Jump to content

Talk:Kangaroo

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 93.92.200.193 (talk) at 16:23, 11 December 2015 (→‎note). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Common myth?

Kangaroos or kangaroo are one of the rare few that keep their baby's for more than 2 years. Is there a reason for this section to be so prominent, or exist at all? There is no reference for this myth, nor that it is common. The writing also seems more like a parable than an encyclopedia. I think that the article would be stronger without this paragraph.Bob98133 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the 'kangaroo'-'I don't understand' myth? Ashmoo (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if it wasn't clear. It's this section in Terminology that seems odd:
A common myth about the kangaroo's English name is that it came from the Aboriginal words for "I don't understand you." According to this legend, Captain James Cook and naturalist Sir Joseph Banks were exploring Australia when they happened upon the animal. They asked a nearby local what the creatures were called. The local responded "Kangaroo", meaning "I don't understand you", which Cook took to be the name of the creature. In 1892, the "Kangaroo" story was connected to the 1808 poem Mounseer Nongtongpaw, where the character John Bull refusal to learn French led him to believe that the French "Monsieur, je vous n'entends pas" ("Monsieur, I don't understand you") was pronounced "Mounseer Nongtongpaw" and that Mounseer Nongtongpaw was a mysterious beautiful woman.[9] The Kangaroo myth was debunked in the 1970s by linguist John B. Haviland.[10]
I think the article would be better without it. Bob98133 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I have heard the story told many times and a quick google of 'Kangaroo' and 'I don't understand' will bring up many pages that repeat the myth as fact (as well as debunking sites). However, you are correct that the story as it stands in the article in not well sourced. Ashmoo (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ashmoo - your rewrite is much more concise. Bob98133 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, hang on, granted it doesn’t mean ‘I don’t understand you’ … But what does the word ‘kangaroo’ mean … ?Cuddy2977 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Terminology. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Species

Macropus giganteus tasmaniensis (Forester Kangaroo)is recognised as the Tasmanian subspecies of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.208.240.149 (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The italian version of this article is here. http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canguro

Main article is semi protected, so I don't edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleMinciaroni (talk • contribs) 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) yep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.132.104.70 (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

farting unimportant?

The section ' Absence of digestive methane release' seems highly specialised for this article, especially after only two paragrpahs on digestion. Any expert comment? Earthlyreason (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic or political locale

Should the sentence "Kangaroos are endemic to the continent of Australia, while the smaller macropods are found in Australia and New Guinea." be corrected to something like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent including the island of New Guinea." 122.106.228.67 (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It currently reads "Kangaroos are endemic to the country of Australia. The smaller macropods are found in Australia and New Guinea." This is unclear wording. After my removal of "the country of", and a reversion, I had to do some research to figure out what relevant distinction there was to draw between country vs. continent. The current phrasing isn't working - "the country of" dangles like a loose thread instead of just telling you what it wants to say. "Country of Australia" is technically correct, but fails to inform the reader. How about "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia and Tasmania"? (Should Australia there link to country or continent?) I think the IP's suggestion is good too. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

""The term "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia and Tasmania" is considered erroneous and it would only be a matter of time before someone corrected it. I like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent including the island of New Guinea" as it confirms that both the mainland and Tasmania have them, and allows the subsequent sentence to show that there is a difference in the types of kangaroo in the three locations - mainland, Tasmania, and New Guinea. However, it should be changed at the end to read "as well as" the island of New Guinea, rather than "including". So my suggestion is - Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent as well as the island of New Guinea.--Dmol (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Saying "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania" has the obvious flaw that they also exist on other islands, most obviously Kangaroo Island, but also many others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have just deleted the latter part of the sentence in question. In hindsight, I might have been a bit quick to do this, however, I reiterate that this is not discussed in the article so possibly should remain deleted. Are there kangaroos on New Guinea - I am thinking of tree kangaroos, but these are not mentioned in the article. Please reveert deltion if you wish, but I think it needs to be expanded upon in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a year ago and may have changed since but here's the current situation. "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia, and one genus, the tree-kangaroo, is also found in Papua New Guinea.". The links have been removed but the two relevant to this discussion go to the articles on the states (the Australian Commonwealth and PNG). So, the issue raised here is still not solved. The states which lay claim to the territory in question is not what's relevant here. Kangaroos are endemic to the continent of Australia (the mainland, Tassy, New Guinea & other islands). This is what's relevant. I'd suggest something more like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian continent, though only one genus, the tree-kangaroo, found in New Guinea.". Jimp 11:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, the tree-kangaroo doesn't fit the definition of "kangaroo" given in the article (specifically that they are the large macropods). So, the tree-kangaroo is therefore just an aside: it's related and has "kangaroo" in its name but isn't a kangaroo (just like a starfish isn't a fish, a dwarf planet isn't a planet, a dragonfly isn't a fly and a creation scientist isn't a scientist). We need not go into the specifics of which islands they are found on. We can simply say "Australia" and link to the continent. Jimp 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Adaptions

