Corrections for Toy Animal Wiki

Roger wrote:

I think for some brands your suggestion is good but for many brands it may be not very useful. Perfect for Britains with figures having their own lexic among collectors but how to use it for Nayab? We rarely know how these figures are marketed, even species identification is not easy and consensual.

Ah, but I think it's particularly useful for Nayab . If there is a field that says "Marketed as: unknown", then it is immediately clear to TAW users that an editor tried to assign a species to the figure, but that Nayab may well have intended it to be a different species. Because we currently don't have a "marketed as" field, I previously (incorrectly) assumed that Nayab actually marketed their figures as specific species, until you told me that this isn't the case.

I don't think it has to be a hard "rule" that we add a "marketed as" field, but I am just trying to persuade other editors that it provides useful information. Not much luck so far .

bmathison1972 wrote:

This is a centipede, not a millipede:
https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Bullyland_68453_Glow-in-the-dark_Millipede

if it is marked 'millipede' that is an editorial error by the manufacturers. Morphologically, there is no way this is a millipede.

Blaine, I linked and moved the animal to the centiped page. Here is a good example where I don't know how to call the page of the figure. Keeping it with the commercial name or with the correct identification.

rogerpgvg wrote:

Roger wrote:

I think for some brands your suggestion is good but for many brands it may be not very useful. Perfect for Britains with figures having their own lexic among collectors but how to use it for Nayab? We rarely know how these figures are marketed, even species identification is not easy and consensual.

Ah, but I think it's particularly useful for Nayab . If there is a field that says "Marketed as: unknown", then it is immediately clear to TAW users that an editor tried to assign a species to the figure, but that Nayab may well have intended it to be a different species. Because we currently don't have a "marketed as" field, I previously (incorrectly) assumed that Nayab actually marketed their figures as specific species, until you told me that this isn't the case.

I don't think it has to be a hard "rule" that we add a "marketed as" field, but I am just trying to persuade other editors that it provides useful information. Not much luck so far .

I get it. Very useful also for the centiped Bline pointed up. Marketed as Millipede but for the Nayab maned wolf it would work better, Marked as Aspargus... but I wrote it out of the table.

Aspargus is only the name of this Maned wolf

It's very useful to know that it was marketed as an asparagus, so that collectors can use it as that .

Nobody objected against the creation of a page to the Cantabrian brown bear and I opened it, though, I deleted it not long after because I have found this on Wikipedia:
"Until recently, this brown bear population was considered a separate subspecies. Today, it is considered to belong to the subspecies "Ursus arctos arctos (the Eurasian brown bear)" The same history of the Marsican brown bear. Reading deeper, I could get it better and it makes sense. Now the question is, in the same way we added several grizzly bears to the Grizzly page without knowing how they were marketed, is it useful to open a page to the Eurasian subspecies following the same concept?Sometimes the "Marketed as" Roger suggested might be useful,at least when it is relevant to the understanding of the identification of a certain figure, maybe not as a rule to be included in every single page.

rogerpgvg wrote:

It's very useful to know that it was marketed as an asparagus, so that collectors can use it as that .

I forget to answer but I don't think The Papo Pyrenean bear was a Cantabrian one. Papo made this toy at a time when the reintroduction of brown bears to the French Pyrenees was a point of controversy and therefore caught the public eye.
In the early 1990s, the French government decided to launch a program aimed at restoring a viable bear population by introducing into the Pyrenees brown bears of Slovenian origin, genetically close of the Pyrenean stock.
We are far from Cantabria

