Talk:Koala

Alternate Meaning

Koala is a slang term meaning a couple or group of friends wearing a commonly themed shirt. For example, a husband and wife both wearing World Of Warcraft T-Shirts.
Person1 - "Look at those koalas?"
Person2 - "They totally koalad to show support for gay rights."
Person3 - "It's nice to see people koalaing to show support." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.50.107.30 (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Violent koalas

It has been well known that koalas can fart and can maul people when woken. Why does a simple edit that says so get edited away? Is there some sort of fear of admitting it? Koalas aren't all sweetness and light! Mattabat 09:22, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have been told even by Koala enthusists that they can been quite violent, and in some cases even without being prevoked. Koalas being violent should be mentioned in this article, as it is most definitely part of their natural behaviour.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

If you can find a verifiable [[WP:RS|reliable source that says that koalas are violent then there is probably a place in the article for it. If all you have is "that is what I have been told," that is not verifiable or reliable. Jons63 (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

THIS IS SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO INCORRECT!!!!!! This person can't even spell organization right, so why should we believe him??!?!?! Besides, he says things that say "that is what I have been told" are not reliable, but HE USED THAT IN HIS WRITING!!!! (when he said "I have been told even by Koala enthusists that they can been quite violent, and in some cases even without being prevoked."

so dont listen to him! 65.37.38.249 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Koalas will be violent in self defence, like most animals they would prefer to survive than face a chance at death. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Im sick of wikipedia's WP:V policy but as an Aussie and any aussie will tell u thst they are violent and aggressive, moreso when they feel threatened, the ones in the zoo are tame for all you silly tourists. 220.101.4.140 (talk) 18:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Drop bears

This was added by an anonymous user, can someone confirm it's nonsense? Evercat 12:32 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

A close relative of the koala, is the Drop-bear (phascolarctos cinereus extremis), it is much like the koala, only three times larger, they have distinctive large gripping talons and forearms; very sensitive to sound, they are named for propensity to become disoriented and fall upon parties of noisy unsuspecting tourists. The injuries caused as drop-bears frantically attempt to secure a hold on the torsos of their victims are quite horrific and their images have been suppressed by the Australian Government. Tourists are advised to wear crash-helmets when in the vicinty of eucalypts. They are known to be particularly aggravated by the tones and cadence of the North American accent. KOALAS ARE NOT BEARS

Oh, it's entirely true, guys. People do tell the story, especially to tourists. It's one of the most common fictional animals around. Very well known. Err ... should I do a taxobox now? Tannin

Sure, and while you're at it, make one for wild haggis which roam free over the hills of Scotland. :-) Evercat 12:37 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Actually, we probably should move it over to "Culture of Australia", or "Legends of the Australian bush", or somewhere like that. Australia: only country in the world where drop bears still survive. :)

Hey Evercat, I think you're onto something. We should do a page. Call it Fictional national animals or something like that. It would be a lot of fun, and yet entirely appropriate material for an encyclopedia. Let's see now ...

• Australia: Drop Bears
• Scotland: Wild Haggis
• Tibet: The Abominable Snowman
• United States: Sasquach or Big foot.
• Scotland (again): Loch Ness Monster

Ahem -- I believe Sasquatch lives here in the Pacific NW -- I think the Cascades?? And what about the Jackalope and its German cousin? JHK

This could be fun! Tannin

Heh, nice idea. :-) Evercat

I'm in. Who's gonna start it? --Dante Alighieri 20:34 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

LOL LOL. Don't froget mokole mebe or however you spell it for Congo. And The Beast Of Exmoor. Dora Nichov 12:59, 2 February 2007 ()

cutest animal in existence

"the Koala is the cutest animal in existence" is this vandalism or has this been scientifically proven? (it wouldnt surprise me if it had)

Not exactly vandalism, more like over enthusiasm. There is a idea that Darwin should be updated to become 'Survival of the cutest'. Or at least, now that we are in a world where human activities are affecting many environments, the best measure of fitness would be cuteness, since it is only attractive macro-fauna that people care about protecting -- you seldom see people campaigning to 'Save the Great Grey Slug'.

Given the number of programmes to help Koalas with their reproductive problems, it would suggest that Koalas have a cuteness quotient that is at least in the top 10%. -- Solipsist 08:38, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

My friend from Brisbane swears that they are not so cute. I will be adding in a section and I swear to you I'm not trying to be disgusting, but if an animal tries to come up a tree after a koale, they urinate on the intruder. I promise I'm not just being gross. --Waterspyder 04 November 2005

The addition about urination as a defence mechanisms is simply not true - an undocumented story that doesn't belong here. I have observed koalas for 30 years (and caught~ 800) and have never observed this behaviour and nor has any other koala biologist that I know of.

