text:
Progesterone receptor

The progesterone receptor (PR), also known as NR3C3 or nuclear receptor subfamily 3, group C, member 3, is a protein found inside cells. It is activated by the steroid hormone progesterone.

In humans, PR is encoded by a single PGR gene residing on chromosome 11q22, it has two isoforms, PR-A and PR-B, that differ in their molecular weight. The PR-B is the positive regulator of the effects of progesterone, while PR-A serve to antagonize the effects of PR-B.

Mechanism
Progesterone is necessary to induce activation of the progesterone receptors. When no binding hormone is present the carboxyl terminal inhibits transcription. Binding to a hormone induces a structural change that removes the inhibitory action. Progesterone antagonists prevent the structural reconfiguration.

After progesterone binds to the receptor, restructuring with dimerization follows and the complex enters the nucleus and binds to DNA. There transcription takes place, resulting in formation of messenger RNA that is translated by ribosomes to produce specific proteins.

Structure
In common with other steroid receptors, the progesterone receptor has a N-terminal regulatory domain, a DNA binding domain, a hinge section, and a C-terminal ligand binding domain. A special transcription activation function (TAF), called TAF3, is present in the progesterone receptor-B, in a B-upstream segment (BUS) at the amino acid terminal. This segment is not present in the receptor-A.

Isoforms
As demonstrated in progesterone receptor-deficient mice, the physiological effects of progesterone depend completely on the presence of the human progesterone receptor (hPR), a member of the steroid-receptor superfamily of nuclear receptors. The single-copy human (hPR) gene uses separate promoters and translational start sites to produce two isoforms, hPR-A and -B, which are identical except for an additional 165 amino acids present only in the N terminus of hPR-B. Although hPR-B shares many important structural domains with hPR-A, they are in fact two functionally distinct transcription factors, mediating their own response genes and physiological effects with little overlap. Selective ablation of PR-A in a mouse model, resulting in exclusive production of PR-B, unexpectedly revealed that PR-B contributes to, rather than inhibits, epithelial cell proliferation both in response to estrogen alone and in the presence of progesterone and estrogen. These results suggest that in the uterus, the PR-A isoform is necessary to oppose estrogen-induced proliferation as well as PR-B-dependent proliferation.

Functional polymorphisms
Six variable sites, including four polymorphisms and five common haplotypes have been identified in the human PR gene. One promoter region polymorphism, +331G/A, creates a unique transcription start site. Biochemical assays showed that the +331G/A polymorphism increases transcription of the PR gene, favoring production of hPR-B in an Ishikawa endometrial cancer cell line.

Several studies have now shown no association between progesterone receptor gene +331G/A polymorphisms and breast or endometrial cancers. However, these follow-up studies lacked the sample size and statistical power to make any definitive conclusions, due to the rarity of the +331A SNP. It is currently unknown which if any polymorphisms in this receptor are of significance to cancer. A study of 21 non-European populations identified two markers within the PROGINS haplotype of the PR gene as positively correlated with ovarian and breast cancer.

Development
Knockout mice of the PR have been found to have severely impaired lobuloalveolar development of the mammary glands as well as delayed but otherwise normal mammary ductal development at puberty.

Behavior
During rodent perinatal life, progesterone receptor (PR) is known to be transiently expressed in both the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) of the mesocortical dopaminergic pathway. PR activity during this time period impacts the development of dopaminergic innervation of the mPFC from the VTA. If PR activity is altered, a change in dopaminergic innervation of the mPFC is seen and tyrosine hydroxylase (TH), the rate-limiting enzyme for dopamine synthesis, in the VTA will also be impacted. TH expression in this area is an indicator of dopaminergic activity, which is believed to be involved in normal and critical development of complex cognitive behaviors that are mediated by the mesocortical dopaminergic pathway, such as working memory, attention, behavioral inhibition, and cognitive flexibility.

Research has shown that when a PR antagonist, such as RU 486, is administered to rats during the neonatal period, decreased tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactive (TH-ir) cells density, a strong co-expresser with PR-immunoreactivity (PR-ir), is seen in the mPFC of juvenile rodents. Later on, in adulthood, decreased levels of TH-ir in the VTA are also shown. This alteration in TH-ir fiber expression, an indicator of altered dopaminergic activity resulting from neonatal PR antagonist administration, has been shown to impair later performance on tasks that measure behavioral inhibition and impulsivity, as well as cognitive flexibility in adulthood. Similar cognitive flexibility impairments were also seen in PR knockout mice as a result of reduced dopaminergic activity in the VTA.

Conversely, when a PR agonist, such as 17α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate, is administered to rodents during perinatal life, as the mesocortical dopaminergic pathway is developing, dopaminergic innervation of the mPFC increases. As a result, TH-ir fiber density also increases. Interestingly, this increase in TH-ir fibers and dopaminergic activity is also linked to impaired cognitive flexibility with increased perseveration later on in life.

In combination, these findings suggest that PR expression during early development impact later cognitive functioning in rodents. Furthermore, it appears as though abnormal levels of PR activity during this critical period of mesocortical dopaminergic pathway development may have profound effects on specific behavioral neural circuits involved in the formation of later complex cognitive behavior.

Agonists

 * Endogenous progestogens (e.g., progesterone)
 * Synthetic progestogens (e.g., norethisterone, levonorgestrel, medroxyprogesterone acetate, megestrol acetate, dydrogesterone, drospirenone)

Mixed

 * Selective progesterone receptor modulators (e.g., ulipristal acetate, telapristone acetate, vilaprisan, asoprisnil, asoprisnil ecamate)

Antagonists

 * Antiprogestogens (e.g., mifepristone, aglepristone, onapristone, lonaprisan, lilopristone, toripristone)

Interactions
Progesterone receptor has been shown to interact with:
 * KLF9,
 * Nuclear receptor co-repressor 2, and
 * UBE3A.

title: Progesterone receptor


text:
User talk:VegettoEX

It's been a far time since, but thanks...
... for contributing to the Coola article. Having spent *considerable* time overhauling that page (synopsis and story were... well, fairly damned abominable), I was surprised to see you lend a hand yourself, chiefly because I used your revamp on Tullece as my base. I thought of using the Dragon Ball daizenshuu gifs of Coola from Daizex in my original edit, but thought that'd be akin to stealing your layout. 'Course, you providing them made things THAT MUCH easier.

One thing of note though - I had wanted to give the names of Coola's cronies and any puns behind them, but unfortunately I'm lacking when it comes to translations. Any way of adding these - if any - to Coola's page?

Thanks again for your help in improving the article. Papacha 08:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Eep. Managed to download episode #0007 of the podcast, I'll see what I can glean from it, though I can't promise anything quite as in-depth. So your assistance would probably still be very kosher. At least I've got grounds for a start. Papacha 11:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Yo~
Thanks so much for enjoying the site and such :). I've gone in and thrown the henchmen section in the Coola page.  I'm not sure about its placement on the page; it makes sense to me to include it below Coola's own name pun, but it's weird having it ABOVE the movies they're in... but it still feels like it's the most appropriate space for it.  I'm not married to it, but my suggestion is probably to keep it where it is.

Thanks for being so great with regards to the Zarbon nonsense, too!

Nice work
Zarbon... Y'know they say taste is relative, but I swear that guy's is inbred. Sheesh. Anyway, I merged what I had in my revamp to what you had added previously in the article, and I think it came out nicely. I agree it looks a bit off where it sits now too, but yeah, it's the most rightful place. Hopping to the next villain I've started overhauling Garlic Jr., 'cause goodness knows not many a fanboy is touchin' *that* place. Oy.

Thanks for the romanizations and Japanese characters; I'd of been at a loss without them. Papacha 14:08, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Coola reverts
Went ahead and changed it back. User w/ the same IP made his own special adjustments to the Tullece page as well, also taken care of for the time being.

Ai-friggin'-yah. Papacha 09:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And not that this'll change anything, but...
Is there anything in the daizenshuu about the linearity of Freeza and his family's power structure? More of a podcast question, but dude, myself and others are going round-and-round with Zarbon on Freeza Family Tree on the issue, and while some of the more rampant silliness has been stunted (Broli is a member of Freeza's army!) the rest is for naught. He being the article's creator only makes editing more of a chore.