"Brown bear" is an excellent example how difficult it is to edit on TAW in a coerent way.
I assume you explain the Papo naming is just marketing. I mean, They released a generic brown bear and gave this name to turn the product more attractive.
The models surely do not represent specifically the Slovenian population.
About Cantabrian, it is just to be coerent with the name used by English Wikipedia. Actually, I'm convinced it refers to the Cantabrian mountain range which extends to the Northern Pyrenees. and does not refer to the Spanish Community.
Another fantastic example is the Mexican grizzly bear. When Club Earth released it, it was considered an extinct subspecies and now all American bears are conspecific, thus, it is now an extinct population of the Grizzly (subspecies).
Is it correct to remove this identification and move it to Grizzly? In my opinion, what should determine the classification on TAW is the cultural relevance of some figures to this hobby and it is relevant to keep a page for Mexican Grizzly bear.
Though, is it correct to keep it identified as a subspecies when this information is outdated? My opinion is that we should update it and preserve the page even if it is just refering to a population and not a taxon.
What I mean with cultural relevance to the hobby is this. Is it known a figure of a Tibetan blue bear (Ursus arctos pruinosus)? As far as I know, no. It it does not exist in toy shape, we don't need the page and every editor is taking this idea correctly and we don't have useless pages for important biological taxa which are not relevant to the hobby.
I think we should get this chance to discuss a standard layout to these three different levels: Species, subspecies and populations (non taxon).
We are using basically two different layouts:
1. the one we see for tiger page, where all the subspecies plus "white tiger"" (which is not a subspecies) have links and thumbnails Inside the Tiger (species) page with the pages transcluded on it. It avoids us from using thumbnails and links to the tiger subspecies in the lower level, Feliformia.
The other method we use is for example the one we use for "Wolf" (species Canis lupus), where the subspecies are transcluded but the links and thumbnails for subspecies are listed next to the wolf link in the lower level page, Canidae .
I like both methods even if I tend to use the latter one but I don't really have a preference. Both have positive and negative points.
The first works better when the number of subpages (species, colors, morphs, populations) is pertinent as it happens with tiger. Thus, it also could work better for wolf because it has 4 subpages. It is also more intuitive because it follows the general layout.
The latter works better when the number of subspecies is minimal, sometimes even best known than the species and it is important to notice that we have a few subspecies pages without the corresponding species page. The other advantage of this layout is because very popular subspecies like the Grizzly bear or Arctic wolf are listed in a lower level which is easier to find for a visitor.
i think we should agree a layout, It doesn't make sense that tiger and wolf pages are so different. Maybe we could use the "Tiger" layout when the number of subpages is 3 or more and the wolf layout when there is a fewer amount of subpages.
I also think we should determine what to do with populations pages.
In my opinion we should preserve them when figures represent specifically a certain population or a former corresponding subspecies. Though, they should be always transcluded in the corresponding taxon page and never linked from a lower taxon level. We could also adopt a simpler layout, without taxonomic table as we do for breeds (without categories, of course). The same for color morphs or non taxon pages.
It sounds complicated but actually it is to simplify and we don't have to go immediately and fix everything. I can do most of the job during the weekend. I only think it is easier for visitors and editors when we use a consistent layout.
I'd love to hear from you Crhistope and Roger and if other editors or visitors want to give their opinion, it would be very appreciated.

I don't know whether I understand all the differences between the tiger and the wolf pages. Is the difference (1) where the subspecies links are (top for tiger, lower for wolf) and (2) whether clicking on the subspecies link takes you to a separate subspecies page (tiger) or to a place lower down the same page?

I like a bit of both:D. I like the tiger page because the subspecies are listed at the top of the tiger page, so you don't need to scroll down before you realise there are subspecies. I like the wolf page because when you click on a subspecies link, you can still see that there are other subspecies, so you can easily scroll up and down between them.

Users probably often use the (sub)species pages when they have a model and would like to know which company made it. They would often be unsure what the subspecies of the model is, so it is useful if they can scroll up and down between the subspecies (wolf pages) rather than having to click on a subspecies, then go back to the tiger page, click the next subspecies, etc.

If there are very few models in a subspecies, then it may not be worth making a subspecies page. After all, whether something is a subspecies is often controversial. So I'd put Mexican bear under Grizzly bear and Pyrenean brown bear under Eurasian brown bear. The subspecies would be indicated by the "marketed as" field anyway .

Now we are on that point, would it be better to use "marketed as" or "sold as" (or perhaps something else) for that field?

