous-winged Gull

Chickens

 * Hamburg (chicken)

Pigeons

 * Lahore (pigeon)
 * Afep Pigeon
 * Speckled Wood-pigeon
 * Black-chinned Fruit Dove
 * Pink-bellied Imperial Pigeon
 * Pigeons in the city

Reptiles, Fish

 * Anchovy
 * Alligator gar
 * Egg tooth

History

 * Bonnie and Clyde
 * Rebecca Burlend
 * Diamond Jim Brady
 * HMS Leopard (1790)
 * Great Bed of Ware
 * Gin Craze

Human and Animal Rights

 * Vegan Outreach
 * Liberation BC
 * Cinci Freedom
 * Humane Slaughter Act
 * Cockfighting
 * No Sweat Apparel
 * Food for Life
 * Turtle Island Foods
 * Issues with mass production of chicken

Radio

 * OTR: The Mysterious Traveler
 * OTR: Meet Corliss Archer
 * OTR: Our Miss Brooks
 * OTR: The Strange Dr. Weird
 * Jamie, Frosty and Frank Show

Linguistics

 * Genie (feral child)
 * language acquisition
 * Victor of Aveyron
 * Jean Berko Gleason
 * Wug Test
 * Diaspora language
 * Eskimo words for snow

Film/Literature

 * Shot
 * fast cutting
 * slow cutting
 * Remember WENN
 * Zoboomafoo
 * Be the Creature
 * Bette Davis
 * Selznick International Pictures
 * Robert Duncan (poet)
 * Gone with the Wind
 * Gone with the Wind (film)
 * Vivien Leigh
 * Margaret Mitchell

Episodes

 * Lisa the Vegetarian
 * Bart the Fink
 * In Marge We Trust
 * Marge Gets a Job

Everything Else

 * [[Image:Oddball_barnstar_green_dark_an.gif|thumb]]

''For Cinci Freedom, I'm happy to award you the Oddball Barnstar, awarded to editors who create a particularly fine article regarding a subject that is odd, whimsical, or is otherwise something that one wouldn't expect to find in more traditional encyclopedias. Thank you for writing it! ;-) SlimVirgin 02:34, 5 October 2005 (UTC)''

Thank YOU!

Hey bb --rr

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: User:Devotchka


text:
User:DigitalSorceress

Unrepentant GeekGrrl from Hell.

www.digitalsorceress.com

I've got a lot of random flotsem and jetsem in my head on a wide range of topics - some of it is even factual (grin) One of the biggest things I am trying to contribute to wikipedia is to help interrelate things. Whenever I see a subject that is referred to in 2 ways, I try to make a redirect listing for it or otherwise help to make sure that folks who are looking for somthing don't miss it merely due to vocabulary. For instance, theory of everything and grand unification theory mean the same thing, but I never really thought of it or called it by any thing other than Grand Unification Theory... There are many duplicate entries arising out of this largely semantic issue.

Sandbox
Just a place to put stuff I'm testing

Articles Written or Edited
This is not meant to be egocentric, I just wanted a place where I could keep track of what I've done.

 * ANAC - Created
 * carnivore - Created
 * proton decay - Created
 * weak nuclear force - Created
 * time - Edited (added wording and link to calendar to help better crossreference)
 * reference tables - Edited (added Link to Time under Measurments)
 * cryptography - Editied - (added ISBN for one book and added link to "Puzzle Palace")

Redirections Made:

 * Warrant - Linked it to United States Constitution/Amendment Four
 * particles and fields - linked it to particle physics - (it was referred to as particles and fields on physics page)
 * electromagnetic force - created a redirect to electromagnetism to help avoid duplication

Organizational Edits

 * physics - recategorized theory of everything from "uncategorized" to "theories"

Ranting:

I really must say I love the Wiki concept... I've actually been thinking that it would make an excellent personal knowledgebase - some way of storing and interrelating all the little bits of computer trivia, problems and solutions I've run across. Will have to check to see if the code is available...

The code is available. There are lots of different WikiClones available in many different programming languages. But the reason I'm leaving this message is that the Warrant -- Fourth amendment redirect is not helpful. First, there are many countries where warrants are required, but where it has nothing to do wit h the US forth amendment. Second, because the word Warrant has other meanings, and some of those are significant enough to warrant encyclopedia entries. For example Warrant is a central issue in the branch of philosophy called Epistemology. MRC.

Hi, Digital Sorceress. Nice to see another, *ahem* Massachusettsian. :) --DanKeshet

Hello. Sorry, I didn't know you were making the changes right then, I just saw that the pages were there and so moved them. No offense intended. Koyaanis Qatsi

No offense taken - I just couldn't keep up. For a minute, I thought someone was following me around, undoing my edits *grin* - Seriously though, I am curious about the implications there - I did not realize that subpages are out-of-favor with the powers-that-be *smirk* --DigitalSorceress

Well, they are with some people and not with others. Larry Sanger wrote a couple of essays against them (on Larry Sanger/Columns) that convinced me; before that I hadn't given it much thought at all (not being a philsopher). ;-) Lately he's created a few subpages himself, which is not in conflict with his position on articles, because the subpages he's created aren't articles.  I think everyone agrees that they're useful for meta-issues (pages about wikipedia and -pedians, /Talk pages, etc.)  Some people think that they impose a hierarchy on information that doesn't always hold true.  That's about where it stands.  I think debate about them has generally fallen off.  --KQ

title: User:DigitalSorceress


text:
Janet Gaynor

Janet Gaynor (born Laura Augusta Gainor; October 6, 1906 – September 14, 1984) was an American film, stage and television actress as well as an accomplished oil painter.