They'd probably be prey to a roll-back, but I'm interested to know, because as far as I know Toriyama and Toei never really dove into the subject. Papacha 10:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you don't sign on that much
But it's worth a shot. Third opinions are wanted from various contibuting editors to DragonBall articles to receive help and third opinion on a dispute between Zarbon and myself on the List of Frieza Related Characters in Dragon Ball. And lucky, lucky, you just so happen to be one, and an authority at that. ^_^ Any input/discussion on the matter would be greatly appreciated. Papacha 15:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Clearing out vandals
Thanks for removing part of the kiddy vandalism, but I had to do another revert over your own to reintroduce a lost section back into the article. Just wanted you to know the reason why. Voice of Treason 00:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Links
I noticed you provide direct links to your site's homepage within articles and in the External Links sections. You shouldn't do that anymore, and remove the ones you placed. Wikipedia is not a place to promote your own personal site. If you want to use it for reference, link directly to the page that has the reference. Not the homepage.-- Koji Dude  03:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yo. I don't add links to my site. Other people do. I'm not about to remove it if someone else put it there, and I'm certainly not going anywhere and adding my own site in any article what-so-ever. I'm somewhat offended that you'd even think that; Daizenshuu EX is well above that kind of petty nonsense. VegettoEX 20:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * If what you say is true, then explain this edit I reverted. Also, all of the articles on the list on your userpage coincidently had a link to your homepage somewhere in there. I'm just saying, I had every right to assume it was you, and I didn't intend to offend you.-- Koji Dude  05:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please do the research before making the assumptions. Go back further in the revision history for that page. The link was already there. I just edited around it. Apparently someone found my site of enough authority that they wanted to cite it, so I left that in and just wrote around it.  The reason I edit ANY pages here is generally because I follow a link to it from my web referrals, and I see grossly inaccurate information. I can tell you that I did link my site on the Super Dragonball Z page (a link you removed), where I was directly citing some piece of specific information; you'll see the citation in the article in addition to the bottom of the page (that's why it's a reference, and not a normal external link). And then you've got cases like the Freeza article, which I've never touched in my life, and you still decided to remove it. I understand the reasonings on that one, but I fail to understand why you didn't just edit it to what you're literally typing right there on the page that it should be edited to. It seems like a very unfocused and unresearched personal attack.  Again, I can understand your logical reasonings behind it, but I'm flabbergasted as to why you didn't just look further back in the revision histories... Let me know if you need anything else. Cheers.VegettoEX 7:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

 * It wasn't a personal attack, it was a notice. I didn't go that far into the history because, as you can see, it was 3:47 in the morning. I apologize for making assumptions, but I'm greatly offended that you would consider following Wikipedia policy a personal attack.-- Koji Dude  19:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I was only verging on considering it a personal attack because, and consider this from my perspective, every page that contained a link to my site that other people had put the citation for was being removed. I'm glad all is well, and I hope that looking through my contributions, you can see I have more than every well-meaning intention in the fandom of DB, and have so for years upon years. VegettoEX 18:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Um... sir?
I hope that rant on my discussion page was directed toward SilentRage and not myself, as I never said anything about you. In fact, to quote Mr. Rage's own discussion page, "I actually don't listen to podcasts, nor care what people say about me". The S 15:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. I was literally saying to myself "Jesus Christ... why do I get dragged into every feud related to Daizenshuu EX?" The S 23:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And here we go again
Oh joy - another move request. Logic isn't enough apparently.

Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball)

-- DesireCampbell 03:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

 * Oh...heheh, Desire beat me to it. Yeah, we need your voice over there. Onikage725 07:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I've always wanted to know something
I love your website Daizenshuu Ex a lot and one thing I've always wanted to find out: What was Akira Toriyama's original ending to the Dragon Ball series exactly? Was it just that the master plan by Kami-sama and King Kai to revive the Nameks and Vegeta with Earth's Dragonballs to fail and no one (not even Vegeta) would be brought back to life? Or was it just that everyone killed by Freeza would be revived with the balls, then be brought to Earth (all same stuff) except Goku would be gone forever and not land on Yaardrat? I really, really wanna know Toriyama's original ending. Answer me A.S.A.P. Thanks! PL(DB) 07:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Coola sparking.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Coola sparking.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:16, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Sparking jp box.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Sparking jp box.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Jay32183 04:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Piririn.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Piririn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 02:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spdbz char select.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spdbz char select.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spdbz cover jp.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spdbz cover jp.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spdbz loading.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spdbz loading.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spdbz logo.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Spdbz logo.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sparking jp box.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Sparking jp box.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sparking jp box.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Sparking jp box.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

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

title: User talk:VegettoEX


text:
Talk:Animal communication

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2020 and 18 November 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SophiaR20.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
The human/animal cognition section needs fixing. I suggest mention of Brian Hare's work on shuman cocial cue reading in primates and dogs. I deleted the human/animal telepathy edit by 86.129.206.167.

The definition of the term "animal communication" (first sentence) is way too broad. The way it currently stands, it would include almost every form of physical interaction between animals - intentional and non-intentional, including parasitism, predation, copulation, etc. 84.52.177.91 09:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Ant scent trails
Mention ant scent trails.Jidanni 00:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

 * ✅ -- Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of the dolphin name/call paragraph.
Please accept my apologies for not having commented earlier; I meant to do so but forgot. :-) I'll be back later with proper cites, but the short version is that the press stories almost uniformly mis characterized the study, conflating distinct calls for members of the group (which are interesting enough as it is, since to date mostly primates seemed to have had them) with proper names which would be something very notable indeed.  The distinction between using a call (vocatively) or a name (referentially) is slightly subtle, but critical as far as cognition goes.

At any rate, the press coverage of the study was universally bungled (as "science" reporting almost unfailingly does). While the study itself is probably interesting and notable enough to mention, the hash popular press made of it isn't. I'll see next week if I can access that study from my university library subscription for proper cites. — Coren (talk) 01:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I would suggest that popular press "news" on science topics always be viewed with suspicion as sources for a statement in a scientific article-- my experience is that when the research isn't willfully mischaracterized into nonsense for the sake of a "good story", it's still so distorted that it becomes so wrong one can't even believe the opposite of what's written. :-) — Coren (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, even better. Strike one for truly open science: the paper is available online! I'll be re-adding the paragraph, now, properly tempered by what it actually says. :-) — Coren (talk) 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

There we go. That's a far cry from the press clippings! :-) It's still very interesting, however, and I can't wait for the results of follow-up research.  — Coren (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

 * Excellent work! FT2 (Talk 09:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Section reorganization (almost no textual change)
I've regrouped the sections as follows:

Beforehand, the article plunged into interspecies/intraspecies. Only it covered interspecies first, the actual background on communication being included within intraspecies. A better layout for the article would be: I have made virtually no textual changes other than reorganize the sections as above. The "intraspecies" section now needs enlarging with actual information specific to intraspecies communication, rather than being used as general background on animal communication in general (as it was before). I've tagged it as "sectstub" for this purpose.
 * 1) General sections on communication - form, function and interpretation
 * 2) Intra (first as its more developed and studied) then intra-species communication
 * 3) Other aspects (evolution, linguistics, cognitive aspects)

FT2 (Talk 13:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Sebeok
Shouldn't this article say something about Thomas Sebeok since he coined the term "Zoosemiotics" and really pioneered animal communication studies?--98percenthuman 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