If a list was made on cutest Australian animals, for example, koalas would be eclipsed by every Macropod from walaby sized downwards, every Bandicoot and every rodent native to the country. The perception of the Kaola being cute comes from the ignorance of these animals, not the animals natural attractiveness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Ecological role?

Quote: The koala fills the same ecological role as the sloth of South America

What is this ecological role? I could find no information on what that role might be in the sloth article either. Donama 06:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The role is what they do and maybe what they are. I'd guess the relevant characteristics are: leaf-eating, tree-dwelling, slow-moving, warm-blooded, medium-sized. The point is that although they aren't at all closely related, they have evolved to be similar and to act similarly through convergent evolution. Mark¹ 12:20, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

There is a moths species that exclusively feeds on koala poo http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/publications/articles/biolink7.html#HDRkoalaKoala soph (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Brains

I read somewhere about "the reason koalas have small brains" (though this was a teaser which didn't tell you the reason). If there is some basis for this, it would be nice if someone could add 1) how small their brains are, and 2) why. Mark¹ 18:56, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Wrote it myself. ;) Mark¹ 23:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I know nothing about koalas in particular, and little about biology in general: I'm an electrical engineer (want me to solve a Laplace transform?). But isn't it at least highly probable that their small brains are related to their energy conservation (I think I read somewhere that the brain uses a large percentage of the energy (food) most mammals consume), and more importantly, the small brain within a large well-supported cranium would provide a "crash pad" to protect the brain in case this tree-dwelling creature misjudges the strength of a branch? Can we find a marsupiologist (is that even a real term?) who could suggest a reason? Yiddophile 23:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an expert either, but in one of Tim Flanery's books he wrote that Koalas brain cavities are filled forty percent with fluids, and that was indeed because of the lack of nutrients in gum leaves. We still need someone to find more dedicated information before it is included in the article though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.183.79.186 (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No Water

I was once told that Koala means 'no water' and that Koalas rarely drink. This seems like it should be mentioned but I can't find it any where.

The information is now on the article page. Figaro 03:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

The current reference for its meaning seriously doesn't look like a reliable source. In any case, I doubt gula has enough morphemes in it to mean "no drink" or "no water". --Ptcamn 14:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, English can communicate "no drink" in two monosyllabic morphemes as "thirsty", and "no water" (and, theoretically, "no drink" or even "no beverages containing mind-altering fermented substances") in the monosyllabic monomorphemous "dry", so I'm somewhat less skeptical.  ;) 216.52.69.217 12:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

A number of problems with the etymology section as it is now:

1. The spellings used are dated and inaccurate. Specifically, koolah looks like an old spelling of gula, mentioned above.
2. It isn't specific about which language each name is from. (It really annoys me how people always tend to lump them all together as "Aboriginal words", as if they were all the same. I mean, which group used "koala" to mean "no drink"? All of them?)
3. It says "koala" comes from the following Australian Aboriginal words... but it certainly doesn't "come from" all of them simultaneously! --Ptcamn 18:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have now added five further references about the word 'koala' meaning "does not drink", "no drink" and "animal that does not drink", to prove this fact. Figaro 22:38, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

That just means it's a widespread myth. People love to repeat interesting facts without bothering to check if they're true—the fact that none of them can actually say which language it's from, only that it's "an Aboriginal word", illustrates this. One of them also repeats the story of "kangaroo" meaning "I don't know", which is well-known to be a myth. ([1] [2]) --Ptcamn 08:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Ptcamn - none of these sources cited are authoriative and "prove" nothing. e.g. the Sydney University source is a childreen's page within the Sydney University domain with no supporting evidence. If it had been an anthopological thesis on Aboriginal languages, then there might be some reason to cite it. I am surprised when I look at Figaro's profile that so little weight is put on sources. Maths must be more straightforward than Biology or Linguistics!! I believe this section needs to be cleaned up.

I deleted the references, for now. --KJ 02:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Figaro, please don't just readd the same references without any explanation. Also, please use ref tags properly; don't use them as you would markup plaintext. --KJ 05:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Extinct in SA at some stage??

Can this actually be verified by reference back to an official survey or something? I find it extremely difficult to imagine that this is physically possible (every single koala known to be dead) given the amount of suitable bush that would have been available. Presumeably if they were extinct then there should also be reports of koalas being introduced to all the places they are found now or reports of them migrating into these areas. Presumably there would also be reports in the papers of the day of "last koala killed" or "no koalas sighted for x years"?