About "Pyrenean brown bear", I don't want to talk about marketing but about a very French cultural problem: Papo is French like me, for us, talking about a bear from the Pyrenees means talking about a bear from the French Pyrenees because they are the only wild bears still present in France. We have many different mountain ranges, we have many forests and not a single bear except in the zoos and in the Pyrenees. For us, a Pyrenean bear means a "good guy from home" not a Cantabrian bear. No matter what Wikipedia.US thinks...  
If you want to keep the spirit of this bear, you have to open an "Ours des Pyrenees" page. It's quite unusual but for once it's the same logic as Japanese brands with their endemic bears.
It's the same story as the Mexican Grizzly, sometimes what should determine the classification on TAW is cultural relevance.
As for the Tibetan blue bear, I agree that it is useless to open pages when no official figurine exists. Perhaps we should clean up all those empty pages created in the passion of our youth. For example, I can't remember the good reason that led us to imagine a possible Culpeo page.
So which model to choose or to privilege? Tigers or Wolves.
Even if the Wolf model has its charm, I prefer the Tiger model for several reasons:
Yes it is easier to find the Grizzly and Eurasian Brown Bear icons on the "Bear" page, these subspecies are identified enough to do so.
For the Tigers and for the wolves, for me it is another matter.
Wolves first, they are all grouped together as Canidae on the Caniformia page (like the bears). That the subspecies are present on the Canidae page is not too annoying, except for someone who is looking for a wolf figurine and who doesn't know that his model is a subspecies.

Tigers are right on the Feliformia page like most feline species. On the other hand, hyenas, to name a few, are grouped together on this page regardless of the species (like canidae). On this page we have actually made a gift to feline lovers. Subspecies would be inappropriate on the Feliformia page, they should be on the Tiger page.

I don't think it takes too rigid rules to make everything look like everything. In reality it is not the "wolves" and "tigers" pages which are different, it is the Feliformia and Caniformia pages.

I think we need clear principles, concepts, guides rather than rules and a uniform presentation.

Not all TAW pages are equal, there are many special cases. The "Tiger" page doesn't have the same weight, doesn't pose the same problems as the "Cave lion" page.

For the "population" pages, their existence must for me be debated each time because each time they are special cases.
For me consistency is that of choices, not that of a systematic standardization which will bring its share of problems without solving all the current problems.
It would make no sense to put all the Canidae species visible on the Caniformia page, nor would it make sense to group all the felines in a sub-page of the Feliformia group. For me, the two current choices are still going in the same direction.
Have weighted, balanced pages, do not multiply unnecessary additional clicks, do not open pages for the sake of scientific classification but keep in mind that we want to store toys that have a brand, a material and that represent with more or less success an animal species.

In this job discussing our choices is more important than defining universal constraints.

For example, I will take the Waterbuck page. I'm not sure the debate is over whether the Ellipsen and the Defassa are two subspecies or two species. Wikipedia made a choice: One page and it's the same species. We also made the same choice but, in my opinion, for different reasons. There's no point opening two pages for two species or subspecies (it doesn't matter) with only one toy in each page and an "Unidentified Waterbucks" gallery. Too heavy and unnecessary.
On the other hand we could quite specify on their respective page that the Jeol is an Ellipsen and the CollectA a Defassa. This would be both simple and useful for collectors.
The classification "problems" don't stop there since we classify toys. There are twice the same toy with different photos under different brands. We know that Manurba produced animals that were sold by Heinerle but also by Manurba. The problem is that they are, to my knowledge, indistinguishable. Shouldn't we just open one page for this waterbuck with the two brands and a little explanation?
I have no precise documentation on who does what and when on the two brands but on the Kuschel-Muschel site, the animals presented as Manurba are very different from those presented as Heinerle.

Roger, Tiger page as subspecies links on top but it also allows scrolling down through subspecies pages that are embbed below like it is on wolf page.
If you click each subspecies heading link on both pages, you also go to the subspecies pages.
So, the difference here is that on tiger you have links on top to subspecies pages while the wolf page generates automatically a index with links to the same page.
What generates these links to the same page are the headings we use to split subspecies.
On the other hand, the wolf subspecies have links/thumbs in the lower taxon level, next to the wolf link but in the same page as you find foxes, jackals, etc while tiger do not have the links of the subspecies mixed in the same page where lions, leopards, jaguars, etc., are listed.
I understand it is not easy to get because I can't explain it very well. I don't mind the model we use, I only think we should use the same to every single page requiring a similar layout. However, I like the fact subspecies have their own pages.

About the field "Marketed as", I already used it in the past. Look at this page. Instead of using a note, I added this field because it seemed important to point it. I even renamed the page from the way it was marketed to a simpler version. It was sold as a Red Deer Hind and this page is linked on both species. Red Deer, the one it was marketed,and White-tailed deer, the one Taylor pointed us as the correct identification.
Thus, TAW is full of exceptions, it is hard to keep consistent when we have so many different situations to handle. Some figures were marketed as different animals depending of the brand so it solves some problems but it opens new ones.