 * Still not done. Is this important? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:23, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Too much gulls
The forms of comunication lacks information of body part, which is the most important, and describes too much about the Herring Gull, which I think it's not good as body language description since it seems to be way too complex and is a reaction due to colours, not fully body language. Position of cats' ears and tail seems to be a better example to body language explanation. (I have some source if needed) Or I'll edit it later... (CyberTigerrr (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC))
 * I think there's so much about the herring gull because of it's historic role in the study of animal communication. Nikolaas Tinbergen's research on communication in gulls is mentioned in the Nobel Prize press release.  I know of no research of anything like a similar impact conducted on cats. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be tempted to agree with CyberTigerrr here; while the scientific relevance of the gulls is indisputable, as an introductory/summary text a bit more prose relating to animals more familiar to the readers would probably also be a good thing. There are good bits in Dog communication, for instance, that could stand a bit of summarizing and would be good in this article.  — Coren (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Something's missing(?)
I don't know if I'm too far forward, but what I sense may be missing in the article are: What's hinted in the article is metacommunication, the ability to surpress, feign and otherwise willedly control the communication by "tactical" reasoning, but it should be stressed more in order to make connexions toward human language.  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) the structure of warning calls: threat-type / direction,
 * 2) the same structure of collective food calls and food communication: honey-bee direction / distance / amount,
 * 3) the imitation gesture behaviors of primates, and the sound imitations of singing birds, purposes and connection to idea communication,

 * Stupid Rursus!! That info is already there, you just should read before opinionating!  Said: Rursus   ☻   06:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

qqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqqq????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.40.118.201 (talk) 08:33, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is horribly written and structured. Also, it does not contain many facts, just interpretation... two thumbs down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.76.19.162 (talk) 19:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

ZOOSEMITICS??? What is that, a slur? Change it to zoosemiotics, please! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.234.75.111 (talk) 04:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for restructure
In the Animal language discussion a user suggested we restructure these two pages and I wanted to post my suggestions how how that might happen here, as well as over there.

Taking from Marnat27s suggestion on the moving of the animal communication section to animal language brings up the question of what should go in animal language and what should go into animal communication? After much thought about this I suggest that if we take Derek Bickertons argument to heart and accept his definition that, "Animal communication is innate, language has to be learned" (p.217 Bickerton Adams tongue) speaking to the difference between communication and language we can clearly separate the two and more easily delegate what information belongs in each section

If we accept that the difference between communication and language is that one must be taught and the other is natural then we can section off the animal communication page to be dedicated entirely to list the different established animal communication systems that would logically seem innate Bird calls, bee dances, ant pheromone trails ect. While it’s quite difficult to determine what part of the communication animals do is learned and which is innate but we’ll have to use our best judgment and base our findings on research done in the field. We can also keep the breakdown of intraspecies and interspecies communication along with the different forms, physical, pheromone, dance, ect.

While the Animal language section can be dedicated to the modeling of human language systems with the established ACSs, discussing how these systems have been studied to relation to aspects of our own language, bee dance showing signs of displacement, apes like koko using arbitrariness in her signs by using words that sound like or rhyme to mean other things. Sections for taught language should also be here, not only humans teaching apes sign but also taught things that occur in nature. Perhaps we could also speak to the difference between language and communication here, rather than the communication page.

Odd statement
This is weird (as well as being structurally flawed as a sentence):

 * "Other than a few natural expressions animals (especially dogs) use to communicate to humans, scientists in general do not pursue expanding the expressive/productive communication of domesticated animals. Horses are taught to not communicate (for safety)."

Surely any possibility of expansion of communication with animals is of paramount interest to scientists working in this field. Why on earth would they choose not to pursue any avenue? The horse thing is weird too... 109.153.234.112 (talk) 03:18, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Is the definition of Animal Communication correct?
I was just about to start writing a section on communication by visual means, e.g. colour changes caused by physiological cycles to indicate reproductive status, when I realised this is not strictly a behaviour, and therefore is not covered by the opening sentence (definition) of this article. I propose that the opening sentence should be changed to
 * Animal communication is any transfer of information on the part of one animal that has an effect on the current or future behaviour of another animal.

This would also be more consistent with the definition given in the Communication article - "Communication (from Latin "communis", meaning to share) is the activity of conveying information through the exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, visuals, signals, writing, or behavior." __DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Good change!  Lova Falk     talk   15:14, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I will be bold and make the edit__DrChrissy (talk) 20:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Reviving this thread... The current definition in the lede is too broad with regard to the nature of communication: "Animal communication is the transfer of information from one or a group of animals (sender or senders) to one or more other animals (receiver or receivers) that affects the current or future behavior of the receivers." This varies little from the term "sensing" and is virtually synonymous with "perception." Communication involves meaning, signs, symbols or, purposeful (not necessarily intentional) behaviour of the sender. Perception by a predator animal of incidental emissions falls short. If a predator intercepts a communication of a prey animal, that's still communication, however, if the predator merely senses or perceives incidental reflections of light emissions from an animal that is not communicating, that's not communication.  Sparkie82 ( t • c ) 20:43, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Fear / Edit request
The question came up in Talk:Fear: Do "animals and humans emit some particular chemical when frightened, and then other ones of the same type can detect it and smell it"? I checked this page to see if anything was written about it, but it isn't. Now I don't know the first thing about this, if there is some truth in it or if it is a myth. But maybe one of you knows? In that case, could you add some text about it? Lova Falk    talk   08:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have always believed that stinging insects such as bees and wasps can smell 'fear' in humans and are attracted to this, however, I have not looked into the literature to see if this can be verified. Dogs can be trained to detect cancer in humans by smelling, so they are extremely sensitive to smells emitted by us.  The fight-or-flight response involves the release of adrenaline in mammals, I guess it is possible this may be emitted as a smell, perhaps detectable by other species.  Research on animals being killed in slaughter plants has failed to confirm that animals can "smell fear".  This aspect of pheromones would be an interesting addition to the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Other aspects - Evolution ... 'Runaway Selection'
The last paragraph of this section is misleading, confused, inaccurate, and poorly written (in contrast to the rest of the section, as far as I can tell). It does a poor job of introducing and distinguishing ideas ("runaway selection," "good genes," and "handicap" hypotheses of sexual selection) that are much better explained in other Wikipedia articles. In my opinion, this paragraph should be entirely deleted. I've provided suggestions for links to (better) Wikipedia articles that readers could be redirected to, instead.

"Runaway selection" in this context refers to the development of a linkage disequilibrium between sender and receiver traits (e.g., male and female). The positive feedback loop that results in the "runaway" evolution of traits is the self-reinforcing association between female preference and male trait: female preference for exaggerated male traits will select for exaggerated male traits, but it will also select for continued female preference for exaggerated traits because a female's fitness depends in part of having sons that other females will find attractive (as well as daughters that will have grandsons that other females find attractive). The muddled explanation offered by the current paragraph ("Exploiting the psychology of the female, a positive feedback loop is enacted and the tail becomes bigger and brighter") in no way explains what runaway selection is, or how it works. Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisherian_runaway

"Good genes" and "handicap"-type sexual selection mechanisms are expected to eventually lead to linkage disequilibrium-based "runaway selection", but are neither necessary, nor sufficient factors. In theory, "runaway selection" can act upon a male trait that offers no genetic or honest indicator-type benefits to a female. Furthermore, other sources of selection for male-female coevolution (for example, sexual conflict selecting for coevolution of male persistence and female resistance), or any sort of assortative mating between males and females are also expected to lead to linkage disequilibrium and "runaway selection." Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexy_son_hypothesis

The "good genes" and "handicap" hypotheses of sexual selection are closely related, and definitely not mutually exclusive (I would argue that the "handicap" hypothesis is actually a very subtle subcategory of "good genes"-type hypotheses). The way in which the current article pits these two hypotheses against one another is, again, misleading. The article explains that, under the "handicap" hypothesis, "the individual is able to survive, even though its genes are not as good per se." In fact, the "handicap" hypothesis states that the male's overall genetic quality is very good, so good that he is able to survive, mate, etc... despite the "handicap." That is what makes the "handicap" an honest display. Both the "good genes" and the "handicap" hypotheses postulate that male signals are honest signals of genetic quality. The article continues to confuse things by attributing these two characteristics only to the "good genes" hypothesis. Suggested alternate Wikipedia article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_principle

Finally, because this is an article on a science topic, I take issue with the incorrect use of "theory" in this paragraph where "hypothesis" would be a much more appropriate term.

I won't even get started on the poor grammar.