Gaynor began her career as an extra in shorts and silent films. After signing with Fox Film Corporation (later 20th Century-Fox) in 1926, she rose to fame and became one of the biggest box office draws of the era. In 1929, she became the first recipient of the Academy Award for Best Actress for her performances in three films: 7th Heaven (1927), Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans (1927) and Street Angel (1928). This was the only occasion an actress won one Oscar for multiple film roles. Gaynor's career success continued into the sound film era, and she achieved notable success in the original version of A Star Is Born (1937), for which she received a second Best Actress Academy Award nomination.

After retiring from acting in 1939, Gaynor married film costume designer Adrian, with whom she had a son. She briefly returned to acting in films and television in the 1950s and later became an accomplished oil painter. In 1980, Gaynor made her Broadway debut in the stage adaptation of the 1971 film Harold and Maude, and appeared in the touring theatrical production of On Golden Pond in February 1982.

On September 5, 1982, Gaynor was severely injured when a drunken driver, a former policeman, struck the taxicab in which she and two others were passengers. Gaynor managed to survive but subsequently died two years later due to health issues stemming from the injuries sustained in the accident.

Early life

Gaynor was born Laura Augusta Gainor (some sources stated Gainer) in Germantown, Philadelphia. Nicknamed "Lolly" as a child, she was the younger of two daughters born to Laura (Buhl) and Frank De Witt Gainor. Frank Gainor worked as a theatrical painter and paperhanger. When Gaynor was a toddler, her father began teaching her how to sing, dance, and perform acrobatics. As a child in Philadelphia, she began acting in school plays. After her parents divorced in 1914, Gaynor, her sister, and her mother moved to Chicago. Shortly thereafter, her mother married electrician Harry C. Jones. The family later moved to San Francisco.

After graduating from San Francisco Polytechnic High School in 1923, Gaynor spent the winter in Melbourne, Florida, where she did stage work. Upon returning to San Francisco, Gaynor, her mother, and stepfather moved to Los Angeles, where she could pursue an acting career. She was initially hesitant to do so and enrolled at Hollywood Secretarial School. She supported herself by working in a shoe store and later as a theatre usher. Her mother and stepfather continued to encourage her to become an actress and she began making the rounds to the studios (accompanied by her stepfather) to find film work.

Gaynor won her first professional acting job on December 26, 1924, as an extra in a Hal Roach comedy short. This led to more extra work in feature films and shorts for Film Booking Offices of America and Universal. Universal eventually hired her as a stock player for $50 a week. Six weeks after being hired by Universal, an executive at Fox Film Corporation offered her a screen test for a supporting role in the film The Johnstown Flood (1926). Her performance in the film caught the attention of Fox executives, who signed her to a five-year contract and began to cast her in leading roles. Later that year, Gaynor was selected as one of the WAMPAS Baby Stars (along with Joan Crawford, Dolores del Río, Mary Astor, and others).

Career

By 1927, Gaynor was one of Hollywood's leading ladies. Her image was that of a sweet, wholesome and pure young woman, who was notable for playing her roles with depth and sensitivity. Her performances in 7th Heaven, the first of 12 films she would make with actor Charles Farrell; Sunrise: A Song of Two Humans, directed by F. W. Murnau; and Street Angel, also with Charles Farrell, earned her the first Academy Award for Best Actress in 1929, when for the first and only time the award was granted for multiple roles, on the basis of total recent work rather than for one particular performance. This practice was prohibited three years later by a new Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences rule. Gaynor was not only the first actress to win the award, but at 22, was the youngest until 1986, when actress Marlee Matlin, 21, won for her role in Children of a Lesser God.

Gaynor was one of only a handful of established lead actresses who made a successful transition to sound films. In 1929, she was re-teamed with Charles Farrell (the pair was known as "America's favorite love birds") for the musical film Sunny Side Up. During the early 1930s, Gaynor was one of Fox's most popular actresses and one of Hollywood's biggest box-office draws. In 1931 and 1932, she and Marie Dressler were tied as the number-one draw at the box office. After Dressler's death in 1934, Gaynor held the top spot alone. She often was cited as a successor to Mary Pickford, and was cast in remakes of two Pickford films: Daddy Long Legs (1931) and Tess of the Storm Country (1932). Gaynor drew the line at a proposed remake of Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm, which she considered "too juvenile".

Gaynor continued to garner top billing for roles in State Fair (1933) with Will Rogers and The Farmer Takes a Wife (1935), which introduced Henry Fonda to the screen as Gaynor's leading man. However, when Darryl F. Zanuck merged his fledgling studio, Twentieth Century Pictures, with Fox Film Corporation to form 20th Century-Fox, her status became precarious, and even tertiary to those of burgeoning actresses Loretta Young and Shirley Temple. According to press reports at the time, Gaynor held out on signing with 20th Century-Fox until her salary was raised from $1,000 per week to $3,000. The studio quickly issued a statement denying that Gaynor was holding out for more money. She quietly signed a new contract, the terms of which were never made public. Gaynor received top billing above Constance Bennett, Loretta Young, and Tyrone Power in Ladies in Love (1937), but her box-office appeal had begun to wane: Once ranked number one, she had dropped to number 24. She considered retiring due to her frustration with studio executives, who continued to cast her in the same type of role that brought her fame, while audiences' tastes were changing. After 20th Century-Fox executives proposed that her contract be re-negotiated, and that she be demoted to featured player status, Gaynor left the studio, but her retirement plans were quashed when David O. Selznick offered her the leading role in a new film to be produced by his company, Selznick International Pictures. Selznick, who was friendly with Gaynor off-screen, was convinced that audiences would enjoy seeing her portray a character closer to her true personality. He believed that she possessed the perfect combination of humor, charm, vulnerability, and innocence for the role of aspiring actress Esther Blodgett (later Vicki Lester) in A Star Is Born. Gaynor accepted the role. The romantic drama was filmed in Technicolor, and co-starred Fredric March. Released in 1937, it was an enormous hit, and earned Gaynor her second Academy Award nomination for Best Actress; she lost to Luise Rainer for The Good Earth.