Christophe, I won't do anything with the Pyrenees bear for now.
I will update the Mexican grizzly bear but preserving the page.
I tell you the story of the Culpeo. Wenno, a short-lived brand from the manufacturer Shing Hing, sold several regional sets. They used different paintings on the same molds to represent different species. The fox mould is used for South America as a culpeo. Not the best culpeo story and I am not even sure if they wrote it was a culpeo anyway.
We don't need to delete the useless pages, they might be useful in the future. We just need to remove the links. So, if we need to open a page for it, we can use that (orphaned) page later.
The problem is that I agree that we will have always troubles and different challenges regardless of the rules we create or not. I understand your points but I'm not sure it works when we have a few different editors working on it.
Grizzly is a 50 figures page and Arctic wolf a 20 figures page, they're culturally relevant.
curiously I added several links to the waterbuck page recently. Those who were recently shared from Jeol and those from these Manurba/Heinerle which were not linked yet.
I don't know what to suggest about it.

Roger wrote:

On the other hand, the wolf subspecies  have links/thumbs in the lower taxon level, next to the wolf link but in the same page as you find foxes, jackals, etc while tiger do not have the links of the subspecies mixed in the same page where lions, leopards, jaguars, etc., are listed.
I understand it is not easy to get because I can't explain it very well. I don't mind the model we use, I only think we should use the same to every single page requiring a similar layout. However, I like the fact subspecies have their own pages.

I can't agree...  lions, leopards, jaguars are listed directly in the feliformia page and wolves aren't listed in the Caniformia page. This is these two pages who aren't build the same way. And I think it is a very good thing.
Felines are listed directly on the Feliformia page because they are the big mainstream of this category.
Canids species aren't listed on the Caniformia page because they aren't more mainstream than bears.

Do we need to follow a "philosophy" (don't open not necessary pages if the superior page isn't crowded by example) or to apply the same thing everywhere (All feline species must leave the Feliformia page and go to a specific page like canids).
I don't find it useful, I even find it makes TAW less effective.

I made a change ( Icna reverse it of course) on the Tiger and Wolf pages. Maybe it could work

Roger wrote:

About the field "Marketed as", I already used it in the past. Look at this page. Instead of using a note, I added this field because it seemed important to point it. I even renamed the page from the way it was marketed to a simpler version. It was sold as a Red Deer Hind and this page is linked on both species. Red Deer, the one it was marketed,and White-tailed deer, the one Taylor pointed us as the correct identification.
Thus, TAW is full of exceptions, it is hard to keep consistent when we have so many different situations to handle. Some figures were marketed as different animals depending of the brand so it solves some problems but it opens new ones.

The idea of a "marketed as" field is a good idea. However, I don't think we should include a link automatically. This may not pose a big problem when it comes to a deer, on the other hand if we do the same thing with frogs or snakes it will quickly become incomprehensible. I look forward to the opening of the Asparagus page  

”Roger\" wrote:

Christophe, I won't do anything with the Pyrenees bear for now.
I will update the Mexican grizzly bear but preserving the page.

The Pyrénées bear was just an example to explain my thought, there is no national security issue in this  

”Roger\" wrote:

I tell you the story of the Culpeo. Wenno, a short-lived brand from the manufacturer Shing Hing, sold several regional sets. They used different paintings on the same molds to represent different species. The fox mould is used for South America as a culpeo. Not the best culpeo story and I am not even sure if they wrote it was a culpeo anyway.
We don't need to delete the useless pages, they might be useful in the future. We just need to remove the links. So, if we need to open a page for it, we can use that (orphaned) page later.
The problem is that I agree that we will have always troubles and different challenges regardless of the rules we create or not. I understand your points but I'm not sure it works when we have a few different editors working on it.

Roger, there isn't any Culpeo page on TAW so we don't need to delete it    There is a Culpeo link to nowhere and I said it would be better to remove this kind of link.

Again, maybe because I'm French I prefer to have guidelines than rules. My country have a big big disease: French administration sometimes called "Stupidland" or "La maison qui rend fou". This monument is full of laws, rules that make everything very complicated. Common sense and discussion are in my opinion much more effective, especially for TAW.  We are still a few to edit and it is better that everyone discuss before making big changes.

About the choice between wolves and tigers, I am for compromise. We let the links on the Canidaes page and we also add these links at the top of the Wolf page. For the Tigers, nothing changes.