174.6.89.149 (talk) 01:24, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hear, here. But thanks for all the work herein. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing in good faith
My intentions are not to be contentious. I edit for clarity and brevity and thought I could correct some run-on sentences and confusing grammar. Are you suggesting that I need to run my edits past this talk page before I make them? Best regards,
 *  Bfpage |leave a message 20:57, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

 * You say your intentions are not to be contentious, yet your actions are clearly designed to be otherwise. You are going to a number of high level articles, some long established, and changing key definitions in the lead without seeking consensus on the talk page. Now it may be you are a foremost world authority in all these areas, and feel you are entitled to behave that way. But in general, the edits you have made suggest that you have little familiarity with the fields you edit so confidently. As has been mentioned to you before, there is a big difference between edits that improve clarity and brevity, and edits that remove important nuance. You need to have some background in a topic area to know if you are removing nuance. Your edits on this particular article so far may not been particularly problematic, since this article needs more work. But they have certainly been problematic on other articles. So far, as far as I am aware, when challenged you have stopped nowhere to discuss in a collegial way what you are doing. You just move imperiously on, creating new problems and suggesting that people who care about these articles and try and divert you have ownership problems. Yes, I would agree that, unless you are absolutely clear you are merely breaking up long sentences and clarifying confusing grammar, you run your edits past the talk page. Particularly if you are editing the lead. And most particularly if you are editing the very first sentence in a substantial and long-established article on which you have had no previous input. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:01, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Readability test results
I analyzed the readability of the first two paragraphs of the article. The article is overly complicated and difficult to read according to multiple readability tests:

It is found here:

This online software tool calculates readability : Coleman Liau index, Flesch Kincaid Grade Level, ARI (Automated Readability Index), SMOG. The measure of readability used here is the indication of number of years of education that a person needs to be able to understand the text easily on the first reading. This tool is made primarily for English texts but might work also for some other languages. In general, these tests penalize writers for polysyllabic words and long, complex sentences. Your writing will score better when you: use simpler diction, write short sentences.

It also displays complicated sentences (with many words and syllables) with suggestions for what you might do to improve its readability.
 * Number of characters (without spaces) 1,319.00
 * Number of words 261.00
 * Number of sentences 16.00
 * Average number of characters per word 5.05
 * Average number of syllables per word 1.83
 * Average number of words per sentence 16.31
 * Indication of the number of years of formal education that a person requires in order to easily understand the text on the first reading - Gunning Fog index 16.18
 * Approximate representation of the U.S. grade level needed to comprehend the text - Coleman Liau index 12.13
 * Flesch Kincaid Grade level - 12.38
 * ARI (Automated Readability Index) - 10.53
 * SMOG - 14.54

 Bfpage |leave a message 23:19, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

IR communication
An editor has recently removed the section on infra red (IR) communication. I do not see a difference between animals hunting prey using sight, sound or another "mainstream" sense, and snakes using IR to hunt mice. It still fits our definition of "communication". I believe it should remain in the article. DrChrissy (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we should look up what sources are saying. None of the provided sources (Kardong & Mackessy 1991, Krochmal et al. 2004, Pough et al. 1992 and Gracheva et al. 2010) uses the term "communication". Instead they are using terms such as "detection" or "sensing". --22merlin (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

 * Please stop edit warring, 22merlin. You do not have the consensus you seem to be claiming. The section is in line with the definition used in the lead to the article. If you want to dispute the matter further then you need to dispute that definition, and see if you can provide a more plausible alternative definition supported with appropriate reliable sources. --Epipelagic (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Animal communication. 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/20130308094334/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/two-faced-fish-tricks-competitor.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2012/07/two-faced-fish-tricks-competitor.html

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) 08:06, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

British or US-English?
This article has become a mixture of British and US-English. I think we need consistency. I seem to remember reading somewhere that if the version to be used is unclear, we should use the version of the original article. The original article is British-English. Rather than making sweeping changes which might be seen as aggressive editing, I thought I would come here first to try and get consensus. DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You don't need consensus. The original version of the article was clearly in British English. That's an excellent lead image, btw. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that I will go ahead and make the changes. Thanks also for the comment on the lead image - I really enjoyed finding that rather than the standard peacock type image. DrChrissy (talk) 20:55, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

It's been four years and the article remains about half US English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.251.193.182 (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a short article about eye pinning in parrots
Take a look a eye pinning. It's a form of nonverbal communication that parrots use. Would this be suitable for inclusion in this article somewhere? --Iloveparrots (talk) 00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: First Year English Composition 1001
— Assignment last updated by Ucblueashmorgan (talk) 18:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Animal communication


text:
Thomason Collection of Civil War Tracts

The Thomason Collection of Civil War Tracts consists of more than 22,000 pamphlets, broadsides, manuscripts, books, and news sheets, most of which were printed and distributed in London from 1640 to 1661. The collection represents a major primary source for the political, religious, military, and social history of England during the final years of the reign of King Charles I, the English Civil War, the Interregnum, and the English Restoration of King Charles II. It is now held in the British Library.

Compilation of the collection
Bookseller and publisher George Thomason (died 1666), who maintained a shop in the churchyard of St. Paul's Cathedral in London, methodically collected and preserved the works over two decades. The tracts consist of a broad range of writings, including sermons, songs, political speeches, debates, opinions, jokes, gossip, news reports, descriptions of the trial and execution of Charles I, accounts of Civil War battles, reports from Parliament, and several regularly appearing publications that historians consider the forebears of modern newspapers. Thomason's collection represents approximately 80 percent of the published works released in England during this period.

Thomason frequently made handwritten annotations on the tracts, providing such information as publication dates and the authorship of anonymous works. During the turbulent years of the Civil War and the Protectorate of Oliver Cromwell Thomason reputedly moved the collection several times to protect the more controversial works from destruction by government or opposition censors.

History of the collection
Thomason appears to have entrusted the collection to the care of Thomas Barlow, provost of The Queen's College and former librarian of the Bodleian Library at the University of Oxford, and a future Bishop of Lincoln. Between 1660 and 1664 Barlow offered the tracts, together with two copies of a manuscript catalogue to the university for £4,000 but the sale was not agreed. Thomason remained hopeful that they would be sold, and in his will dated 1664, he charged his three executors (Barlow, Thomas Lockey, and John Rushworth) with selling the collection to the University on behalf of his children.

After Thomason's death in April 1666, the negotiations fell through and the collection remained in Barlow's hands, until they were acquired about 1677–1679 by the bookbinder Samuel Mearne on behalf of the Royal Library at the Palace of Whitehall. Mearne rebound the tract volumes in a uniform manner but was never paid for his work and so retained the collection. Eventually Mearne's widow sought and obtained the permission of the Privy Council in May 1684 to dispose of them on her family's behalf. Over the next four decades various members of the Sisson family (descendants of Samuel Mearne) endeavoured to sell the collection on numerous occasions to Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer, the Bodleian Library, Thomas Thynne, 1st Viscount Weymouth, James Brydges, 1st Duke of Chandos, Frederick, Prince of Wales, the Radcliffe Library in Oxford and the antiquary and book collector "Honest Tom" Martin, but in each case the potential purchasers were put off by the high price asked.

In January 1754 Elizabeth Sisson approached Thomas Birch one of the trustees of the newly established British Museum, loaning him the 12 volume catalogue, but again nothing was to come of the sale during Elizabeth Sisson's lifetime. Finally, in 1762, John Stuart, 3rd Earl of Bute purchased the collection on behalf of King George III for the bargain price of £300 (a fraction of the cost of forming the collection). In that same year King George III donated the collection to the new British Museum at Montagu House, where they were originally known as the "King's pamphlets" and added to the Royal Library Collection. In 1973, the museum transferred the Thomason Tracts to the British Library where they continue to be housed.

Significance of the collection
According to Thomas Carlyle, the Thomason Tracts were; "the most valuable set of documents connected with English history; greatly preferable to all the sheepskins in the Tower and other places, for informing the English what the English were in former times; I believe the whole secret of the seventeenth century is involved in that hideous mass of rubbish there (Report of the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the constitution and government of the British Museum."

