Talk:Fauna of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article Fauna of Australia is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 27, 2005.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 31, 2005 Peer review Reviewed
October 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
January 11, 2012 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
 
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
WikiProject Australia / Biota (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Fauna of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (marked as Top-importance).
 
Note icon
Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia.
Note icon
The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to help@wikimedia.org.au for other than editorial assistance.
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia.
 

Cod Photo[edit]

That photo of the guy holding the cod really appropriate? Dosent seem very encyclopedic... 121.45.22.89 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Venom[edit]

The lead paragraph to be used for the main page, on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2005, says that the monotremes are venomous. Is the echidna also venomous? Or just the platypus? Rewster 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Just the Platypus, thanks for pointing out the error, I will change the main page blurb.--nixie 03:08, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Might be better to use platypus with a lower-case "p." Rewster 04:35, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Nope, caps is the convention for species names, lower case for the common term for a genus... --nixie 04:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Yes, of course you are correct, and the species name would typically also be italicized, but...platypus is the common name, while Ornithorhynchus anatinus is the scientific name. Rewster 05:52, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
          • Caps is the Wikipedia convention for common names, and is applied throughout this article.--nixie 06:02, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Pipefish[edit]

Do pipefish males incubate their young, or is that just seahorses? Rewster 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • From the FishBase entry all males in the Syngnathidae have a pouch to incubate young.--nixie 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
    • See if you think it's clear the way I rephrased it in the article. Thanks, Rewster 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Seems clear to me, thanks for all the copyediting you've been doing- a fresh pair of eyes always pick up new things.--nixie 01:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, thanks Rewster. You've improved readability quite somewhat. :)--cj | talk 01:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Invertebrates[edit]

Do we have any specific examples of the over-harvested natural urchin predators whose absence leads to urchin barrens?

Also, it is not clear to me why the first paragraph lists the numbers of worldwide species for each insect order. Why is this info necessary? Deleting it might make the paragraph more readable. Regards, Rewster 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

I will chase up some info on the urchins. I thought that the insect numbers were interesting since they indicate how much insect diversity is in Australia. Readability would be improved if they were converted to approximate percentages - we can comment out the actual number for future reference.--nixie 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Monotremes[edit]

In the lead paragraph and under the Monotremes and Marsupials heading it says "Australia is home to the two of the five extant egg-laying monotremes". But I was always told that there were only two, and monotreme says that there are only two extant monotremes (and two other extinct families). Also, "egg-laying monotreme" is a tautology. Nick81 26 December 2005.

  • There are five living species of monotreme, the monotreme article says that, furthermore monotreme means one hole- which has no direct relation to the egg-laying abilities of the animals.--nixie 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Awwwwwww...[edit]

Thanks for putting that superadorable koala on the Main Page. Made my night. jengod 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

End of the Article[edit]

This article ends abruptly --Hobophobic 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Not to worry, I spotted that and found the missing piece. Rich Farmbrough. 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Platypus capitalisation[edit]

Is there a reason platypus gets continually capitalised in the lead section? --liquidGhoul 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Because Playtpus is a species common name and the convetion is to capitalise.--nixie 04:18, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • There is no convention, it is still being decided, but I thought that it was only really birds that the convention applied to. The platypus article does not use capitalisation. --liquidGhoul 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I see that this has already been talked about in the archived talk. I think something should be concretely decided upon. The current situation is starting to get annoying. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I had explicitly spelled out which convention was being used in this article in a commented out section at the start of the article.--nixie 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, sorry about all that, I didn't see it. When I was creating White's tree frog, it had been changed by someone from all caps, to none (except for the proper noun). When I researched it, I got the idea that only birds were capitalised, but now I see it is left to the preference of the author. --liquidGhoul 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Post-MP review[edit]

Reviewing the series of edits made between Dec 22 and Dec 29, during which this article was featured on the Main Page, I noticed a chunk of text had been removed. Without narrowing down in which edit it was removed, could I ask if there was a reason? --cj | talk 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I restored it. Apparently KI (talk) took it out while creating a new article Invertebrates in Australia. However, this new article (so far) appears to be just a copy of the invertebrate section from Fauna of Australia. --Rewster 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Unclear sentence[edit]

In the last paragraph of "Monotremes and marsupials", the article says that "The 51 species of macropods are divided into three families..."- but macropods are animals belonging to the family Macropodidae so how can it be? 212.235.10.138 17:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