The suggested merging of the Koala bear page with this page

The reason why the information is on the Koala bear page, and not on the Koala page is so that people will become aware that they are called Koalas and not Koala bears. This is an encyclopedia, where the correct name should be learned, at least. I am worried that if the information on the Koala bear page is merged with the Koala page, the misnomer of Koala bear will probably continue. Figaro 03:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• It is a confusing and unnecessary page when the name issue can be discussed here. Inocorrect common names do no (as far as I have noticed) get wikipedia pages.--Peta 23:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Redirected. End of story. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

External links, anyone?

Could useful external links be added?

By the way, I deleted a link because I found its site dubious; the site it led to had a photo of someone claiming "my name is John." The link was added by an advertiser; his blatantly commercial edits led me to another site, and I saw the same photo again. This time, it said that the person was named Jack Moore. --KJ 11:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The smell

Diff: [3]

Much as the Flamingo's bright color comes from the carotene they eat, the Koala has been observed as smelling like large cough drops due to their diet of eucalyptus.

Really? I thought koalas smelled awful. I once read this in the Reader's Digest: Some tourists in Australia were taken to see koalas. The tourists noticed a strong unpleasant smell, and the tour guide said that it was from eucalyptus leaves that the koalas eat. One tourist was familiar with eucalyptus and pointed out that koalas did not smell anything like eucalyptus, to which the guide replied, "That's what the eucalyptus smells like when it comes out of the koala!" --Kjoonlee 05:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone who knows about koalas smelling like eucalyptus, can you specify if this their natural odor, or because they're just rubbing against the leaves all day?Anerbenartzi 05:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Koalas have been noted as smelling of eucalyptus -- an odor familiar to many as associated with cough drops.

I removed the above from the article. No references cited, and possibly incorrect. --Kjoonlee 05:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried Googling for "Koala stink" instead of "Koala smell" and got this link: http://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/staff/gene/tasmania2.html

It has a very similar story; maybe I didn't read it in Reader's Digest after all. --Kjoonlee 05:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The Australian Koala Foundation's Koala FAQ has some details: --Kjoonlee 05:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

My source on the smell is first-hand; I went camping with friends in the Great Otway National Park last year, and the area was full of koalas (noisy buggers kept us up at night). Some came walking through our campsite and let us pat them. And they do stink; it is a smell kind of like eucalyptus, but mixed with a foul sweaty smell. And it's STRONG. It seems to come from their chest. I patted one on the back and my hand didn't smell much, but another friend scratched it on the chest and it reeked! -- davo1000, 15 February 2007.

The strongest scent comes from the male Koala's chest, which has a scent gland on it that he uses to mark territory and attract females - that is why your friend's hand would have smelt.

Food

Seems odd that a page on the koala has no mention of eucalyptus as a food - or maybe it has been deleted from an earlier version thru vandalism ....can someone re-insert the sections on food...TT —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.8.159.2 (talk • contribs) .

So I just re-inserted the original text that had been removed by vandals on food...the text seemed to stay stable for a while so presumably there will be no objections but there is still some stuff missing from the Ecology Section that should be returned...(and yes I will get around to registering ASAP)...TT—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.100.200.19 (talk • contribs) .

SemiProtect?

Do you guys think this page needs a semi-protect? It's had a lot of vandalism (why?!) -Patstuart 19:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It's true it's getting vandalized a bit more than some other articles, but there are also articles that get even more vandalism that aren't semi-protected. Octopus, for example. --Kjoonlee 02:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Donuts?

Koalas don't eat donuts. Isn't their major source of food eucalyptus trees? Is it some kind of vandalism? Since there isn't much reference about eucalyptus trees, and all there is stuff about donuts, and what kind of donuts they eat. I definitely think this is vandalism. Of course, if not, could you give me proof?cutienemo04

Yes, it was vandalism. You can check the "History" tab to see the various edits to help revert vandalism. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

The "donuts" thing is a reference to Wikipedia Brown, a parody of Encyclopedia Brown, much like the insertion of Paige Fox pictures on the warthog entry. 67.113.48.212 19:58, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

koalas as pets???? really?

ok, there is a section of pets that says koalas are not normally kept as pets. is this really necessary if they dont? or should it not at least explain in more detail the legal status of them as pets? Daniel625 22:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well from my experience foreign people dont know we cant keep them as pets, so a legal status as to keeping them as pets is warrented, and maybe also the difficulty of keeping such an animal as a pet. Enlil Ninlil 05:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

hi this is FRIEND here koalas are my favorite animal and I know a lot about them I also know they might go extinct and I am willing to do anything to let that not happen and I am looking for people to help me! So please contact me at bluefan2516@hotmail.com and share your ideas!

Extinction, nar there as common as dog shit her in Victoria mate, cant run them over though too much blood.Enlil Ninlil 03:03, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Conservation Status problems

Sigh. Thanks for the attempt at humour, Enlil Ninlil. Anyway, the conservation section of this article needs some serious cleanup. There are no references, and some of the statements are questionable at best.