A Star Is Born revitalized Gaynor's career, and she was cast in the screwball comedy The Young in Heart (1938) with Paulette Goddard. That film was a modest hit, but by then, Gaynor had definitely decided to retire. She later explained: "I had been working steadily for 17 long years; making movies was really all I knew of life. I just wanted to have time to know other things. Most of all, I wanted to fall in love. I wanted to get married. I wanted a child. And I knew that in order to have these things, one had to make time for them. So, I simply stopped making movies. Then, as if by a miracle, everything I really wanted happened." At the top of the industry, she retired at age 33.

Later years
In August 1939, Gaynor married Hollywood costume designer Adrian, with whom she had a son in 1940. The couple divided their time between their 250-acre cattle ranch in Anápolis, Brazil, and their homes in New York and California. Both were also heavily involved in the fashion and arts community. Gaynor returned to acting in the early 1950s with appearances in live television series, including Medallion Theatre, Lux Video Theatre, and General Electric Theater. In 1957, she appeared in her final film role as Dick Sargent's mother in the musical comedy Bernardine, starring Pat Boone and Terry Moore. In November 1959, she made her stage debut in the play The Midnight Sun in New Haven, Connecticut. The play, which Gaynor later called "a disaster", was not well received and closed shortly after its debut.

Gaynor also became an accomplished oil painter of vegetable and flower still lifes. She sold over 200 paintings and had four showings under the Wally Findlay Galleries banner in New York, Chicago, and Palm Beach from 1975 to February 1982.

In 1980, Gaynor made her Broadway debut as Maude in the stage adaptation of the 1971 film Harold and Maude. She received good reviews for her performance, but the play was panned by critics and closed after 21 performances. Later that year, she reunited with her Servants' Entrance co-star Lew Ayres to film an episode of the anthology series The Love Boat. It was the first television appearance Gaynor had made since the 1950s and was her last screen role. In February 1982, she starred in the touring production of On Golden Pond. This was her final acting role.

Marriages and relationships
Gaynor was romantically involved with her friend and frequent co-star Charles Farrell during their work together in silent films until she married her first husband. Choosing to keep their relationship out of the public eye, Gaynor and Farrell were often assisted by a mutual friend Douglas Fairbanks Jr. in maintaining the ruse. Looking back, Fairbanks would later recall, "We three were so chummy that I became their 'beard,' the cover-up for their secret romance. I would drive them out to a little rundown, wooden house well south of Los Angeles, near the sea. I'd leave them there and go sailing or swimming until [it was] time to collect them and then we'd all have a bit of dinner."

According to Gaynor's biographer Sarah Baker, Farrell proposed marriage during the filming of Lucky Star, but the two never followed through with it. In her later years, Gaynor would hold their different personalities accountable for their eventual separation.

Gaynor was married three times and had one child. Her first marriage was to lawyer Jesse Lydell Peck, whom she married on September 11, 1929. Gaynor's attorney announced the couple's separation in late December 1932. She was granted a divorce on April 7, 1933. On August 14, 1939, she married MGM costume designer Adrian in Yuma, Arizona. This relationship has been called a lavender marriage because Adrian was openly gay within the film community, and Gaynor herself was rumored to be bisexual. The couple had one son, Robin Gaynor Adrian, born in 1940. Gaynor and Adrian remained married until Adrian's death from a stroke on September 13, 1959.

On December 24, 1964, Gaynor married her longtime friend, stage producer Paul Gregory, to whom she remained married until her death. The two maintained a home in Desert Hot Springs, California and owned 3,000 acres of land in Brazil, situated near Brasília.

Friendship with Margaret Lindsay
Margaret Lindsay and Gaynor appeared together in the film Paddy the Next Best Thing (1933). Lindsay and Gaynor often vacationed together for the next several years.

Friendship with Mary Martin
Gaynor and her husband traveled frequently with her close friend Mary Martin and her husband. A Brazilian press report noted that Gaynor and Martin briefly lived with their respective husbands in Anápolis, state of Goiás at a ranch (fazenda in Portuguese) in the 1950s and 1960s. Both houses remain intact as of 2021. There is a project by the Jan Magalinski Institute to restore their houses to create a Cinema Museum of Goiás.

Car wreck and eventual death

On the evening of September 5, 1982, Gaynor, her husband Paul Gregory, actress Mary Martin, and Martin's manager Ben Washer, en route to a Chinatown restaurant, were involved in a serious car wreck in San Francisco. A van ran a red light at the corner of California and Franklin Streets and crashed into the Luxor taxicab in which the group was riding, knocking it into a tree. Ben Washer was killed, Mary Martin sustained two broken ribs and a broken pelvis, and Gaynor's husband suffered two broken legs. Gaynor sustained several serious injuries, including 11 broken ribs, a fractured collarbone, pelvic fractures, a punctured lung, and injuries to her bladder and kidney. Robert Cato, the driver of the van, was arrested on two counts of felony drunk driving, reckless driving, speeding, running a red light, and vehicular homicide.