There are actually 54 species documented, and three families I believe it refers to kangaroos/wallabies/relatives ?? perhaps the word three "families" should be changed to three "groups"... Sam

Mediation[edit]

Concerning Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-02-18_Fauna_of_Australia:

User_talk:Barrylb#australianfauna.com_at_Fauna_of_Australia_page:

I did not know you could not add your own web site to wikipedia. Sam.
This is not strictly true. Ceck Wikipedia:No_original_research#The_role_of_expert_editors for example. There are circumstances where editors can add their own publications to wikipedia. As the page is non-profit and seems to contain adequate information (even if its entry page looks like bad advertisement) I would say this might be a borderline case. --Fasten 19:13, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi - it would be great if I could add my web page to the Fauna of Australia page - I believe it fits the category!. I also think it has a lot of content which is useful, especially for primary age children to help with school projects and etcetera. Thanks, Sam..
Why not expand wikipedia's coverage of these animals rather than trying to adrevtise your own webpage? --Martyman-(talk) 00:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Martyman - Im not trying to advertise the site but I would like to have a link to it from the "Fauna of Australia" page as I believe it to be on topic. If the website can't have a link then that is fine (dissapointing, but fine!) - I would just like to know the reason why. And to answer your question, if I had a lot of spare time then I would certainly contribute to wikipedia's coverage of the animals - (I have made a number of small changes and additions in the past but never had a wiki account until now). Thanks, Sam.
I see two troubles with the linking your to site from wikipedia. The first is that you istigated it yourself which will be viewed by many as self promotion. The second is that while your site is quite extensive, I am not sure it is any more extensive than wikipedia's own coverage of Australian animals. If that is the case, it raises the question: Why link to it? --Martyman-(talk) 01:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
First Trouble! - it MAY (not WILL) be viewed as self promotion - as I said earlier it is not for profit, and I believe it to be helpful.

Second Trouble! - Please have another look at the site, it contains pages upon pages of information that wikipedia does not yet have - therefore I believe it to be a worthwhile link to be added to the Australian Fauna page.

I would really just prefer to wait until the mediation is complete rather than go back and forwards with you as to why it should or shouldn't be included.

and while we are here! - what do you think about the change i mentioned in the previous topic - should someone implement that? ... and there are 54 macropods not 51!

I said "will be viewed by many as self promotion" which is quite correct. Your claim of being non-commercial is not backed up by the sale of merchandise on your website. Please point out a few specific areas where your website has pages upon pages of information lacking from wikipedia. There is no rule about continuing to discuss this issue while waiting for mediation. Note: I have not reverted the re-addition of the link to the article. --Martyman-(talk) 02:44, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Mediation actually requires you to discuss the issue at hand. The mediator is more like a moderator to prevent undersirable trends in a discussion and promote desirable trends in the discussion. --Fasten 09:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
As to your suggestion about content, if you feel that is what needs to be done, feel free to make the change youself. --Martyman-(talk) 02:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This site should not be added to Wikipedia because:

  • It does not appear to be an authoritative source;
  • The content appears to be lacking in quality, originality and verifiability;
  • There is a lot of advertising and t-shirts and gifts for sale;
  • I believe this site is part of an elaborate network of sites attempting to make a profit. This includes: www.unitedstatesfauna.com, www.canadianfauna.com, www.africanfauna.com, www.mexicanfauna.com, www.brazilianfauna.com, www.newzealandfauna.com, www.indonesianfauna.com, www.wikifauna.com, www.wildanimal.info, www.toplist.com.au, www.bestoftheweb.com.au, www.actionadventure.com.au, www.screenprinting.net.au, www.anzac-day.net, www.freepetwebsite.com, www.honeywerekillingthekids.com, www.bertsfamilyfeud.com, www.techtoys.com.au, www.mentionit.com.au...

These sites are all cross-linked. The intention is likely to make money from advertising and from services where you are paid to link to other people's websites. The websites are all hosted at the same IP address and a check of the WHOIS information reveals Sam Schmidt is the registered owner of most domains. Barrylb 06:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow!. Yes I am the owner of unitedstatesfauna.com / canadianfauna / africanfauna / mexicanfauna / brazilianfauna / newzealandfauna / indonesianfauna - the fauna websites. Others I have set up on behalf of friends or people needing a hand. I dont much see the point of listing all websites on a web server as many people can use the one server to host websites.