For example, the koala was only hunted close to extinction in South Australia. The koala isn't considered to be in serious decline Australia-wide by the IUCN, nor by most state governments, although it is considered to be declining in some regions. The IUCN actually classes the koala as "endagered", NOT "vlnerable". Stating only the conservation status of koalas in those states where it is considered to be threatened is POV. For example, QLD considers the species to be "Common". Culling was not just "suggested", but is considered by most ecologists to be absolutely necessary. I will try to get some references for the AKF statements about conservation status.

If anyone else would like to help, that'd be great. CnsBiol 06:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

The IUCN has no "potentially vulnerable" classification. The reference shows it as "LR/nt", which is "near threatened". - UtherSRG (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - you are correct. The Australian Koala Foundation have incorrect information on their website. However, the full IUCN classification for the Koala is "Lower Risk/Near Threatened", which has different connotations to simply "near threatened". I've altered the text slightly, and inserted the link. CnsBiol 03:04, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Koals as pets is realy a srupid idea —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Aishe zq (talk • contribs) 14:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Just thought i'd ask about someone updating the line in the conservation section where it says that the koala's IUCN listing is 'Lower risk/ Near Threatened,' because they've (as you can see elsewhere on the article) dropped it back to Lower risk.

Can we please unprotect the site to get some thorough updated information on the conservation status? The koala is currently being assessed for federal listing and numbers are in steep decline - this is plastered all over Australian Government websites so can definitely be cited.Koala soph (talk) 02:20, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Images

Dropped an old image at the bottom. The others need a bit of ordering IMHO. That left-right-left thing helps sometimes. Fred 13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Noise

If my memory serves me correctly, koalas make a deep grunting noise which is not what one might first expect. Does anyone have a scientific description of this? Leon 03:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Cultural references page

I have now created a new page called Koala — cultural references, and have transferred all of the 'cultural references', which were listed on the Koala page, to the new page — I have also added a link from the 'See also' section on the Koala page to the new page. (This is similar to the Kangaroo emblems and popular culture page, to which there is a link from the 'See also' section of the Kangaroo page). Figaro 07:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've moved it to Koala in popular culture to avoid non-words in titles. See Gorillas in popular culture as a possibly better template. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:54, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Moved to Koalas in popular culture. --Kjoonlee 13:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the page to The Koala in popular culture because it is a more correct title for the page. The page is about the popular culture of the Koala (as a species). Figaro 13:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest you move it back.. we've got Dodos in popular culture, Gorillas in popular culture, Penguins in popular culture, and probably many more.. --Kjoonlee 14:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the Koala is the subject of Australian emblems and logos, I think that it might perhaps be best to follow the article title of Kangaroo emblems and popular culture (which is similar in content) and rename the Koala cultural references page as Koala emblems and popular culture. Figaro 23:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Predators

The article mentions that the koalas isolated on Kangaroo island have no predators. It doesn't address the situation on the mainland, though. Are there any predators? If so, they should be listed, and if not, that fact should be stated. JamesMLane t c 02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

There should be a listing with a reference as dogs being one predator, maybe some of the larger Goanas and crocodiles, homo sapiens and the car. Enlil Ninlil 04:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

People and cars aren't really predators... Peta 04:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You are write on the cars part, but why are people not? We hunt for food sometimes, other times it's because we love to kill. Enlil Ninlil 04:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

To nit-pick predation is specifically about killing and eating; humans haven't eaten Koalas for some time. People killing koalas for "fun", or by accident, isn't predation. The major impact of humans on the species is habitat destruction and motor vehcile accidents. If you read the Kangaroo Island article it says that koala has done well there because their favorite food was abundant and there are no foxes. Dogs and foxes are the only significant predators on mainland koalas listed in the National Koala Conservation Strategy; owls and eagles can take juvenile koalas. This article probably overstates the predator free status of Kangaroo Island; and could obviously state what does predate on koalas.--Peta 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I was joking, anyway you are correct on the predation, but what of the reptiles that inhabite the warmer parts of Australia. Enlil Ninlil 07:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Didn't read anything about that; pythons, goannas and koalas wouldn't really have the same range, even where they do co-habit you can't overlook that koalas are pretty big and have big claws making them pretty unattractive prey for something that has to swallow them whole.--Peta 00:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The range of pythons, goannas and koalas overlap completely, to the extent that you will never find koala habitat in Northern Australia that isn't also prime goanna and python habitat. Having claws makes no difference whatsoever to snakes, they will happily swallow animals with horns and hoooves. Goannas of course don't swallow their prey whole, which is why they can eat sheep, kangaroos, people etc. ::: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ethel Aardvark (talk • contribs) 04:12, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