The Thomason Tracts today
Many of the publications that comprise the collection are exceedingly rare. In fact, some are not known to exist anywhere else. The tracts are bound into some 2,000 volumes and housed at the British Library's main building at St. Pancras. Because of their rarity and fragile condition, the originals are not available to general researchers. However, the library maintains paper facsimiles in its rare books collection, and in 1977 University Microfilms International released a set of 256 microfilm reels containing the entire collection. The microfilms are available at research libraries around the world.

title: Thomason Collection of Civil War Tracts


text:
User talk:Geoff.green

Welcome
Hi and welcome to wikipedia. I hope you like it and decide to stay. Here are some handy links for newcomers. Also you can sign your name on talk pages and vote pages with three tildes like this ~~~, and your name with a time stamp with four like this ~~~~. If you have any questions, ask me on my talk page. Howabout1 Talk to me! 15:31, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Welcome
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Help pages
 * Village pump
 * Help desk
 * Wiquette
 * Merge

Dr. Brind
Hello Geoff, nice to meet ya. Good observation, I did make a conscious decision to say Dr. Brind... not sure why really. My best guess would be that's what it said in the studies I was reading at the time; and/or I referred to him so much I just kept using the same thing. But I agree, his first name is fine... at least in the introductions (or its first use). From then on Dr. Brind or even Brind is more suitable. - RoyBoy 800 03:03, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * After re-reading your comment on Talk:Joel Brind, I'd have to disagree. I did not write "allegations"; I wrote verified inaccuracies on how Dr. Brind's position is presented. I'll give you a week to respond, I've tweaked it a bit and intend expand on criticisms of Dr. Brind. - RoyBoy 800 01:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * "because it is incomplete and because of how it is incomplete" I entirely agree with the latter; which is why I took the big step;'D but the former calls for a stub tag, not a NPOV banner. So the big step is not sufficient? I think it does the job for NPOV; and I did put it after the other stuff... providing it with the last word. - RoyBoy 800 07:05, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

title: User talk:Geoff.green


text:
Eoin Jess

Eoin Jess (born 13 December 1970) is a Scottish football coach and former player.

As a player he was an attacking midfielder who notably played in the Premier League for Coventry City and Bradford City, and in the Scottish Premier League for Aberdeen. He also played in the Football League for Nottingham Forest and Northampton Town. He was capped 18 times by Scotland, scoring two goals. He is ranked 11th on Aberdeen's all-time appearances list.

Following retirement, Jess spent time as an academy coach initially returning to former club Nottingham Forest before later having a spell with Peterborough United.

Aberdeen
Born in the village of Portsoy in Aberdeenshire, Jess began his career in Glasgow as a trainee striker at Rangers (alongside future Scotland teammate John Spencer) but was allowed to leave in 1987; he soon moved back to his home region, signing for Aberdeen. Having made his debut at the end of the 1988–89 season, 18-year-old Jess made an impact in the first team from the outset of the following campaign, starting against Rapid Vienna in the UEFA Cup and against Rangers in the 1989 Scottish League Cup Final at Hampden Park, which Aberdeen won 2–1. The club finished runners-up in the Premier Division, and Jess picked up another winner's medal as an unused substitute in the 1990 Scottish Cup Final.

In 1990–91 he scored 13 league goals and linked up with Hans Gillhaus to great effect as Aberdeen missed out on the title on the final day. The strikes including a hat-trick away to Dundee United, four away to Dunfermline and three across two home wins over Celtic. He won the PFA Scotland Young Player of the Year award for the season. Although Jess played 42 games in 1991–92, the season was a disappointment as Aberdeen finished only 6th in the league. He scored in a September victory over Rangers at Ibrox Stadium which proved to be Aberdeen's last win at that venue until 2017.

1992–93 brought an improvement as the club were league runners-up and reached both cup finals. Jess scored the winning goal in the semi-final of the 1992–93 Scottish League Cup against Celtic and played all 120 minutes of the final which ended in a 2–1 defeat to Rangers. In March 1993 he suffered a fractured ankle in the quarter-final of the 1992–93 Scottish Cup against Clydebank but was rushed back to fitness after only two months out and appeared as a substitute in the final of the competition, which Aberdeen again lost 2–1 to Rangers. Despite failing to win any trophies and missing part of the season with his injury, he won the PFA Young Player award for a second time.

In 1993–94 Jess helped Aberdeen to another second-place finish in the Premier Division. He also scored five goals in four matches in the Cup Winners' Cup, finishing joint-top scorer in the competition. The next season almost ended in relegation for the club and Jess started only 15 league games due to a persistent foot injury. He returned as a regular starter in 1995–96 playing in a more withdrawn central midfield role to accommodate strikers Dodds, Booth and Shearer. He produced an impressive performance in the semi-final of the League Cup as Aberdeen overcame Rangers, scored a long-range goal in a league game against the same opponents a few weeks later  and was in the team which won the 1995 Scottish League Cup Final, beating Dundee.

Following this victory, he decided to seek a new challenge in his career and requested a move with his contract due to expire. As he had impressed in Europe against Italian opposition (Torino), Serie A clubs showed an interest and Jess has stated that Sampdoria were keen to sign him under the Bosman ruling at the end of the season, but he was determined that Aberdeen should receive a transfer fee, therefore agreed to a £2 million transfer to Coventry City of the English Premier League in February 1996. He left Aberdeen for the first time having made 253 official appearances for the club, scoring 63 goals, and the transfer fee they received for him was a record amount.

Coventry City
25-year-old Jess made his Coventry debut against Middlesbrough on 24 February 1996 and made 12 league appearances in the latter part of that season under manager Ron Atkinson, scoring what would prove to be his only league goal for the club against QPR. In 1996–97 he played 27 times in the league but only started 19 of those, and scored an own goal in a game against Manchester United. He scored twice in Coventry's run in the 1996–97 FA Cup, netting in the third round game against Woking, and again in the fourth round victory at Blackburn Rovers. By that time Gordon Strachan had taken over from Atkinson as manager, and in the close season he allowed Jess to leave as he could not guarantee his place in the team. Despite his stay at Highfield Road being fairly brief, he later described the experience as "fantastic" due to the excitement of the games fighting relegation.

Return to Aberdeen
In summer 1997 Jess returned to Aberdeen, rejoining Roy Aitken's side for a fee of £700,000. This spell at Pittodrie was shorter and less successful than his first, although he did manage a career-best total of 14 league goals in 1998–99 including on the opening day which was the first goal of the Scottish Premier League era. He also played in the 2000 Scottish League Cup final and 2000 Scottish Cup final, both of which ended in defeat.

Having been a regular starter since his return he played less frequently in his final season, 2000–01, under manager Ebbe Skovdahl. In December 2000 he stated publicly that he may not sign a new contract and suggested that Aberdeen's ambition did not match his own (unaware of the club's financial plight at the time), alienating him from the hierarchy; he soon departed for a second time upon the opening of the winter transfer window, having made a further 126 Aberdeen appearances (31 goals).

Later years in England
Jess returned to the Premier League at the age of 30 with Bradford City, initially on loan, and scored on his debut for the Bantams on 1 January 2001 against Leicester City. Bradford were relegated in last place but the loan move was a success (17 games, three goals), with the deal being made permanent in the summer when Jess's Aberdeen contract expired. In the 2001–02 First Division he made 45 league appearances and finished the season as top scorer with 14 goals (including a hat-trick in a home win over Watford), but financial problems meant he was released by Bradford in June 2002 following the collapse of ITV Digital.

He joined Nottingham Forest in August 2002 and in his first season steered Forest into the play-offs in 6th place. However they dropped to 14th the next year and were relegated in 2005, and Jess moved on as a free agent.

In July 2005 he signed for Northampton Town and in his first season with the club achieved promotion from the fourth tier; in April 2007 he was released from his contract with The Cobblers, aged 36, and retired from playing.

International career
Having represented the Under-21 side, Jess helped the team reach the semi-finals of UEFA under-21 Euros in 1992, and the Toulon Tournament in 1991.

After declining an approach from Northern Ireland (his father's birthplace), Jess made his debut for Scotland in November 1992 against Italy. He went on to earn 18 full caps. As an intermittent member of the main squad, he also appeared twice for the B team in 1994 and 1996.