”Roger\" wrote:

Grizzly is a 50 figures page and Arctic wolf a 20 figures page, they're culturally relevant.
curiously I added several links to the waterbuck page recently. Those who were recently shared from Jeol and those from these Manurba/Heinerle which were not linked yet.
I don't know what to suggest about it.

 I knew it was you    I know how to choose my examples  

If I chose this page it is to discuss a part of TAW even more complicated than the classification by species, it is the classification by companies where uniformity reigns even less. But one thing at a time...

How are rules not important? Guidelines are not enough. Without clear rules, it is not clear what is acceptable and what isn't. The term "common sense" refers to things that many people assume everyone knows, but not everyone knows them. If someone doesn't know them, how can they be punished for that? You need to understand that many of us do not know each other. Founding members of TAW knew each other, but Tiermann lets strangers request accounts.

The solution to confusing rules is to make rules more clear, not to eliminate them and rely on guidelines and common sense. If a country arrests people who didn't break laws, isn't that tyranny? You know what "no rules" really means? Confusing, arbitrary, ill-defined rules.

TAW calls the Yowie brand "Yowies". The correct brand name is actually "Yowie". The term "Yowies" is only used in unofficial sources.

Spinosaurus wrote:

TAW calls the Yowie brand "Yowies". The correct brand name is actually "Yowie". The term "Yowies" is only used in unofficial sources.

The verbiage on TAI is correct I think. They acknowledge that 'Yowies' is a line, originally produced by Cadbury. I think they put 'Yowies' in the index to it's easier for users to find (who is going to remember to look under 'Cadbury'???)

One common mistake on this forum, however, is calling the US-based company 'Yowies USA' when it is technically 'Yowie Group' (a minor nitpick)

bmathison1972 wrote:

Spinosaurus wrote:

TAW calls the Yowie brand "Yowies". The correct brand name is actually "Yowie". The term "Yowies" is only used in unofficial sources.

The verbiage on TAI is correct I think. They acknowledge that 'Yowies' is a line, originally produced by Cadbury. I think they put 'Yowies' in the index to it's easier for users to find (who is going to remember to look under 'Cadbury'???)

One common mistake on this forum, however, is calling the US-based company 'Yowies USA' when it is technically 'Yowie Group' (a minor nitpick)

Not exactly a mistake I think It is the easier way to differentiate them from UK Yowies and Australian Yowies

Roger wrote:

On the other hand, the wolf subspecies  have links/thumbs in the lower taxon level, next to the wolf link but in the same page as you find foxes, jackals, etc while tiger do not have the links of the subspecies mixed in the same page where lions, leopards, jaguars, etc., are listed.
I understand it is not easy to get because I can't explain it very well. I don't mind the model we use, I only think we should use the same to every single page requiring a similar layout. However, I like the fact subspecies have their own pages.

Ah, now I see. The way the tiger subspecies are done seems more logical to me than the way the wolf subspecies are done. I don't know whether it is that important though. I think subconsciously I have been aware that the species pages aren't always exactly the same, but it has never bothered me. One way or another, I've been able to find what i needed.

Roger wrote:

About the field "Marketed as", I already used it in the past. Look at this page. Instead of using a note, I added this field because it seemed important to point it. I even renamed the page from the way it was marketed to a simpler version. It was sold as a Red Deer Hind and this page is linked on both species. Red Deer, the one it was marketed,and White-tailed deer, the one Taylor pointed us as the correct identification.

Thanks, I'll use "marketed". I think Christophe is right and making a link to the species pages from the "marketed" field can make it rather complex. For me, it is more important that the field is there. For the editor, it may often feel redundant, but for the user, it is the only way to know whether the page name shows how the model was marketed or whether the editor "invented" the name.

I am generally in agreement with the direction of this discussion. The one point I wish to make is about including links that go nowhere. I think the general guideline for that differs by tree. In the makers tree where the figure pages actually live a link that points to a non page is information that a figure is known to exist but we don't have an image or further data. It tells you something important about toy animals. In the By Animal tree a link that goes nowhere may tell you a little about the real world classification trees, but that's not our job. I think sections here should only be created in the tree when a figure page can be linked to it or if it's higher up the tree because it is necessary to connect together two existing branches with figure links in them. That section should be minimal. Just my thoughts on how I approach these areas.