Crocodiles usually submerge their prey to suppocate it, then dismember it if its too large, they have killed people in Australia before that is well known, size and ferocity doesnt matter for them. The Saltwater Crocodile article, explains some things they eat. Goannas on the other hand they may be vemonous, see the Perentie, but there isn't a reference for that. Of corse the Megalania would most likely have aten this and the Giant Koala as well. Enlil Ninlil 04:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Additional information about mating

Could someone please insert the following information somewhere appropriate in the article, I don't know where to put it. Usually, after mating is successful, the female tends to go away while the male Koala, still excited, wants to mate again. So eventually the female Koala can violently fend off the male Koala after mating has occurred because she does not want to mate again. When I saw this happen, the male Koala ran after the female Koala and the female Koala clawed him out, discouraging him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteragent (talk • contribs) 20:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone's constantly erasing my info about twins without justification. I'd like to know why. It's a fact I added about the official recording of twins in the 'Life cycle' section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masteragent (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Try adding an inline citation, I'll I will regard it as something real and not just something from your head. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

thumbnail pictures

I've removed the forced sizing of the thumbs in this article so it looks cleaner. 121.208.180.8 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Protection please for the page

Could this page please be protected from vandalism attacks. Thank you. Figaro (talk) 09:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Pap

Life cycle section and the Ecology and Behavior section define "pap" differently. Is it or is it not "excrement/faeces"? One section says it is and the other one denies it. 71.132.197.133 (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Koala bear"

I've removed the claim that "koala bear" is inaccurate — again. Before re-adding it, could anyone so inclined first discuss it here? --Ptcamn (talk) 03:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no discussion needed. It *is* inaccurate to call it a bear. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can prove a genetic relationship with the bears then please provide it, otherwise it should stay. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't taken a look at the article so please take this with a pinch of salt. Nevertheless, if you're trying to deny the fact that people call them Koala bears, that would be linguistic prescriptivism — in other words, POV pushing. --Kjoonlee 16:16, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

From a descriptive linguistics POV (which is the best way for NPOV IMHO) it is not incorrect to say anything, as long as it's not a slip of the tongue. Does my edit look OK to everyone? --Kjoonlee 16:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying people don't call them koala bears. I'm saying that when someone does call them koala bears, that they are inaccurate when doing so. They are not bears. It is inaccurate to call them bears. Do you understand the word "inaccurate"? It means, roughly, to miss the mark. The Koala is no more related to the bears of family Ursidae than kangaroos are, or any other marsupial is. Shall we call them all bears? No, that's silly, and it is silly for folks to continue to call them koala bears. But, none of us can stop people from being silly, but we can label that activity as inaccurate, which is as polite and as correct a way of saying it as any. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, that's not how languages work. --Kjoonlee 17:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Meaning, even if you don't approve, you can't deny it, and people will say it and regard it as accurate. So it would be descriptively wrong to call it inaccurate. --Kjoonlee 17:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What? Reverting to a POV version, without supplying reasons? --Kjoonlee 17:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I've given my reason here, since it was too long to put in the edit summary. It IS an inaccurate description of the species to call it a bear. That is a fact. People can and do wrong things. Their ability to do so in no way changes the fact that the descriptive name "koala bear" is inaccrurate. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's accurate or inaccurate is very arbitrary. I've always had success (vagina vs. vulva, hieroglyphics vs. hieroglyphs) with regard to "inaccuracies" or "incorrectness" so I feel a bit down in the dumps. If you disapprove of "koala bear", wouldn't there be something you can add which might (or might not) convince people to stop saying it, while not approving/disapproving anything? --Kjoonlee 17:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Would "zoologists generally disapprove" be an accurate description? --Kjoonlee 17:32, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Disapproval" has nothing to do with it. It is simply inaccurate. Just leave it alone. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You're not very helpful. Prairie dogs are not dogs. --Kjoonlee 17:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Neither are "Fake Picassos" Picassos, nor are big cats Felis catus. Alleged thieves might not be thieves and possible solutions might not be solutions. --Kjoonlee 22:25, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a prescriptivist POV with regard to common names of Koala bears. I have mentioned it, yet you have reverted me with an automated tool. Are you trying to drive me away? --Kjoonlee 17:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there any words you might use instead of inaccurate? "Misleading" maybe? I have no objections for "misleading." --Kjoonlee 17:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually we should use it is missleading and inaccurate and is seldom used today. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 21:17, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. All this discussion went on while I was away. In response to Enlil Ninlil, I would say that calling it a bear is not any sort of claim of a genetic relationship with bears. Common names of animals have existed since before genetics and before zoological taxonomy, and have always been used based on superficial resemblances, not genetic relationships. "Koalas are not bears" is not an objective fact. It's an objective fact that koalas are not members of the family that zoologists call Ursidae, but there's no reason to insist that the common-language word "bear" be restricted to that family. Zoologists don't control the English language.