Whilst at Coventry City he was selected for UEFA Euro 1996, and made one appearance during the tournament as a substitute in a 2–0 defeat to England. His two international goals were both scored while playing for Aberdeen, although four years apart: the first came against San Marino in 1995, and the second in a 2–1 UEFA Euro 2000 qualifier defeat at home to the Czech Republic in March 1999; he appeared from the bench in the return fixture three months later, which proved to be his final Scotland match.

Coaching career
Jess later rejoined Nottingham Forest as a coach for their youth team from 2007 until he left the post in May 2012. He also spent time on the coaching staff at Peterborough United, joining in August 2012 to work under Darren Ferguson as a replacement for Mark Robson but departing less than a year later, replaced by Gary Breen.

International
Scores and results list Scotland's goal tally first, score column indicates score after each Jess goal

Personal life
In April 2009, at the age of 38, Jess suffered a mild stroke. During further tests it was discovered that a hole had been present in his heart all his life and in 2010 he underwent surgery to correct this.

In 2015 Jess was voted into Aberdeen's 'greatest ever team' by supporters of the club. In November 2018, he was one of four inductees into the Aberdeen Hall of Fame.

In 2016 he was living in Barcelona.

title: Eoin Jess


text:
Talk:Wolf hunting controversy

It looks like this has already been merged with wolf hunting, and in such an unbiased way! But I'll wait till Monday or Wednesday before pronouncing the edit war resolved. Let's see what Gabriel and Friday say, first. Uncle Ed 15:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * Seems like a good idea to me. Worst case, edit warring will continue, but it'll be in it's own article at least.  I hope.  I didn't see anything that jumped out at me as blatantly POV when I first glanced through this.  Altho, now that I look again, I see some POV problems here and in wolf hunting.  I'm not sure it's productive for me to try to edit them, though, I fear that Gabrielsimon will see my edits as picking on him personally.  Friday 18:46, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

Thoughts
Here's a few thoughts on the current text. I'm not gunna dive into changes for fear of more edit warring.

"Many people apptempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsely labeling wolves as destructive predators." Sounds pretty POV to me. We had another editor assert that calling wolves destructive predators is NOT false. At any rate, nobody's going to try to argue that they're not predators, right? Apparently "destructive" is the bone of contention here. Can we all agree that wolves sometimes destroy livestock?

"They consider them challenging game, because they can take a bullet and keep going - unlike deer, which simply fall dead on the spot." Where did this come from? Deer SOMETIMES "fall dead on the spot", as do wolves sometimes, but this is an overgeneralization.

Not sure what the "Hardly sporting." is doing in there, in quotes. Is this a quote from a particular person or group?

"Environmentalists and other nature lovers regard wolves as having rights and oppose all hunting of them as cruel." Quite an overgeneralization. Plenty of folks call themselves environmentalists, who don't particular think animals have "right" or that hunting is automatically cruel.

Anyway, there's my two cents right now. Thanks to all editors who are trying to discuss and edit in a community-friendly way, rather than by edit wars. Friday 18:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * The first one seems the most blatantly in need of fixing to me, so I'll attempt to make it more NPOV. Friday 19:50, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Thanks, the draft was simply right off the top of my head. I just started typing and kept going until I ran out of steam. I got the take a bullet thing from a Wikipedia talk page - guess which one and who said it. It's more a summation of the inter-contributor dispute than anything else. If you can whip it into shape, more power to you. Today is not your day, anyway ;-) Uncle Ed 20:09, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

 * I appreciate your work on this. It's a good place to start.  We'll see how it goes.  Friday 21:39, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

you can not claim that all wolves are destructive, that is an unfair generalization, typial of those who wished nothing morethen thier eradication. this is why i put faslly labelled in there, it is to dispell the POV that all are destructive, yet you keep removing it, are you advocating this generalization, that is so obviously false? Gabrielsimon 00:29, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

im not the one pusheing POVs here,  as it seems,  friday is pushing a pro hunter POV Gabrielsimon 00:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I do not believe that I did claim that all wolves are destructive. I claimed that people labelled them destructive.  However, what does it even mean to say that they're "destructive" or not?  When a wolf eats a rabbit, is the rabbit not destroyed in the process?  Maybe we should be more specific, like saying they can be destructive to livestock.  Friday 04:18, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

destrutive was being plyed asa an absolute, when it isnt, to that i objected. differentwords must be played in order to acheive equillibrium. different words must be played in order to tel lthe truth in an unbiased manner. Gabrielsimon 04:21, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've tried to address some of my above objections in recent edits. I'm curious about wolves being considered tough tho, I'm not sure how to confirm this.  Do you have a source?  Near where I live we have coyotes, which are similiar to wolves, and they're not considered all that tough.  If we knew what cartridges people used for wolf shooting, this might be informative.  Friday 04:25, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * this edit seems very bizarre to me. It looks like you're reverting me just for the sake of reverting.  Do you care do discuss edits here, or are you just going to revert anything I do?  Friday 04:28, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

your edits are pro hunter. that can not be allowed. Gabrielsimon 04:30, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

best to asked about wolvesbeing tough, as sources hgo, it was his edit, not mine, tho they are remarkably resilliant. spend time with s few in the forest. ig you can get thjem to trust you, and youll seeee/ Gabrielsimon 04:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You certainly have a unique perspective. How interesting that your spending time with wolves in the forest has taught you about how they react to gunshot wounds.  Were the wolves in question being shot at the time you were socializing with them?  Unfortunately, your own personal experiences are not considered verifiable.  Is there anything I can do to get you to agree to stop reverting changes to this article?  Friday 04:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

yes, i berleivwe my perspective is unique... did you know it took me six months to get them to trust me? any hoo, as for thew thung about how theyt are tough, one of the ones i spent time with has soime old seeeming bullet wounds, so i assume it was a tough pup, so to speak, that it could still walk. as for the article, if you would please try to see things from the perspective that isnt the hunters perspective, you might see my point in why the edits were pro hunter.... im sorry  if this isnt making sense...

Gabrielsimon 04:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm sorry too. I'd like it if you'd take a look at the current version and discuss here anything you disagree with. Particularly, let me know where I'm being pro-hunter and I'll do whatever I can to fix it. Friday 04:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * PS. As for your own unique experiences with wolves, please read WP:NOR. Your own experiences can't be used in Wikipedia, until they've been published in some other place first.  So, if you assert things that sound implausible to others, you should be able to back it up with something other than your own experience.  This is what no original research is about.  Friday 04:55, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

the current version is pro hunter, and thus NPOV. Gabrielsimon 04:58, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * If it's pro-hunter, it would not be NPOV (neutral point of view). If you really feel that it's not neutral, feel free to put the npov tag on it.  It may bring in other people to help settle the matter.  One thing people usually want in those cicumstances, is some explanation on the talk page about why the neutrality of the article is disputed. Friday 05:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Gabriel, I see that you're revert warring again, without reasoning things out on the talk page. I had hoped that your multiple bans for this type of behavior would have made an impression, but I see that it did not. I'm going to tag this for POV, and we'll see what other editors say. Friday 05:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

tue cyhanghes you were iuntruducing WERE pov. Gabrielsimon 05:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute
I added the npov tag, since User:Gabrielsimon was insistant on certain language I found objectionable. Here's a few samples of I think is inappropriate: "Many people attempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsly labeling wolves as destructive predators." "Hardly sporting." "Environmentalists and other nature lovers regard wolves as having rights and oppose all hunting of them as cruel."