Cato, a former policeman, in the previous year, was charged with two felonies for using his car as a deadly weapon against a woman motorist, Mellicent Wauters, a dental assistant and amateur actress, with whom he'd argued over a parking spot. Cato had been placed on informal probation; subsequently, the charges had been dropped.

Cato pleaded not guilty and was later released on $10,000 bail. On March 15, 1983, he was found guilty of drunk driving and vehicular homicide and was sentenced to three years in prison.

As a result of her injuries, Gaynor was hospitalized for four months and underwent two surgeries to repair a perforated bladder and internal bleeding. She recovered sufficiently to return to her home in Desert Hot Springs, but continued to experience health issues due to the injuries and required frequent hospitalizations. Shortly before her death, she was hospitalized for pneumonia and other ailments. On September 14, 1984, Gaynor died at Desert Hospital in Palm Springs at the age of 77. Her doctor, Bart Apfelbaum, attributed her death to the 1982 car wreck and stated that Gaynor "never recovered" from her injuries. In September 1984, these injuries were officially ruled to have caused her death.

Gaynor is buried at Hollywood Forever Cemetery next to her second husband, Adrian. Her headstone reads "Janet Gaynor Gregory", her legal name after her marriage to her third husband, producer and director Paul Gregory.

Honors
For her contribution to the motion picture industry, Gaynor has a star on the Hollywood Walk of Fame at 6284 Hollywood Blvd.

On March 1, 1978, Howard W. Koch, then the president of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, presented Gaynor with a citation for her "truly immeasurable contribution to the art of motion pictures".

In 1979, Gaynor was awarded the Order of the Southern Cross for her cultural contributions to Brazil.

title: Janet Gaynor


text:
Natural capital

Natural capital is the world's stock of natural resources, which includes geology, soils, air, water and all living organisms. Some natural capital assets provide people with free goods and services, often called ecosystem services. All of these underpin our economy and society, and thus make human life possible.

It is an extension of the economic notion of capital (resources which enable the production of more resources) to goods and services provided by the natural environment. For example, a well-maintained forest or river may provide an indefinitely sustainable flow of new trees or fish, whereas over-use of those resources may lead to a permanent decline in timber availability or fish stocks. Natural capital also provides people with essential services, like water catchment, erosion control and crop pollination by insects, which in turn ensure the long-term viability of other natural resources. Since the continuous supply of services from the available natural capital assets is dependent upon a healthy, functioning environment, the structure and diversity of habitats and ecosystems are important components of natural capital. Methods, called 'natural capital asset checks', help decision-makers understand how changes in the current and future performance of natural capital assets will impact human well-being and the economy. Unpriced natural capital is what we refer to when businesses or individuals exploit or abuse nature without being held accountable, which can harm ecosystems and the environment.

History of the concept
The term 'natural capital' was first used in 1973 by E.F. Schumacher in his book Small Is Beautiful and was developed further by Herman Daly, Robert Costanza, and other founders of the science of Ecological Economics, as part of a comprehensive critique of the shortcomings of conventional economics. Natural capital is a concept central to economic assessment ecosystem services valuation which revolves around the idea, that non-human life produces goods and services that are essential to life. Thus, natural capital is essential to the sustainability of the economy.

In a traditional economic analysis of the factors of production, natural capital would usually be classified as "land" distinct from traditional "capital". The historical distinction between "land" and "capital" defined "land" as naturally occurring with a fixed supply, whereas "capital", as originally defined referred only to man-made goods. (e.g., Georgism ) It is, however, misleading to view "land" as if its productive capacity is fixed, because natural capital can be improved or degraded by the actions of man over time (see Environmental degradation). Moreover, natural capital yields benefits and goods, such as timber or food, which can be harvested by humans. These benefits are similar to those realized by owners of infrastructural capital which yields more goods, such as a factory that produces automobiles just as an apple tree produces apples.

Ecologists are teaming up with economists to measure and express values of the wealth of ecosystems as a way of finding solutions to the biodiversity crisis. Some researchers have attempted to place a dollar figure on ecosystem services such as the value that the Canadian boreal forest's contribution to global ecosystem services. If ecologically intact, the boreal forest has an estimated value of US$3.7 trillion. The boreal forest ecosystem is one of the planet's great atmospheric regulators and it stores more carbon than any other biome on the planet. The annual value for ecological services of the Boreal Forest is estimated at US$93.2 billion, or 2.5 greater than the annual value of resource extraction.

The economic value of 17 ecosystem services for the entire biosphere (calculated in 1997) has an estimated average value of US$33 trillion per year. These ecological economic values are not currently included in calculations of national income accounts, the GDP and they have no price attributes because they exist mostly outside of the global markets. The loss of natural capital continues to accelerate and goes undetected or ignored by mainstream monetary analysis.

Within the international community the basic principle is not controversial, although much uncertainty exists over how best to value different aspects of ecological health, natural capital and ecosystem services. Full-cost accounting, triple bottom line, measuring well-being and other proposals for accounting reform often include suggestions to measure an "ecological deficit" or "natural deficit" alongside a social and financial deficit. It is difficult to measure such a deficit without some agreement on methods of valuation and auditing of at least the global forms of natural capital (e.g. value of air, water, soil).

All uses of the term currently differentiate natural from man-made or infrastructural capital in some way. Indicators adopted by United Nations Environment Programme's World Conservation Monitoring Centre and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to measure natural biodiversity use the term in a slightly more specific way. According to the OECD, natural capital is "natural assets in their role of providing natural resource inputs and environmental services for economic production" and is "generally considered to comprise three principal categories: natural resources stocks, land, and ecosystems."