I object to describing it as either "misleading" or "inaccurate". We should simpy stick to facts: "Descriptive English names based on "bear" have also been used, including 'monkey bear', 'native bear', 'tree-bear' and 'koala bear', although koalas are not members of the family Ursidae." The reader can come to their own conclusions about whether using the word "bear" for something that's not a member of Ursidae is inaccurate. --Ptcamn (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Present tense would be required as well, since people do still call them Koala bears. --Kjoonlee 22:12, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The correct common name is Koala. Anything involving the term "bear" is incorrect. People can call it what they will, but that doens't make them correct. The correct name for members of the genus Cynomys is "prairie dogs". Not because they are dogs, but because the name of the species in that genus are named prairie dogs. Calling them prairie gophers would be incorrect and inaccurate. The correct common name for this species is Koala. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:43, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Citation needed! Who assigned all these names, and what gives them the authority to do so? --Ptcamn (talk) 22:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

MSW3 does not have authority to tell people what names to use. Nor do I think is that even its purpose. I doubt that if you asked its editors, they would tell you that the only "name" for an animal is the one they list, and anything else is incorrect. --Ptcamn (talk) 23:35, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Grammaticality is in the eye of the beholder; to say only one thing is linguistically correct is a gross error. --Kjoonlee 22:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, people can and do call it whatever they want. People can and do use incorrect grammar all the time. That doesn't make the grammar correct. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope, there's no such thing as incorrect grammar. It's your grammar which is wrong (it doesn't fit) and you blame other people for it. --Kjoonlee 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What's more, sea cows, sea lions, sea horses, guinea pigs, buffalo bisons and aardvarks are not cows, lions, horses, pigs, bisons, or pigs (varks). Hence it follows nicely that Koala bears are not bears, a fact which is just as obvious to people who know sea lions and lions. --Kjoonlee 23:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

The difference is the distinction beween a name, and what a thing is called. some things have multiple names, some have only one. The things you listed are the names of the things (or the class the thing is in). The Koala is called by many things. Only "Koala" is its name. Calling something by what it isn't is not accurate. It is still done, even though it is technically incorrect. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You have a strange definition of "name." A name is what you call things to denote them. I hope you don't go through the mistake of quoting dictionary definitions, though; dictionaries are meant to document usage, not to mould people's thoughts. --Kjoonlee 23:13, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

In the US, dragonflies have lots of names (including darning needles, mosquito hawks) and sodas are called sodas, soda pops, and Cokes. Soft cheese has a varied distribution of names as well, and there are other names for dragonflies in all the languages of the world. Heck, there are more than 15 words for dragonfly in the Korean language. --Kjoonlee 23:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

So... you are saying that from a zoologist's point of view, it is wrong to say koala bear. I'm saying that from a linguist's point of view, it is wrong to say it is wrong to say koala bear. Looks like we have a clash of POVs. We should solve these problems to mutual benefit, not through blind reverting or repeating of dogma. --Kjoonlee 23:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Kjoonlee, the inclusion of 'bear' implies that a koala is a bear, as a zoologist would understand it. Most people know that the animal world is divided into various categories, one of which is bears, which does not include the koala. If people who say 'koala bear' aren't saying that the koala belongs to the bear family, then what are they saying? 'Bear' is innaccurate and it should be stated so. - David (5 February 2009) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.255.116.22 (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I was just reading Leitner, Gerhard; Sieloff, Inke (1998). "Aboriginal words and concepts in Australian English". World Englishes. 17 (2): 153–169. doi:10.1111/1467-971X.00089.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) If I've cut through the jargon correctly, it is saying that koala is one of a fairly small number of Aboriginal expressions that has entered not just Australian English but world English, and indeed a number of other languages. It says that initially the term koala was an "unknown referent" i.e. people had no idea what a koala was, so the word was largely meaningless to them; the taxonomically deviant expression Koala bear was more informative and so became popular, and is still in common use today.

Considering koala bear is surely the only bear-based expression still current, perhaps we could split it off from the other bear-based names? Something like:

The word koala comes from Dharuk gula. Although the vowel /u/ was originally written in the Latin alphabet as "oo" (in spellings such as coola or koolah), it was changed to "oa" possibly due to an error. The word is erroneously said to mean "doesn't drink".

When first adopted by English speakers, the name Koala bear became popular, as this roughly evoked the species' appearance to people unfamiliar with it. Although taxonomically inaccurate, the name Koala bear is still in common use today. Other descriptive English names based on "bear" have included monkey bear, native bear, and tree-bear.