I think that maybe this section could be split up into two sections. The first part would be for the babies and the second part would be for the legs. 65.35.190.8 (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kiana loves kangaroos —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.103.228 (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious.... My two visits to Australia (near Alice Springs) have been during Summer (or now near Summer). I've seen lots of Kangaroos and night, but not during the day. Is this just a seasonal occurrence (Kangaroo's don't like being out in the heat), or is it a normal aspect of their behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.39.27.237 (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vocalizations

I think a sentence on and a sample of kangaroo vocalizations should be added. Why is this page locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.24.17.102 (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroos make a grunting noise when stressed or as a warning. Wildlife carers refer to a mother's call to her joey as a "double click", which when we the carers do it, is produced in the back of the throat. TerrellaWildlife (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Terrella Wildlife.[reply]

Biomechanics of hopping

There is an interesting section on the biomechanics of hopping in the book Life of Marsupials, p. 308-311.[2] GregorB (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LuLu

An interesting story, or really headline "In 2003, Lulu, an Eastern Grey, saved a farmer's life. She received the RSPCA National Animal Valor Award on May 19 of the next year.". But two of the three sources expired, and one does not load(Or takes an inane amount of time to load). Unless there is some hard evidence, preferably permanent, this isn't any more than a fanciful children's story.

I'm not saying it isn't possible but some real evidence would be appropriate.Aryeonos (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian, I still have vivid memories of all the media attention this story garnered at the time. It's definitely more than a fanciful children's story. I have updated the links to go to unexpired sources. Hope that helps. Lainem499 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All links to articles about this are currently working. I have also now added a further reference regarding this.

Please change "falling" to "fallen" [tree branch]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.92.14.172 (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, 'falling' is the correct word to use in this case (the branch was 'in motion in mid air' when it hit the farmer), and should not be changed. It is a 'point of grammar'. Figaro (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three vaginas

I just heard on QI (Quite Interesting) that the kangaroo genitalia are quite intersting indeed ; apparently the female has three vaginas, one of which serves no apparent purpose, and the male has a sort of split penis. I'm very surprised not to find information about this sort of thing on wikipedia ;-) 85.28.87.67 (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats cause its rubbish. Females have 1 vagina in the cloaca and the males have 1 penis in the cloaca. ZooPro 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close. Yes, its true the male has a single, not split penis (its the Thylacine that has a split penis). However, the female has two vagina's. It doesn't give birth through either of them as a seperate birth canal develops when the female gives birth. Granted, it is not a vagina, however, the female does have two vagina's, both of which enter into the cloaca. This is an ancient system that can also be seen in reptiles today (evidently the kangaroo was to lazy to evolve out of it). Hitthat (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

There was a {{taxobox}} in this article, 'kangaroo' is a common name that does not refer to a single taxon. cygnis insignis 06:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hand-rearing

Unfurred joeys can also be saved but the success rate is lower. Very young joeys, those whose eyes are still closed, benefit greatly from being raised in a humidi-crib. After feeding the joey must be stimulated to urinate and defecate. The weaning age for species vary. Eastern Grey Kangaroos, for example, are weaned at approximately 18 months of age. Joeys that have been hand-reared can be released back in to the wild, the longer they are care the more necessary it is to use a soft release programme. In some states of Australia the law indicates that all wildlife must be returned to the wild. Individual states and territories also have laws pertaining to the legalities and licencing of wildlife carers. TerrellaWildlife (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really sure what you are actually asking/discussing, are you wanting to insert this into the article? ZooPro 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

attacks

The page on attacks was deleted again even though it was greatly improved from the version nominated for deletion. There are enough stories reported in the media for a separate article. See: User:James4750/Kangaroo attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transfer