I like the 'marketed as' usage you have mentioned. For the top of a figure page the only things I would class as requirements are the maker and what animal it represents (where are you going to put it in the By Animal tree). You can put any other information that is known in other fields there at the editors discretion. When it was made would be the next highest priority if known.

I completely agree with you Tim

I really love this discussion and I love the passion that you all have for the TAW. Not only, that you are providing us always the newest updates, no you are always discussing how the TAW could become a even more better place. So thank you for that!

So, I find the discussion about the subspecies very interesting. Subspecies are something, that most companies ignore, but what is still very interesting for the collectors. Normally, we only have the species level, so it´s very interesting to discuss if we maybe have something more special in our hands. As a species collector, you could add many brown bears and give them different subspecies identifications for example.
As I said, normally, modern companies don´t distinguish on subspecies level, so it´s often us collectors who assume the different identification by the companies origin. So f.ex., Papo is based in Europe, so their Brown Bears are Ursus actos actos.

So the idea of "marketed as" is a very cool approach, that would be very useful. We could add it (I will stay with the Brown bears) for exemple with the Japanese companies. When they didn´t gave us any informations, we could say Kaiyodo "marketed as Brown bear Ursus actos" and add "identified as U. a. lasiotus as it appears in a Japanese fauna set.
That´s something we could add to the TAW. Often, their are notes on the figures, that the identification is debatable or that it was done by discussions on this forum. However, not every editor is using this idea.
"Marketed as" and "identified as" would be clearer for everyone.

But I assume, the using method of TAW is very subjective and everybody wants other informations - so the same for the editors. Everybody has other preferences. For me personally, I like the idea using it as a "real" wiki.
So for me personally, a page for Brown Bears should look like this:

"Caniformes" ---> Bears ---> Brown Bear (Ursus actos). By clicking on the Brown Bear page, you will find every U. actos. First of all those that weren´t identified by the company on the subspecies level. Followed by all the other ones: U.a.actos, U. a. horribilis, U. a. nelsoni, etc.

Sp personally, I prefer the method like it was done on the Tiger page. There you have all the Panthera tigris and by scrolling, you find not only the P. tigris but also the ones identified on subspecies level by the company f.ex. Panthera tigris altaica or by our forum.

But as I said, everybody has other preferences.

I bought the PV striped skunk from Cody because TAI has it as a striped hog nosed skunk

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Play_Visions_Striped_Hog-nosed_Skunk

The justification of that ID is supposedly based on the nose, but this figure clearly has the nose of the regular striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Hog nose skunks have long slender noses.

bmathison1972 wrote:

I bought the PV striped skunk from Cody because TAI has it as a striped hog nosed skunk

https://toyanimal.info/wiki/Play_Visions_Striped_Hog-nosed_Skunk

The justification of that ID is supposedly based on the nose, but this figure clearly has the nose of the regular striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis). Hog nose skunks have long slender noses.

I hope I don't have to indemnify you. This is my personal identification and it was a long time ago, even before TAW. I asked other members opinion on forum and it was relatively well accepted. Now I'm not optimistic anymore and my motto is "In case of doubt, trust the company"
I can't find my figure at the moment, it is not next to my other skunk figures but I suspect I still have it. The identification was based on a facial picture which is not anymore available on forum. Could you show me your model from this angle? Now I'm sure i won't mess them and I'd be glad of fixing it myself if needed.

the front isn't important, it's the side (which TAI shows). Hog nose skunks have long slender noses

The PV is indeed labeled as a Striped skunk.

One more thing, not about species, I will add "Prior" animals in the Injecta Plastic page. I am thinking to change the name "Prior" to "Injecta Plastic" on the figures page. Or maybe I should let Prior and add Injecta Plastic. What do you think ?

OK, it took me some time but I've finally found my PV skunk. Here is the reason why I identified it as a striped hog-nosed skunk, I assumed this figure was painted like this to represent the naked nose of a hog-nosed skunk. Though, it actually doesn't look like any skunk and it has the snout strip which seem to be absent on striped hog-nosed skunks. PV is the figure in the middle of the picture. I'll move it to striped skunk and as all skunks should be listed as striped skunks until proven otherwise, please take a look into the old Safari skunk identification. It is listed as a hooded skunk and identification is mine, we don't know how Safari marketed it, maybe just skunk.