Let me clarify a few things you mentioned:

  • "These site are all cross-linked" - Barry, this is incorrect - these sites are not all cross linked at all. Besides the fact that there is nothing wrong with cross-linking if they are on topic (i.e. fauna sites).
  • The intention is to provide free information, learn about the web whilst doing this and cover the costs of hosting.
  • There are a number of websites hosted on the single IP - and a number I have registered on behalf of others who do not have the knowledge to obtain a domain and set up.
  • Services where you are paid to link to other people's websites?? Please let me know about them and I might try those too!.
  • As previously mentioned, the advertising and commission on t-shirt sales (i don't physically sell t-shirts !!) cover costs of web hosting, and any remainder is donated to the WWF-Australia. This is a good thing I believe, the WWF do a lot of great work and implement preventative measures for our world.
  • Lacking in quality, originality and verifiability ?? Sorry I don't agree... originality - it is an information site, not an artistic site. Verifiability - references are stated at the end of each article. Quality - hmm... well I must say I designed the site two years ago and I am not a professional web designer??
  • Authoritative source - What is an authoritative source, and are authoritative sources the only links allowed on wikipedia??

Other than that, I think the number of websites hosted on the IP address, the owner of the websites or etc is irrelevant. I believe what we are looking at here is the australianfauna.com website, the quality of information and whether it should be listed on the page.

Sam

  1. The sites _are_ cross linked. That is how I found them all.
Time consuming!
  1. You say you have registered domain names for others that don't know how. Sorry, but why should I believe that?
Not fussed!
  1. I won't tell you about services where you are paid to link to other people's websites because I am suggesting that you could be offering, or planning to offer, such services.
It's okay I was kidding.
  1. You say you are just trying to cover the costs of web hosting and you are just intending to providing free information. Sorry, but why should I believe that?
Not fussed!
  1. Anyone can donate to WWF. Good for you.
Thankyou, it is a very good cause and a very well run not-for-profit organisation. I am going to remove the link to my website and add a link to theirs so I hope that is okay.
  1. Your site lacks originality in the sense that you are not providing new information. It appears to copied from elsewhere.
Well it isn't copied but "why should you believe me!"
  1. Your site lacks quality in the sense that there is only very basic information on each of the various animals.
Less is more?
  1. Despite your claim of references at the end of each article, there are very few articles with such references.
I paid good money to have those articles written up too.... looks like i didn't get what I paid for.
  1. The reason it is relevant that the websites are all on the same IP address is that I believe it is because you are running them all in an attempt to make money.
There are about 90 websites hosted on that IP Barry, and no, I don't run them all :)
-- Barrylb 10:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Hello Barry,

I responded to your points. I am going to remove the link seeings as it is causing so much grief, and I am really not all that fussed whether it appears or not. I hope this is okay with you?

I would also like to add a link to WWF-Australia if this is also okay?

Cheers,

Sam.

Let's please stick to the web site in question (Australianfauna.com).
According to WP:V this could be seen as a source of dubious reliability because it has "no (known) fact-checking facilities" and as a self-published source. It is not an authoritative source itself but refers to authoritative sources extensively as sources of its information. This would make it a poor choice as a source to support material in an article. This was, however, not the case. The reference has been added as a link for further reading (see WP:CITE: Further_reading). To my knowledge a site doesn't have to qualify as a source in order to be acceptable as a reference for further reading but similar expectations to quality may apply. The site is similar to wikipedia in that it is a reference compiled from authoritative sources. The site is dissimilar from wikipedia because it lacks publicly known fact-checking facilities. The site might be considered to contain an excessive amount of advertisement and was apparently added by the owner/operator of the site, which are both non-desirable qualities (see What should not be linked to / How not to be a spammer). --Fasten 11:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, the plot thickens... I'd like to point out that the site www.insidebigbrother.com is also hosted at the same IP address as www.australianfauna.com. There was an earlier dispute about adding www.insidebigbrother.com to the Big Brother (Australian TV series) external links section which I and others believed to be spam. Another piece of evidence that Sam is misleading us? -- Barrylb 12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Sam has agreed to remove the link and this appears to be the appropriate step. Is there any further need for mediation? --Fasten 14:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I think not. Thankyou for helping. Barrylb 14:29, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Australian Biological Resources Study[edit]

Shouldn't the acronym for this be ABRS and not ARBS? --liquidGhoul 12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

I checked out their website, and it was ABRS, so I have changed it. --liquidGhoul 06:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