I believe that my version that has been reverted a few times is more neutral. Here's a diff that shows a good example:

There are a few unrelated to POV changes in there as well, as User:Gabrielsimon seems intent on reverting my edits wholesale. I'd be interested in hearing outside perspectives on this. Friday 05:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

claiming all wolves are  to be labelled as destructive IS npov. Gabrielsimon 05:16, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I hate to be rude, but I'm a bit tired of repeating myself. I already made it clear that I don't think we should label all wolves as destructive.  Please, if you're not going to read what people are saying, stop reverting their edits.  Friday 06:37, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

then you should find other words that say what you mean instead of words that leaave that interpretation open. Gabrielsimon 06:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

repeating yourself without chaging anything is of course why this conversation tracks back. Gabrielsimon 06:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

 * A couple of my edits which you repeatedly removed were not intended by me to be related to NPOV. These were the first sentence, and the removal of "unlike deer, which fall dead..".  See this diff.  I don't know if you really objected to these, so I'll try them again.  Please, if you have problem with some but not all of an edit, don't revert the whole thing.  Just edit the parts you have a problem with.  Friday 14:11, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

OK, nobody's given a response to the npov tag, other than saying that claiming all wolves are destructive is not acceptable. I will refrain from saying that, and attempt to remove my other npov objections. I guess I might as well remove the tag, too. Friday 20:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

npov tag removed
I removed the npov tag after fixing what were major problems in my opinion. I'm detailing the changes here. Here's a diff for easy reference:

Change 1: "Many people attempt to justify it on economic grounds, falsly labeling wolves as destructive predators." has changed to "Many people say that killing wolves is justifiable on economic grounds, labeling wolves as destructive predators." I believe most editors will find the second wording more neutral. In particular, we should refrain from assuming truth or falseness to the "destructive predator" claim.

Change 2: Removed "Hardly sporting" sentence from end of paragraph. It seemed out of place, and was a value judgement.

Change 3: "Environmentalists" changed to "Some evironmentalists". I believe it's more neutral to not make "all or nothing" statements. This change emphasizes that not ALL environmentalists are alike in judgement.

That's it. Please, if anyone objects, I'd like it if the objections were explained individually here. If there are further rollbacks of all 3 changes without explanation, I'll probably undo that change. Friday 20:34, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

questionable sentences
BTW, I'm still concerned about a few sentences. Not sure what to do about them yet, so I'm posting them here for suggestions.
 * "Early settlers in the United States tried to eliminate wolves entirely, and would have made the wolf extinct if possible." How do we know the intent? Do we have a source for them wanting to make wolves extinct?
 * "After chasing an entire herd into exhaustion, hunters land and casually walk up to wolves and shoot them at close range." Can you really chase a whole herd at once?  Why don't they seperate?
 * "Ecologists assert that eliminating wolves has bad effects on the natural balance between prey and predator, which concomitant (ripple) effects on the rest of the ecosystem. Wolves pick out the sick or crippled or elderly deer from a herd, thinning it and preventing the bad effects of overpopulation." The language just seems weird.

If I can see a way to improve these, I'll take a crack at it. Friday 20:42, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Nobody came up with sources, so I'm making some tweaks in hopes of better factuality and NPOV. Friday 07:18, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Game or "game"
Gabrielsimon, I see you've been edit warring again. This time you're adding back in the scare quotes around "game". Please explain yourself. According to m-w.com, "game" means an animal that is hunted. I believe the term is apt, and I'd appreciate it if you'd discuss in a civilized manner instead of simply reverting. Friday 19:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

sure, IM warring, you atre the one who kept reverting my edits until youd used up all theree of youredits. in either case, game is applied loosly here because this animal is a prediator, its not prey. Gabrielsimon 20:01, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Umm, what are you talking about? I made the change from "game" to game in response to some anonymous editor who put in the scare quotes.  Then, you started reverting me.  I'm not interested in fighting with you, I'm interested in making articles better.  You have ignored my explanation of why the term game is appropriate.  Please, look it up in a dictionary, and then change it back. Friday 20:06, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

the change was you removing what belongs, not the other way around, i was repairing. Gabrielsimon 20:36, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You deleted this comment on mine when you posted your last. Please don't do that.  Here it is again:
 * I'm really, really trying to understand the objection. This article is about people hunting wolves.  Game refers to animals that are hunted.  Where's the problem?  By my count, I could change it again but I'm already closer to 3 reverts than is my usual habit.  Friday 20:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

i didnt delete anything, perhap[s i hit SAVE after you did, when enterinhg my tewxt. Gabrielsimon 20:42, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Check the history, you'll see that you did remove it. However, I'm willing to believe it was an error on your part rather than being intentionally antisocial.  Now, if you could please explain why the word game does not mean what the dictionary says it means, I'd appreciate it.  I'll even make it easy, here's what m-w.com says:
 * 4 a (1) : animals under pursuit or taken in hunting; especially : wild animals hunted for sport or food
 * I believe since we're talking about wolf hunting, wolves are game. If you cannot provide any reason for the scare quotes, I'll take them out.  Friday 20:46, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

ive already told you my reason. Gabrielsimon 20:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * You must mean your assertion that predators can never be game? Do you agree that it does not match the dictionary definition?  Animals can be both hunters, and hunted.  Game refers to any animals that's hunted, as far as I can tell.  Friday 20:54, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I've attempted to work around the dispute by avoiding the word "game". I still feel it's perfectly cromulent, but a compromise is better than an edit war.  Friday 21:58, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

distorted meaning?
I don't understand where you're coming from with this. Care to elaborate? I feel that the language in my version is more clear. Particularly, it's not neccessary to say that some people consider wolves to be living things; there's no serious dispute there. If you disagree with some but not all of an edit, please don't revert the whole thing. Friday 07:26, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

some of the changes, as i see it, changed things , youll note that i left some of them intact, and only changed a few f them. the tried to kill wolves wherever they could item is something that  i believed belonged as it currently is as a statement that americans, in thier fear atemtped to cause the extinction of wolves, which they did. and the helicopter piloted hnting parites DO chase down entire pacs, so i put that back in, along with the words point blank range, to indicate thathte wolf is totally defenceless, which is true... close range, you see can be defined as  within springing distance, point blank range is right in the face of the target, so i believe it is a more suited wording. Gabrielsimon 07:31, 23 July 2005 (UTC).

Sources?
A few days ago I asked for sources on the bits you keep insisting on. You have not provided any. I think you're assuming that you personally have perfect knowledge of the intentions and motivations of long-dead American settlers. Also, is it really possible to chase an entire pack at once via helicopter? I don't know one way or another, but it seemed odd to me, so a source would be helpful. Friday 07:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

behaviouralluy, packs do not trend to scatter, they will follow the alphba pair, because it makes them feel safe. remember, ive spent time with wild ones.... (side note, thubnderstorm outside, ... such lovly light shows!!)  check out the national geographic web site, that might help... Gabrielsimon 07:37, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't think you understood me. I was asking for a source.  Your own experiences are not a source. WP:NOR.  I understand that wolves are pack animals, I just find it surprising that they ALWAYS stay together with the pack, no matter what's chasing them.  That's why I was asking for a source.  I'll leave that alone for now though; I'm no expert in wolf behavior.  Since you don't seem to object to me tweaking the assumption of settler motivations, I'll give that a go.  Friday 07:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

sounds fair. Gabrielsimon 07:44, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I'd like more info on the "entire pack" chasing thing, and the "shooting as many as they like". Is it legal? Where are you talking about, specifically? Sounds suspicious and POV to me. Friday 18:53, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Scare quotes
Yes, I noticed the scare quotes sneaking back in. Didn't we already talk about that? Can you provide any justification for them? Friday 07:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

simply that the term "justified" is one that is more or less in dispute, and that its meaning is in this case not uiniversal. Gabrielsimon 08:02, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Do you see that the article is not trying to say that wolf killing is or is not justifiable? It only asserts that some people say it's justifiable.  It'd be even better if we had a quote of a specific person saying it was justifiable, but we better work with what we have.  What do you think of a sentence like this?
 * They oppose all hunting of them and condemn it as "cruel and barbaric".
 * Would that be OK? Friday 08:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

if balance is to be maintained, it would seem to fit. Gabrielsimon 08:27, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I personally think it's better without the quotes in both places, but that's just me. If we're going to use quotes, I'd prefer them to be actual quotes from real, identified people. Friday 08:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

ill concede the point. Gabrielsimon 09:03, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

merge?
Anyone else think this article is not needed? I don't see what it covers that isn't or couldn't already be in Wolf hunting. Not sure why we need a seperate one here, it'll only me more work trying to keep them consistant. Friday 13:19, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, merge it with wolf hunting. Neither article is very long, there is no need to keep the controversy segregated from the main article. Rhobite 16:14, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