Hesperian 00:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

In my lifetime (a long one) Australians have almost entirely stopped using the term Koala Bear and now just call them Koalas. I accept that language evolves and that usage varies from place to place. Does the name used where the creature actually exists carry more weight than the less scientifically accurate usage in other places?HiLo48 (talk) 01:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for page protection against vandalism

Could this page please be protected against vandalism. At the moment it is being repeatedly vandalised by both Pokky9 and 210.1.203.68 (both of whom are obviously the same person, because the disgusting obscene message is always the same). Protection of this page would therefore be very much appreciated. Figaro (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Requests should be made at WP:RPP. I have just reported the IP so hopefully this will take care of the vandal. I really dont think its worth protecting because of 1 person, if it escalates then i suggest asking for a short pd. of protection. Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 11:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Poisonous? Toxic?

At my local Zoo, I heard from the docent that it's not advisable to handle koala bears without gloves because they excrete toxins/poisons. True? --Zybez (talk) 15:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

For starters, Koalas are NOT koala bears - nor are koalas related to bears in any way (koalas and bears are totally different species from each other). Although the Eucalyptus leaves which the koala eats are toxic, it is not necessary to wear gloves when handling koalas (except, perhaps, to avoid being scratched by their sharp claws). Figaro (talk) 12:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction

The article states that koalas are secure at anational scale, the populationis large and thriving and so dorth. And yet we have one paragrpah staing that koalas are doomed form a lack of genetic diversity. There seems to be a large disconnect between thes epositions. The expert opinion seems to be that koalas quite ecurem though like all species some populations are threatened. Is there any evidence that koalas as apsecie sare in any danger?Ethel Aardvark (talk) 03:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

While not usable as a source in itself, Encarta provides a pretty reasonable summary of the point. Orderinchaos 04:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

These edits, [4] [5], removed inappropriate wording. The other edits between 03:27 and 03:42, 6 October 2008 added fact tags to sentences supported by refs, altered sentences to become meaningless, and misrepresented the sources to suggest its Australian conservation status is 'secure'. This DSE (Vic.) source does say

Compared to other Australian states, Victoria has a large and thriving Koala population.

However, the editor must have skimmed because in the same document they go on to point out:

In some areas, population densities are so high that they put unsustainable pressure on tree species, and this can become a direct threat to forest patches. In other areas, management support is needed to help reverse the declining numbers and link Victorian Koala Management Strategy.

I will restore the edits to the inappropriate wording. cygnis insignis 05:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

None of which adresses the contradiction. All the sources, inlcuding Encarta, say that koalas are not considered threatened. A review of the species national conservation status concluded that the Koala is not threatened at a national scale. The IUCN lists the species as "Lower Risk / Near Threatened". Yet the article says that they are threatened. Which is correct? Are koalas threatened as the article says or are they not threatened as the scientific literature says? There appears to be an obvious contradiction here. I really don't care which ay this goes, but the article can't really say the species is not threatened, and then go onto say that all koals are threatened, can it? If the article wishes to state, as Encarta does, that there are some experts that say that the koala is threatened that's well and good, but it really needs to be made clear that ths is a contentious point not supported by the major authorities such as state and cmwlth govts or the IUCN. As it stands it simply states in one place that the koala is threatened, with no refernce, and then states later that the koala is not threatened.Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what is meant by "added fact tags to sentences supoprted by refs". I see no refs in those sentences. Is my browser broken? Ethel Aardvark (talk) 07:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I need source to cite for my paper.

Could someone edit this koala article so it will show the source so I can cite it on my paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by A-teta (talk • contribs) 02:40, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Discrepancy in Life Cycle Section

Can someone clear something up for me? The life cycle section says: "the world's first confirmed identical twin Koalas, named "Euca" and "Lyptus", were born at the University of Queensland in 1999.", but according to this (http://www.cctv.com/program/cultureexpress/20070423/102448.shtml) and this (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/05/photogalleries/wip-week29/), they are not. Is this just a technicality between "captive born" and "wild born"? What's the scoop?
WiiWillieWiki 208.111.239.27 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

A favourite of Hitler

Wasn't Hitler known for his obsssion with Koalas? I beleive the swastika was designed to resemble that of a koala claw. --Roller-frompacket (talk) 08:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. It's all part of The Koala Conspiracy. --Quartl (talk) 10:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Most Hitler biographers agree that koalas played a very limited if not completely negligible role in his programme for world domination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SelectSplat (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You do know that the Swastika is an Asian symbol commonly used in classical Hinduism and Buddhism, right?Leviathanlover (talk) 22:10, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple vaginas

"The female has two lateral vaginae, a feature unique to the Koala, and it has two separate uteri which is common to all marsupials."