New Amphibian Section[edit]

I have created a new amphibian section, to stay up to date (taxonomically). I also thought that very little was written on Australia's frogs in comparison to the other animals so I wanted to expand on it. Here it is. I would normally just add it to the article, but since this is a featured article, I think I should add it here before I add it to the article (which will be tomorrow). Any objections, please raise. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

redirection[edit]

I had to search a while before finding this article. Might I suggest that the following search phrases be redirected to the article "Fauna of Australia":

  • Australian wildlife
  • wildlife of Australia
  • Australian mammals
  • mammals of Australia

Done. --liquidGhoul 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Placental Mammals[edit]

The article states: "Only three species of Australia's placental mammals were not deliberately introduced: the House Mouse, Black Rat and the Brown Rat." Shouldn't bats be included as "not deliberately introduced" as well, or am I missing something? I might be misreading the sentence; perhaps it should be changed to: "Only three species of Australia's non-endemic placental mammals were not deliberately introduced."

Also, it would be good to have a little more information on how the bats and rodents came to Australia. Did the bats fly from Asia to Australia? I would have thought that was further than their flight range. Maybe this is an open question among zoologists; if so the article should say so.

As for rodents, the article says they first arrived 5-10 million years ago. But how? Was there a land bridge? Or were water levels low at that point so that the Torres Strait narrowed and allowed them to swim? Ditto for the second migration of rats, 1 million years ago.

About seals: the article says the 11 species belong to the "family" Pinnipedia, but the article Pinniped refers to Pinnipedia as either a suborder or a superfamily, not a family.

Also, the sentence about the seals comes at the end of a paragraph about cetaceans, suggesting that seals are cetaceans when in fact they are carnivores. Plus, the implication is that the seals originally arrived in Australia the same way as the dolphins and whales, by swimming. Not sure whether that is correct. Mathew5000 09:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer all of these, but I can answer some. The rats and bats came over during the ice ages. The sea level was very low, and many animals were able to come across from New Guinea. This is not just the placental mammals, you also see the marsupials crossing from Australia to New Guinea, as well as many reptiles and frogs. White's Tree Frog crossed from Australia to New Guinea, and the Giant Tree Frog crossed from New Guinea to Australia. --liquidGhoul 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

On your first point, "introduced" implies human intervention. The preceeding content of the paragraph is clearly discussing deliberate human introduction of mammal species. Humans had nothing to do with the arrival of bats of the first wave rodents. --nixie 01:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that. The way it was phrased (before I changed it) was still misleading/incorrect. I inserted the word "nonindigenous", which fixes the problem. --Mathew5000 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Featured[edit]

I wanted to put a {{fac}} (featured article tag) on this page. It's been done already and I'm glad for all the editors. Please find a

corporate barnstar dedicated to Wikipedia editors

barnstar from a wanderer. --DLL 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Quarantine additions[edit]

I have moved the long addition on quarantine concerns to the conservation aticle, the concept is already established in this article and the section is too long and has some issues with POV. This article is already long and any long additions should be useful and discussed here first.--Peta 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually the problematic sectoion is already included in invasive species of Australia, problems with it can be worked out there.--Peta 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Photographs[edit]

FYI to someone who knows more about formatting pages than I -- at least on my browser, many of the photos are not wrapping around the text, but appear above it. I'd fix it but this is above my coding ability. Aloha. Arjuna 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

What browser are you usuing? Also, which photos? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Foxes, toxic toads, western honeybee and more[edit]

It should be described in the article that the introduction of foxes by the british was one of the most contributing measures of the endangerment of local australian fauna (primarely marsupials). As there were no such predators, marsupials have become seriously endangered. Furthermore, introduction of the western honeybee (apis) has endangered the local (honey)bees, and because of there unique way of pollinization, certain local flora is endangered too, since they need these bees for their seeproduction. Toxic toads have also become a serious pest, and are seriously invading the country and deminishing their predators rapidly.

Please insert this information into the article, thanks.