Since "kangaroo" is a not taxon. Shouldn't much of the information on this page be tranfered to the Macropod article or to the articles on the individual species? Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Kangaroos are not the only Macropods, There are Wallabys, Tree-kangaroos and Pademelons, they each have their own article. Its like Big Cat and then the individual articles Tiger, Jaguar, Lion and Leopard, it also has Panthera. ZooPro 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But can't much of the info here be used to describes other Macropods? Also the Big Cat article is much shorter than the feline one. Shouldn't it be the same here? Bobisbob2 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the info from here can be transfered no problems at all as long as we keep this page intact also. The Big cat article only covers 4 cats, the feline article covers all the cats so i will assume you were refering to Panthera instead, the lengh merely indicates the effort editors have put into the article. WikiProject Mammals will in 2010 be extending the big cat article. ZooPro 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having had a look at the all those articles they are all about the same size in information.ZooPro 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know? I went there and they are still on choosing the article for April 2009. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am the Coordinator of the Project, and yes that error is being dealt with. We are having alot of issues as the Project has only just been re-activated in the past few months.ZooPro 02:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 87.205.205.106, 8 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I belive that in this sentence "Larger kangaroos have adapted much better to changes wrought to the Australian landscape by humans and though many of their smaller cousins are endangered, they are plentiful." there is a spelling mistake - the word "wrought" should be changed to "brought"

87.205.205.106 (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. I think the original author may have meant 'wrought' but 'brought' certainly gets the idea across equally well and is less archaic. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 12.187.40.66, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}


12.187.40.66 (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) A kangaroo is a small fish that is indigenous to South Africa[reply]

Not done: That should be covered at Kangaroo (disambiguation), via it's own article. Also, you do not have any reliable sources. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

This article needs a taxobox added like most of the other organism articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxobox#Taxoboxes Andrew Colvin • Talk 05:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient History of the Kangaroo

After doing a little bit of research and have found out some information about kangaroo ancestors. The following is a quote from this Howstuffworks article from their website-

"Fossil evidence dating back 25 million years has revealed that kangaroo ancestors did not hop [source: The Daily Telegraph]. At that time, rainforests covered most of Australia, and the predecessors most likely fed from fruits and leaves and could climb trees [source: The Daily Telegraph]. One existing species, the tree kangaroo, still inhabits parts of the rainforests in Papua New Guinea. As the continent's climate heated up, the rainforests gave way to dry, grassy plains, guiding the roos to their current terrestrial existence."

I think this information should be added into the article. Thanks. Motorturnaroo (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the list of articles in other languages on the left, could someone competent add the link to Italian, which is missing. Thanks a millionCampolongo (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Patwoods, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under 'Behaviour', delete: 'Because of its long feet, it cannot walk correctly.'

Comment: The kangaroo walks correctly for a kangaroo. The sentence is redundant, incorrect, and unscientific; its deletion leaves the sense of the paragraph more sensible but otherwise unchanged.

Patwoods (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, Kind regards ZooPro 06:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Flannery (2007): Chasing Kangaroos

Should Tim Flannery (2007): Chasing Kangaroos: A Continent, a Scientist, and a Search for the World's Most Extraordinary Creature. (ISBN 978-0802118523) be included in the refs.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.130.153.43 (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo life expectancy

The page lists kangaroo life expectancy to be 6 years, citing a .com source with no educational background.

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Macropus_rufus.html

The page lists Red Kangaroos having a life expectancy of 22 years.

http://people.hws.edu/fieldguide/show.asp?ID=95

The page lists Grey Kangaroos having a life expectancy of 18 years.

I propose a life expectancy table or reference be made to several kangaroos: Red, Grey and smaller kangaroo species. Insane Kangaroo (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correction on Kangaroo's - Not all Marsupials have a Pouch

The wiki page says: "Like all marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch called a marsupium in which joeys complete postnatal development." Not all marsupials have a pouch. Marsupial is an animals that gives premature birth. We see many marsupials not have a pouch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks18 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Description: last paragraph, last sentence: "Like all marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch..."
I have to agree that not all marsupials have a pouch. Dasyuridae says, "Similarly, many species lack a full marsupial pouch, instead having a simple fold of skin...". Britannica Online says, "Although prominent in many species, it is not a universal feature...". Could this article be rewritten to, "Like the majority of marsupials,..."? 71.234.215.133 (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Done I've changed it to the simpler "Like most marsupials,..." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: spelling

{{edit semi-protected}}

  1. Biology and behaviour --> Social and sexual behavior: Pick a spelling for "behaviour", either with or without the -u, then stick with it.
  2. Biology and behaviour --> Social and sexual behavior --> para 2, line 4: "He stiffs her urine...". That should read "He sniffs her urine...". 71.234.215.133 (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Spelling has been fixed. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should be Australian English behaviour for per MOS:ENGVAR. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs)