That's not true - all marsupials have two lateral vaginas, and two uteruses. The reference mentioned contradicts the claim. I'll go ahead and change the text. WorldAsWill (talk) 05:09, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Twins

Walker's Book of Mammals (6th ed) says:

"[...] the usual litter size is 1, though twins have been recorded regularly."

Whereas Wikipedia says:

"Twins are very rare [...]"

Does anybody have any reliable numbers? Both "regularly" and "very rare" are vague, and they give pretty much opposing ideas. Marsupials in general have a litter size of one, with occasional twins, so I wonder how different the koala is in this sense. WorldAsWill (talk) 05:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Twin koalas are extremely rare. The first known identical twin koalas, Euca and Lyptus, were born in April, 1999, at the University of Queensland. Sometimes a female koala with a joey will adopt another koala joey, whose mother has been killed, and the two joeys are then mistakenly assumed to be twins. Figaro (talk) 14:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala Bear

Koala Bear's live up to 15-20 years. They live in Queensland, Victoria and South Australia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.126.143 (talk) 01:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

They are called Koalas. They are NOT called Koala Bears. Figaro (talk) 13:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I love koala bears

Koala bears are the cutest animals in the world and I want one as a pet but its illegal. Bummer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.43.65.247 (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

They are called Koalas, not Koala Bears!--203.51.49.157 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Koala distribution

In addition to Western Australia and Tasmania as places in Australia where Koalas are not found, this site [6] also says they aren't found in the Northern Territory either. Please add it to the article.--203.51.49.157 (talk) 02:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Imagery?

There appears to be a lot of unnecessary imagery here- I'm all for 'koala crawling on ground' and 'koala eating eucalypt leaves', but do we really need 'koala clinging to a branch #7'? It's almost a gallery! We probably need to rid the page of all identical copies other than the clearest image (probably the first ones). En-AU Speaker _(T) (C) ^(E) 01:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Tasmania?

We're told that there are no koalas in Tasmania, with no elaboration on that point. Tasmania was last connected to the mainland in very recent geological times, less than 10,000 years. It would seem inevitable to me that Koalas, which exist in Victoria in their strongest numbers, would have also existed in Tasmania. Where did they go?

HiLo48 (talk) 23:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the bass strait flora was not suitable for the species, the flora of tasmania has a large amount of rainforest, but sparce eucalypt woodland which they prefer. Or they could have become localy extinct and many animals naturally do. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 05:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It is not true that Tasmania has little eucalypt woodland. Certainly there are large tracts of cool-temperate rainforest especially in the very wet west and south-west, and several other koala-unfriendly biomes elsewhere. (The whole interior of the island is dominated by mountain ranges and high plateaux, which are definitely not koala country.) However, most of the drier east coast was (and a lot of it still is) covered by eucalypt-dominated dry sclerophyll forest. (Indeed, the most widespread eucalypt in the world, the Blue gum now found throughout France, Israel, India and California, is native to Tasmania and actually the State flower.) Yet so far as we can tell, koalas have never lived in Tasmania; no koala fossils have ever been discovered there, and the island's aboriginal population had never heard of them. The exact reason for this is not officially known, so my answer will be original research which cannot go on the page. However the best guess is that it is simply too cold for them in winter. Even in Queensland, they do not live about 600 m altitude, suggesting that they are very intolerant to protracted cold. This is not too surprising given the low calorific content of their diets. -- 202.63.39.58 (talk) 21:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

protecting koalas

Koalas are nor just animals, their animals that are almost extict. but there are small things we can all do that make a big difference. Like not burning down trees or steeling their fur to make coats.I kow that we all need coats, but get them some place else because its not right to just kill animals for selfish reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.148.32 (talk) 13:37, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Koalas are not "almost extinct". No one "burns down their trees", that's just nonsense. There is no trade in koala pelts and no one "makes coats" from their fur. Please don't make nonsensical posts about something you clearly know nothing about. - Nick Thorne ^talk 22:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Clivepollard, 3 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} you should mention that, although koalas are not found 'in the wild' in Western Australia, they are found in several zoos and parks, notably Perth Zoo, Caversham Wildlife Park and Yanchep National Park. thank you Clivepollard (talk) 00:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I suspect they are also found in zoos in other countries, just as with many other animals. There are lions in zoos in Australia too, but the Lion article naturally doesn't mention that. I don't think t's an appropriate addition. HiLo48 (talk) 00:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /DeltaQuad|Notify Me\ 00:55, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Add Infraclass info

Please add Infraclass info in the sidebar about scientific classification so that this entry is consistent with other Wikipedia entries for marsupials. The information to be added to make it consistent with other pages should be added to the scientific classification sidebar below the line for Class and is -- Infraclass: Marsupialia

You seem better informed on this than most. Please feel free to add it yourself. It's probably safer that way. HiLo48 (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)