KVDP 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Blackbuck[edit]

The article states that Blackbucks are introduced to Australia. I think this is a mistake, as I have never encountered this information, and I live in Australia. If they were introduced, they are certainly not here now, so I have removed this statement from the article. Frickeg 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Blackbucks are not native to Australia, although they may have been introduced before Europeans. KP Botany 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

A request - Fauna of Indonesia[edit]

Hi there - I am an Australian editor involved in the WIkiproject Indonesia. Our collaboration of the fortnight is Fauna of Indonesia. Thus, I am asking if any editors from this excellent Australian page could provide us with some advice on how to develop the article - or even help! Just drop a note on the article's talk page, or start editing! Of course, we can will look at this Australian ourselves, but the more heads the better. Just to get you all interested, Indonesia apparently has the world's second highest level of diversity after Brazil. kind regards and thanks in advance. --Merbabu 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Monotremes[edit]

Article says: Australia is home to two of the five known extant species of monotremes

But monotreme article suggests all five species and either platypus or echidnas. So that would mean all five are in Australia. Format (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There are (at least) four species of echidna, only one of which (Tachyglossus aculeatus) occurs in Australia; it's also found on New Guinea. Three others, classified in the genus Zaglossus, occur in New Guinea only. Ucucha 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Mammals of Australia[edit]

I think it is time for a separate article for this section. It is getting too large and no doubt it will expand if given the chance. Green Squares (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

FAR[edit]

It isn't too large because it is such a broad topic (30k prose). An expansion isn't going to kill it. The more pressing danger is WP:FAR due to a lack of citations. Judging by the list at WP:URFA it will probably get nominated soon as people work through the 2005 list. YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Sigh - much of it is sourced with a tertiary source. It could do with some buffing and some of the facts I suspect need to be clarified. I'd take it to FAR but I think it'd be nice to get Australia out of the way first. I will ask Sabine's Sunbird to look at the bird segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
Technically it is, yes, although if I just found another book called "Fauna/Animals of Australia" it may not be explicitly styled as tertiary but it would have the same structure with 2 pages on an overview of every group, followed by half a page on each animal. Things like "Field Guide of Australian Frogs" and other textbooks on frogs aren't designated an encyc but are built the same way, because with an umbrella textbook, on all fauna, there isn't enough space to cover anything except the core summary of the basics. Before I added Egerton, most of the books listed by Petaholmes would probably cover the same kind of depth as Egerton was 500+ pages. I mean, if I wrote a tertiary article on Churchill or whatever by simply paraphrasing a 10-page mini-bio from an encyclopedia or some mini-web-bio, that isn't in accordance with the ideal of distilling a 500-page textbook down into an article, but in this case we're distilling the whole 500 pages into a compact piece, so a whole book on all fauna may be ok for an article on all fauna, although not for taking one page out of the book for one animal. If we get a special textbook for each subfamily of birds, fish etc, we'll be here a long time. On another note, there are equivalent structured works that are called "Ox/Camb companion/guide to..." that aren't explicitly "dict/encyc" but have the same thing with hundreds of bite-sized things. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I want to point out that somebody deleted what I think it's a very important part of the article that talked about dingos and platypus among other animals and now it's little to no mention in the article, though it is mentioned in the spoken article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.139.179.44 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Silly me. Hadn't noticed that roos, Wallabies, platypuses, etc had been killed off by somebody without being noticed YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(belatedly) Ucucha has kindly pointed out some problems in the mammal section..I think the problems might be larger than we think. :( Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Which reminds me, the other problem with 2.5 source (i.e. somewhere between secondary and tertiary sources - namely wildlife encyclopedias) is that they are often outdated...Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Indigenous Rodents[edit]

Hello, I have an interest in the Pebble Mound Mouse. I've noticed that there is no parent page for the Pebble Mound Mouse family. There seem to be three or four varieties. Should there be a parent page for them ? What about Australian rodents ? (Jimmy Heat (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC))

I think a pebble mound mouse article would certainly be in order. They form a distinctive group within the genus Pseudomys that is probably going to be a separate genus soon (including the species calabyi, chapmani, johnsoni, and patrius). Ucucha 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Good, I look forward to seeing a Pebble Mound Mouse article here soon. It's surprising how obscure the creature is. (Jimmy Heat (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC))

Crocodile Species[edit]

Are there only two crocodile species in Australia ? The article isn't clear on this, it mentions that Australia has both saltwater and freshwater crocodiles but not that these are the only species. --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes. It is badly worded - I'll change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Featured article review for Fauna of Australia[edit]

I have nominated Fauna of Australia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Mammals in the Eocene[edit]

Although marsupials and placental mammals did coexist in Australia in the Eocene, only marsupials have survived to the present.

What kind of placental mammals?80.141.178.33 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Tingamarra, which is supposedly a primitive ungulate (and known from a single tooth). Ucucha (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)