The concept of "natural capital" has also been used by the Biosphere 2 project, and the Natural Capitalism economic model of Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins, and Hunter Lovins. Recently, it has begun to be used by politicians, notably Ralph Nader, Paul Martin Jr., and agencies of the UK government, including its Natural Capital Committee and the London Health Observatory.

In Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution the author claims that the "next industrial revolution" depends on the espousal of four central strategies: "the conservation of resources through more effective manufacturing processes, the reuse of materials as found in natural systems, a change in values from quantity to quality, and investing in natural capital, or restoring and sustaining natural resources."

Natural capital declaration
In June 2012 a 'natural capital declaration' (NCD) was launched at the Rio+20 summit held in Brazil. An initiative of the global finance sector, it was signed by 40 CEOs to 'integrate natural capital considerations into loans, equity, fixed income and insurance products, as well as in accounting, disclosure and reporting frameworks.' They worked with supporting organisations to develop tools and metrics to integrate natural capital factors into existing business structures.

In summary, its four key aims are to:

 * Increase understanding of business dependency on natural capital assets;
 * Support development of tools to integrate natural capital considerations into the decision-making process of all financial products and services;
 * Help build a global consensus on integrating natural capital into private sector accounting and decision-making;
 * Encourage a consensus on integrated reporting to include natural capital as one of the key components of an organisation's success.

Natural Capital Protocol
In July 2016, the Natural Capital Coalition (now known as Capitals Coalition) released the Natural Capital Protocol. The Protocol provides a standardised framework for organisations to identify, measure and value their direct and indirect impacts and dependencies on natural capital. The Protocol harmonises existing tools and methodologies, and guides organisations towards the information they need to make strategic and operational decisions that include impacts and dependencies on natural capital.

The Protocol was developed in a unique collaboration between 38 organisations who signed voluntary, pre-competitive contracts. This collaboration was led by Mark Gough, who is now the CEO of the Capitals Coalition.

The Protocol is available on a creative commons license and is free for organisations to apply.

Internationally agreed standard
Environmental-economic accounts provide the conceptual framework for integrated statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy, including the impacts of the economy on the environment and the contribution of the environment to the economy. A coherent set of indicators and descriptive statistics can be derived from the accounts that inform a wide range of policies.

These include, but are not limited to:

 * Green economy/green growth
 * Natural resource management
 * Sustainable development

The System of Integrated Environmental and Economic Accounting (SEEA) contains the internationally agreed standard concepts, definitions, classifications, accounting rules and tables for producing internationally comparable statistics on the environment and its relationship with the economy. The SEEA is a flexible system in the sense that its implementation can be adapted to countries' specific situations and priorities. Coordination of the implementation of the SEEA and ongoing work on new methodological developments is managed and supervised by the UN Committee of Experts on Environmental-Economic Accounting (UNCEEA). The final, official version of the SEEA Central Framework was published in February 2014.

In March 2021, the United Nations Statistical Commission adopted the SEEA Ecosystem Accounting (SEEA EA) standard at its 52nd session. The SEEA EA is a statistical framework that provides a coherent accounting approach to the measurement of ecosystems. Ecosystem accounts enable the presentation of data and indicators of ecosystem extent, ecosystem condition, and ecosystem services in both physical and monetary terms in a spatially explicit way. Following its adoption, the Statistics Division of the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN DESA) in collaboration with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Basque Centre for Climate Change (BC3) released the ARIES for SEEA Explorer in April 2021, an artificial intelligence-powered tool based on the Artificial Intelligence for Environment and Sustainability (ARIES) platform for rapid, standardized and customizable natural capital accounting. The ARIES for SEEA Explorer was made available on the UN Global Platform in order to accelerate SEEA's implementation worldwide.

Private sector approaches
Some studies envisage a private sector natural capital 'ecosystem', including investors, assets and regulators.

Criticism
Whilst measuring the components of natural capital in any region is a relatively straightforward process, both the task and the rationale of putting a monetary valuation on them, or on the value of the goods and services they freely give us, has proved more contentious. Within the UK, Guardian columnist, George Monbiot, has been critical of the work of the government's Natural Capital Committee and of other attempts to place any sort of monetary value on natural capital assets, or on the free ecosystem services they provide us with. In a speech referring to a report to government which suggested that better protection of the UK's freshwater ecosystems would yield an enhancement in aesthetic value of £700m, he derided attempts 'to compare things which cannot be directly compared'. He went on to say: "These figures, ladies and gentlemen, are marmalade. They are finely shredded, boiled to a pulp, heavily sweetened ... and still indigestible. In other words they are total gibberish."

Others have defended efforts to integrate the valuation of natural capital into local and national economic decision-making, arguing that it puts the environment on a more balanced footing when weighed against other commercial pressures, and that 'valuation' of those assets is not the same as monetisation.

title: Natural capital


text:
User:The Cunctator/How to destroy Wikipedia

The below was written a while ago...

I'm sick and tired of being attacked by Larry, both verbally and by the deletion and erasure of my work. I'll probably leave Wikipedia soon.

And even though I tried really hard to demonstrate that this page was a semi-parodic act of hyperbolic dissent, the message hasn't seemed to sink through. I hope that the other people mentioned in the essay, namely the "cabalists" and Magnus Manske, understand that I wasn't trying to attack them personally, but simply raise what I still feel are important issues.