 * Let me violently oppose any merge. The world is not reduced to the United States.  Wolf hunting is traditional and, by and large, more common outside the US than in.  The controversy on the other hand is almost entirely American and modern.  The controversy page is needed so that people can discuss (and I use that word loosely) the controversy.  Hunting has little to do with that.  What will happen is that the non-American anthropological and historical aspects of wolf hunting will be swamped by debates about baiting, PETA, the NRA, and the up-coming elections in Alaska.  So there is a very very good reason to keep the controversy segregated from the main article.  Just look at this page already - and this is with most work being done by two fairly sensible and professional editors.  So keep the politics and the morality here.  Leave the actual practice, the social science aspects over there please. Lao Wai 10:44, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

Game Management
I'd like to add a paragraph that states that wolf hunting is a valid form of game management, specifically the management of large ungulates. The premise is based upon the following statement: "I can manage a moose population for human consumption, or for wolf consumption, and my job has at times required me to alternate between both. I can bet that there are people in this room who are angrily opposed to one or the other of these manangement schemes, and some people are opposed to both." I will need to do a bit of research before properly attributing it, but it describes wolf control in terms of game management. The individual making the statement is a public employee, whose job is to maintain a sustainable moose population. His management objectives are directed by legislative and public opinion, and I suspect that if he were not subject to external direction, that he would not choose to kill wolves. But in the public science presentation where he made that statement, he seemed to be quite professional and dedicated to his tasks, and if his job required him to kill wolves, he would do it.

Does anyone think this belongs in this article, and have any ideas on how to present it? RPellessier | (Talk) 04:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

 * If this article is about the controversy, any sufficiently verifiable "side" to the controversy should be represented. I still have doubts that this article should exist seperately from Wolf hunting, myself.  But, IMO certainly it's appropriate to talk about game management practices.  Friday (talk) 05:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Redirect
Looking at this again, I see there hasn't been any progress in a while. I think that Wolf hunting covers all the same stuff and is a better article, so I've redirected this accordingly. Friday (talk) 05:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

title: Talk:Wolf hunting controversy


text:
Pentobarbital

Pentobarbital (US) or pentobarbitone (British and Australian) is a short-acting barbiturate typically used as a sedative, a preanesthetic, and to control convulsions in emergencies. It can also be used for short-term treatment of insomnia but has been largely replaced by the benzodiazepine family of drugs.

In high doses, pentobarbital causes death by respiratory arrest. It is used for veterinary euthanasia and is used by some US states and the Federal government of the United States for executions of convicted criminals by lethal injection. In some countries and states, it is also used for physician-assisted suicide.

Pentobarbital was widely abused and sometimes known as "yellow jackets" due to the yellow capsule of the Nembutal brand. Pentobarbital in oral (pill) form is not commercially available.

Pentobarbital was developed by Ernest H. Volwiler and Donalee L. Tabern at Abbott Laboratories in 1930.

Medical
Typical applications for pentobarbital are sedative, short term hypnotic, preanesthetic, insomnia treatment, and control of convulsions in emergencies. Abbott Pharmaceutical discontinued manufacture of their Nembutal brand of Pentobarbital capsules in 1999, largely replaced by the benzodiazepine family of drugs.

Pentobarbital can reduce intracranial pressure in Reye's syndrome, treat traumatic brain injury and induce coma in cerebral ischemia patients. Pentobarbital-induced coma has been advocated in patients with acute liver failure refractory to mannitol.

Pentobarbital is also used as a veterinary anesthetic agent.

Euthanasia
Pentobarbital can cause death when used in high doses. It is used for euthanasia for humans as well as animals. It is taken alone, or in combination with complementary agents such as phenytoin, in commercial animal euthanasia injectable solutions.

In the Netherlands, pentobarbital is part of the standard protocol for physician-assisted suicide for self-administration by the patient. It is given in liquid form, in a solution of sugar syrup and alcohol, containing 9 grams of pentobarbital. This is preceded by an antiemetic to prevent vomiting.

It is taken by mouth for physician-assisted death in the United States states of Oregon, Washington, Vermont, and California (as of January 2016). The oral dosage of pentobarbital indicated for physician-assisted suicide in Oregon is typically 10 g of liquid.

In Switzerland, sodium pentobarbital is administered to the patient intravenously. Once administered, sleep is induced within 30 seconds, and the heart stops beating within 3 minutes. Oral administration is also used. A Swiss pharmacist reported in 2022 that the dose for assisted suicide had been raised to 15 grams because with lower doses death was preceded by a coma of up to 10 hours in some cases.

Execution
Pentobarbital has been used or considered as a substitute for the barbiturate sodium thiopental used for capital punishment by lethal injection in the United States when that drug became unavailable. In 2011 the U.S. manufacturer of sodium thiopental stopped production, and importation of the drug proved impossible. Pentobarbital was used in a U.S. execution for the first time in December 2010 in Oklahoma, as part of a three-drug protocol. In March 2011 pentobarbital was used for the first time as the sole drug in a U.S. execution, in Ohio. Since then several states as well as the federal government have used pentobarbital for lethal injections; some use three-drug protocols and others use pentobarbital alone.

Pentobarbital is produced by the Danish company Lundbeck. Use of the drug for executions is illegal under Danish law, and when this was discovered, after public outcry in Danish media, Lundbeck stopped selling it to US states that impose the death penalty and prohibited US distributors to sell it to any customers, such as state authorities, that practice or participate in executions of humans.

Texas began using the single-drug pentobarbital protocol for executing death-row inmates on 18 July 2012, because of a shortage of pancuronium bromide, a muscle paralytic previously used as one component of a three-drug cocktail. In October 2013, Missouri changed its protocol to allow for pentobarbital from a compounding pharmacy to be used in a lethal dose for executions. It was first used in November 2013.

According to a December 2020 ProPublica article, by 2017 the federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP), in discussion with then Attorney General Jeff Sessions, had begun to search for suppliers of pentobarbital to be used in lethal injections. The BOP was aware that the use of pentobarbital as their "new drug choice" would be challenged in the courts because some lawyers had said that "pentobarbital would flood prisoners' lungs with froth and foam, inflicting pain and terror akin to a death by drowning." BOP claimed that these concerns were unjustified and that their two expert witnesses asserted that the use of pentobarbital was "humane". On 25 July 2019, US Attorney General William Barr directed the federal government to resume capital punishment after 16 years. The federal protocol provides for intravenous administration of 2x2.5 grams of pentobarbital sodium.

Pharmacodynamics
Like other barbiturates, pentobarbital binds to the barbiturate-binding site on the GABA-A receptor. This action increases the duration of ion-channel opening. At high doses, pentobarbital is capable of opening the ion channel in the absence of GABA.

Pharmacokinetics
Pentobarbital undergoes first-pass metabolism in the liver and possibly the intestines.

Drug interactions
Administration of ethanol, benzodiazepines, opioids, antihistamines, other sedative-hypnotics, and other central nervous system depressants will cause possible additive effects.

Chemistry
Pentobarbital is synthesized by methods analogous to that of amobarbital, the only difference being that the alkylation of α-ethylmalonic ester is carried out with 2-bromopentane in place of 1-bromo-3-methylbutane to give pentobarbital.

Pentobarbital can occur as a free acid, but is usually formulated as the sodium salt, pentobarbital sodium. The free acid is only slightly soluble in water and in ethanol while the sodium salt shows better solubility.

Society and culture
Pentobarbital is the INN, AAN, BAN, and USAN while pentobarbitone is a former AAN and BAN.

One brand name for this drug is Nembutal, coined by John S. Lundy, who started using it in 1930, from the structural formula of the sodium salt—Na (sodium) + ethyl + methyl + butyl + al (common suffix for barbiturates). Nembutal is trademarked and manufactured by the Danish pharmaceutical company Lundbeck (now produced by Akorn Pharmaceuticals) is the only injectable form of pentobarbital approved for sale in the United States.

Abbott discontinued its Nembutal brand of pentobarbital capsules in 1999, largely replaced by the benzodiazepine family of drugs. Abbott's Nembutal, known on the streets as "yellow jackets", was widely abused. They were available as 30, 50, and 100 mg capsules of yellow, white-orange, and yellow colors, respectively.

title: Pentobarbital