In particular, my respect for Jimbo Wales has only increased, from his response to this essay and his respectful (without being indulgent) handling of my concerns (though the GFDL sloppiness is really bad!).

I've removed the essay because, based on Larry's actions, and the emails he has sent to me, this seems to be the main justification for his continued animosity towards my person and my actions. This essay was, I believe, the only source of what a reasonable person could infer (though incorrectly) as being a hostile (or arrogantly destructive) attitude on my part towards Wikipedia.

Please look in the nostalgia wiki if you want to read the essay or copy it elsewhere. You can also look at user:The Cunctator/How to build Wikipedia for the rah-rah version of the essay.

I at least think that the discussion on this page is useful, and wouldn't presume to even partially delete the work of others by removing these links:

Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia, Screw with the GFDL Wikipedia commentary/Responses to How to Destroy Wikipedia

-- The Cunctator

I agree with your assessment. Jimbo Wales has been constructive recently in the Systemic Bias of Wikipedia debate. He has apparently some inability to perceive the way he leaps directly to Governing Ontological distinction from personal impression, but he knows that he shares such an ignorance with everyone else. He may believe that the wiki has no duty to anyone else due to claims to be an "encyclopedia" but that belief is based on his other belief that the NPOV is in fact some kind of special route to GOD - that things will become useful on their own through the contributions of all knowledge-holders in the world. Whereas, Larry Sanger appears prepared to leap directly from personal impressions, barely bothering to note his primary Governing Ontological distinction, and threaten immediately some Governing Operational distinction, i.e. IP bans, page reverts, witch burnings, etc.. My general impression is that Jimbo is an adult, Larry is a child, and the pathetic inability of Larry to comprehend the difference between ethics (the science of morality) and morality itself (one's inner core unshakeable aesthetic) renders him unsuitable to run a project of this kind.

Good riddance, I think, and I expect we'll get better from Jimbo Wales. Let us only hope!


text:
Clouded leopard

The clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa), also called mainland clouded leopard, is a wild cat inhabiting dense forests from the foothills of the Himalayas through Northeast India and Bhutan to mainland Southeast Asia into South China. It was first described in 1821 on the basis of a skin of an individual from China. The clouded leopard has large dusky-grey blotches and irregular spots and stripes reminiscent of clouds. Its head-and-body length ranges from 68.6 to 108 cm with a 61 to 91 cm long tail. It uses its tail for balancing when moving in trees and is able to climb down vertical tree trunks head first. It rests in trees during the day and hunts by night on the forest floor.

The clouded leopard is the sister taxon to other pantherine cats, having genetically diverged 9.32 to 4.47 million years ago. Today, the clouded leopard is locally extinct in Singapore, Taiwan, and possibly also in Hainan Island and Vietnam. The wild population is believed to be in decline with fewer than 10,000 adults and no more than 1,000 in each subpopulation. It has therefore been listed as Vulnerable on the IUCN Red List since 2008. The population is threatened by large–scale deforestation and commercial poaching for the wildlife trade. Its body parts are offered for decoration and clothing, though it is legally protected in most range countries.

The clouded leopard has been kept in zoological gardens since the early 20th century. Captive breeding programs were initiated in the 1980s. In captivity, the clouded leopard has an average lifespan of 11 years.

Taxonomy and phylogeny
Felis nebulosa was proposed by Edward Griffith in 1821 who first described a skin of a clouded leopard that was brought alive from Guangdong in China to the menagerie at Exeter Exchange in London. Felis macrosceloides proposed by Brian Houghton Hodgson in 1841 was a clouded leopard specimen from Nepal. Felis brachyura proposed by Robert Swinhoe in 1862 was a clouded leopard skin from Taiwan. The generic name Neofelis was proposed by John Edward Gray in 1867 who subordinated all three to this genus. At present, N. nebulosa is considered a monotypic species due to lack of evidence for subspeciation.

Felis diardi proposed by Georges Cuvier in 1823 was based on a clouded leopard skin from Java. It was considered a clouded leopard subspecies by Reginald Innes Pocock in 1917. In 2006, it was identified as a distinct Neofelis species, the Sunda clouded leopard. Populations in Taiwan and Hainan Island are considered to belong to the mainland clouded leopard.

Phylogeny
Skulls of clouded leopard and Panthera species were analysed morphologically in the 1960s. Results indicate that the clouded leopard forms an evolutionary link between the Pantherinae and the Felinae. Phylogenetic analysis of the nuclear DNA in tissue samples from all Felidae species revealed that the evolutionary radiation of the Felidae began in the Miocene around in Asia. Analysis of mitochondrial DNA of all Felidae species indicates a radiation at. The clouded leopard is the sister taxon to all other members of the Pantherinae, diverging, based on analysis of their nuclear DNA. The clouded leopard from mainland Asia reached Borneo and Sumatra via a now submerged land bridge probably during the Pleistocene, when populations became isolated during periods of global cooling and warming. Genetic analysis of hair samples of the clouded leopard and its sister species the Sunda clouded leopard (N. diardi) indicates that they diverged 2.0–0.93 million years ago.

Characteristics
The clouded leopard's fur is of a dark grey or ochreous ground-color, often largely obliterated by black and dark dusky-grey blotched pattern. There are black spots on the head, and the ears are black. Partly fused or broken-up stripes run from the corner of the eyes over the cheek, from the corner of the mouth to the neck, and along the nape to the shoulders. Elongated blotches continue down the spine and form a single median stripe on the loins. Two large blotches of dark dusky-grey hair on the side of the shoulders are each emphasized posteriorly by a dark stripe, which passes on to the foreleg and breaks up into irregular spots. The flanks are marked by dark dusky-grey irregular blotches bordered behind by long, oblique, irregularly curved or looped stripes. These blotches yielding the clouded pattern suggest the English name of the cat. The underparts and legs are spotted, and the tail is marked by large, irregular, paired spots. Its legs are short and stout, and paws broad. Females are slightly smaller than males.

Its hyoid bone is ossified, making it possible to purr. Its pupils contract into vertical slits. Irises are brownish yellow to grayish green. Melanistic clouded leopards are uncommon. It has rather short limbs compared to the other big cats. Its hind limbs are longer than its front limbs to allow for increased jumping and leaping capabilities. Its ulnae and radii are not fused, which also contributes to a greater range of motion when climbing trees and stalking prey. Clouded leopards weigh between 11.5 and 23 kg. Females vary in head-to-body length from 68.6 to 94 cm, with a tail 61 to 82 cm long. Males are larger at 81 to 108 cm with a tail 74 to 91 cm long. Its shoulder height varies from 50 to 55 cm.

Its skull is long and low with strong occipital and sagittal crests. The canine teeth are exceptionally long, the upper being about three times as long as the basal width of the socket. The first premolar is usually absent. The upper pair of canines measure 4 cm or longer. It has a bite force at the canine tip of 544.3 Newton and a bite force quotient at the canine tip of 122.4. The clouded leopard is often referred to as a "modern-day sabre-tooth" because it has the largest canines in proportion to its body size.

Distribution and habitat
The clouded leopard occurs from the Himalayan foothills in Nepal, Bhutan and India to Myanmar, southeastern Bangladesh, Thailand, Peninsular Malaysia and to south of the Yangtze River in China. It is locally extinct in Singapore and Taiwan.

Clouded leopards were found in Nepal in 1987 and 1988, having previously been presumed to be extinct in the country. Since then, the clouded leopard has been recorded in Shivapuri Nagarjun National Park and in Annapurna Conservation Area. Between 2014 and 2015, it was also recorded in Langtang National Park at an elevation range of 1823-3498 m.

In India, it occurs in the states of Sikkim, northern West Bengal, Tripura, Mizoram, Manipur, Assam, Nagaland and Arunachal Pradesh, as well as in the Meghalaya subtropical forests. In Pakke Tiger Reserve, a clouded leopard was photographed in semi-evergreen forest at an elevation of 144 m. In Sikkim, clouded leopards were photographed by camera traps at elevations of 2500 - 3720 m between April 2008 and May 2010 in the Khangchendzonga Biosphere Reserve. In Manas National Park, 16 individuals were recorded during a survey in November 2010 to February 2011. Between January 2013 and March 2018, clouded leopards were also recorded in Dampa Tiger Reserve, Eaglenest Wildlife Sanctuary and Singchung-Bugun Village Community Reserve, in Meghalaya's Nongkhyllem National Park and Balpakram-Baghmara landscape.

In Bhutan, it was recorded in Royal Manas National Park, Jigme Singye Wangchuck National Park, Phibsoo Wildlife Sanctuary, Jigme Dorji National Park, Phrumsengla National Park, Bumdeling Wildlife Sanctuary and several non-protected areas. In Bangladesh, it was recorded in Sangu Matamuhari in the Chittagong Hill Tracts in 2016. In Myanmar, it was recorded by camera traps for the first time in the hill forests of Karen State in 2015.

In Thailand, it inhabits relatively open, dry tropical forest in Huai Kha Khaeng Wildlife Sanctuary and closed-forest habitats in Khao Yai National Park. In Laos, it was recorded in Nam Et-Phou Louey National Protected Area in dry evergreen and semi-evergreen forests. In Cambodia, it was recorded in deciduous dipterocarp forest in Phnom Prich Wildlife Sanctuary between 2008 and 2009, and in Central Cardamom Mountains National Park, Southern Cardamom National Park, Botum Sakor National Park and Phnom Samkos Wildlife Sanctuary between 2012 and 2016. In Peninsular Malaysia, it was recorded in Taman Negara National Park, Ulu Muda Forest, Pasoh Forest Reserve, Belum-Temengor, Temengor Forest Reserve and in a few linkages between 2009 and 2015.

The last confirmed record of a Formosan clouded leopard dates to 1989, when the skin of a young individual was found in the Taroko National Park. It was not recorded during an extensive camera trapping survey conducted from 1997 to 2012 in more than 1,450 sites inside and outside Taiwanese protected areas.

Behaviour and ecology
The clouded leopard is a solitary cat. Early accounts depict it as a rare, secretive, arboreal, and nocturnal inhabitant of dense primary forest.

It is one of the most talented climbers among the cats. Captive clouded leopards have been observed to climb down vertical tree trunks head first, and hang on to branches with their hind paws bent around branchings of tree limbs. They are capable of supination and can hang down from branches only by bending their hind paws and their tail around them. They can jump up to 1.2 m high. They use trees as daytime rest sites, but also spend time on the ground when hunting at night. Captive clouded leopards have been observed to scent mark by spraying urine and rubbing their heads on prominent objects. Their vocalisations include a short high-pitched meow call, a loud crying call, both emitted when a cat is trying to locate another one over a long or short distance; they prusten and raise their muzzle when meeting each other in a friendly manner; when aggressive, they growl with a low-pitched sound and hiss with exposed teeth and wrinkled nose.

Radio-collared clouded leopards were foremost active by night but also showed crepuscular activity peaks. Clouded leopards recorded in northeast India were most active in the late evening after sunset.

Home ranges have only been estimated in Thailand: In 2016, clouded leopards were detected in the forest complex of Khlong Saeng Wildlife Sanctuary and Khao Sok National Park during camera trapping surveys; 15 individuals were identified in a core zone of 200 km2 with population density estimated at 5.06 individuals per 100 km2; but only 12 individuals were identified in an edge zone of 297 km2, which is more disturbed by humans, with density estimated at 3.13 individuals per 100 km2.
 * Four individuals were radio-collared in Phu Khieo Wildlife Sanctuary from April 2000 to February 2003. Home ranges of two females were 25.7 km2 and 22.9 km2, and of two males 29.7 km2 and 49.1 km2.
 * Two individuals were radio-collared during a study from 1997 to 1999 in the Khao Yai National Park. The home range of one female was 39.4 km2, of the one male 42 km2. Both individuals had a core area of 2.9 km2.

Hunting and diet
When hunting, the clouded leopard stalks its prey or waits for the prey to approach. After making and feeding on a kill, it usually retreats into trees to digest and rest. Its prey includes both arboreal and terrestrial vertebrates. Pocock presumed that it is adapted for preying upon herbivorous mammals of considerable bulk because of its powerful build, long canines and the deep penetration of its bites. In Thailand, clouded leopards have been observed preying on southern pig-tailed macaque (Macaca nemestrina), Indian hog deer (Axis porcinus), Bengal slow loris (Nycticebus bengalensis), Asiatic brush-tailed porcupine (Atherurus macrourus), Malayan pangolin (Manis javanica) and Berdmore's ground squirrel (Menetes berdmorei). Known prey species in China include barking deer (Muntiacus sp.) and pheasants. In northern Peninsular Malaysia, a male clouded leopard was photographed while carrying a binturong (Arctictis binturong) in its jaws.

Reproduction and life cycle
Both males and females average 26 months at first reproduction. The female is in estrus for about six days, with her estrous cycle lasting about 30 days. In the wild, mating usually occurs between December and March. The pair mates multiple times over the course of several days. The male grasps the female by the neck who responds with vocalization. Occasionally, he also bites her during courtship and is very aggressive during sexual encounters. Females can bear one litter each year. The male is not involved in raising the cubs.

The female gives birth to a litter of one to five, mostly three cubs, after a gestation period of 93 ± 6 days. Cubs are born with closed eyes and weigh from 140 to 280 g. Their spots are solid dark, rather than dark rings. Their eyes open after about 10 days. They are active within five weeks and fully weaned at around three months of age. They attain the adult coat pattern at around six months and become independent after around 10 months.

Captive clouded leopards have an average lifespan of 11 years. One individual has lived to be almost 17 years old.

The generation length of the clouded leopard is about seven years.

Threats
Clouded leopard require larger areas of intact forest than are present in many parts of their range. They are threatened by habitat loss following large–scale deforestation and commercial poaching for the wildlife trade. In Myanmar, 301 body parts of at least 279 clouded leopards, mostly skins and skeletons, were observed in four markets surveyed between 1991 and 2006, despite the protected status of clouded leopards in Myanmar. Some markets are located near Myanmar's borders with China and Thailand and are used to facilitate cross-border smuggling.

In Nepal, 27 cases of clouded leopard body parts were discovered between November 1988 and March 2020 in nine districts of the country, comprising at least 51 individual clouded leopards. In 17 of these cases, the poachers and traders were arrested.

Conservation
The clouded leopard is listed in CITES Appendix I. Hunting is banned in Bangladesh, China, India, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Taiwan, Thailand and Vietnam. These bans, however, are poorly enforced in India, Malaysia and Thailand.

In the United States, the clouded leopard is listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, prohibiting trade in live animals or body parts.

International Clouded Leopard Day is celebrated each year on 4 August since 2018 in zoos and conservation organizations all over the world.

In captivity
Clouded leopards have been kept in zoos since the early 20th century. The international studbook was initiated in the 1970s. Coordinated breeding programs were started in the 1980s and encompass the European Endangered Species Programme, the Species Survival Plan, and the Indian Conservation Breeding Programme. As of 2014, 64 institutions keep clouded leopards.

Early captive-breeding programs involving clouded leopards were not successful, largely due to ignorance of their courtship behaviour. Males have the reputation of being aggressive towards females. For breeding success, it has been deemed extremely important that male and female clouded leopards are compatible. Introducing pairs at a young age gives them opportunities to bond and breed successfully. Facilities breeding clouded leopards need to provide the female with a secluded, off-exhibit area. There has been some recent captive breeding success using artificial insemination with cubs successfully born in 1992, 2015 and 2017.

A study on morbidity and mortality rate of 271 captive clouded leopards across 44 zoos in Europe, Asia and Australia showed that 17% of them died because of respiratory disease, 12% due to maternal neglect and starvation, 10% from generalized infectious disease, 10% from digestive diseases, and 10% from trauma.

In March 2011, two breeding females at the Nashville Zoo at Grassmere gave birth to three cubs, which were raised by zookeepers. Each cub weighed 0.5 lb. In June 2011, two cubs were born at the Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium. The breeding pair was brought from the Khao Kheow Open Zoo in Thailand in an ongoing education and research exchange program. Four cubs were born at Nashville Zoo in 2012. In May 2015, four cubs were born in Point Defiance Zoo & Aquarium.

In culture
The clouded leopard is the state animal of the Indian state of Meghalaya. In the 1970s, the print of Rama Samaraweera's painting Clouded leopard was a best-seller in the US.

title: Clouded leopard