Edit request: Four Nipples

I have found several sources, both in print and online, that say female kangaroos have four nipples. I would suggests changing the "Reproduction and life cycle" section to reflect this fact. User:lzbthpwrs 1:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed, thanks. The cited source said four nipples. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: Parasites and pests

Is anyone able to add a section about the parasites and pests that live in and on kangaroos? Captainbeefart (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is quite common for kangaroos to have worms or other parasites and they need to be inspected carefully before consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.223.90 (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection back up

Per a request at RFPP a while ago, I tried dropping the semi-protection on this article; since basically every non-confirmed edit since then has been vandalism, and there's been a fair amount of it, I've re-added indefinite semi-protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Section on side-effects of harvesting unreferenced - reference does not link to cited document.

The section 4.1 on side-effects of harvesting has a footnote, but it appears to be a made-up document. The website it links to does not contain or link to the cited document. I am a researcher in this area and have never come across any evidence for these effects - indeed, a lot of studies have concluded there is unlikely to be any genetic impact of kangaroo harvesting, given the level at which it is carried out and the fact that there are harvest refuges across the landscape. I suspect this paragraph is mischievous, and it certainly should be removed if whoever wrote it cannot supply a genuine reference to support these claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasmobranch (talk • contribs)

I checked the reference, and agree that it makes none of the claims that were in that paragraph. I have removed the entire paragraph from the article. Thank you for catching that. Should someone find a reliable source that actually makes those claims, then we could consider re-adding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation needs corrected

Please correct the pronunciation in the first sentence from the wrong /keɪ[invalid input: 'ŋg']əruː/ (with a long a and no stress) to /ˌkæ[invalid input: 'ŋg']əˈruː/ (with a short a and stress). Thanks —109.154.113.98 (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, and well spotted, don't know what the original one was all about, haha --andy4789 ★ · (talk? contribs?) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Syndactyly

Could someone pls add something about kangaroos (& related) having a syndactyl foot? Thanks 124.148.211.236 (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: group nouns

Mob and troop are legitimate group nouns for kangaroos (easily referenced), but there is no obvious truth to the notion that "court" is used as a group noun for kangaroos. This is simply a slightly clever play on the term Kangaroo_court which has quite a different meaning. 98.204.202.184 (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree about court, but I also have my doubts about troop. Never come across either in 60+ years in Australia. We only have the one source - http://www.kidcyber.com.au - for that claim. Is there another genuinely Australian source for it? (I don't count google.com.au as really Australian.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As an Australian "mob" is the only name I have ever heard or used. ZooPro 12:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a bit of searching, and it seems there's a handful of non_Australian websites telling us that troop is a collective noun for kangaroos, and maybe it is, for non-Australians. Are there any non-Australians out there who can comment? HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Collective nouns are archaic. No-one uses them seriously any more. Mob is the clearly accepted term, and should be used exclusively.--Dmol (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And what is "mob" if not a collective noun? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ [your turn] 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, good point. But what I am referring to is those silly lists of collective nouns that appear occasionally, such as murder of crows etc, that claim to be the "correct" term to use. They're not used in real life.--Dmol (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The "Courtship and mating" in External links is a 404 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.220.162.177 (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request: add Dutch article link

There's a Dutch (Nederlands) article about this, but it's hard to find because the title is in plural: http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangoeroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.28.192.149 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added it. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are articles in kazakh (http://kk.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%80%D1%83) and russian (http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9A%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%80%D1%83) languages.--DefaultLocale (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added them. Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

lol,kazakhs? Isn't it Borat related country?5.76.246.84 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: German page

same as with the Dutch request the German (Deutsch) title is in plural http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%A4ngurus

Please add it :)

Removed POV section.

I have reverted a recent edit, which is copied below, due to its failure to adhere to a neutral point of view.

It was titled, Mass culling of kangaroos since European settlement.

(Start quote) In rural Australia, kangaroos are often viewed as a pest and killed en masse: ‘Given the widespread culture of shooting across rural and remote Australia, and the very strong sense of entitlement that accompanies it, it seems likely that the number of kangaroos killed without authorization is high.’ [1]
Each year 3,000,000 kangaroos are ‘harvested’ for commercial use, plus around 1,100,000 young are killed or left to die ‘as collateral of the commercial industry’, to which 200,000 kangaroos and wallabies are killed for non-commercial reasons each year, not counting the number of kangaroos. Governing the Killing of Kangaroos", Report for THINKK, the Kangaroo Think Tank, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, 2010</ref>. (End quote)

My reasoning is as follows.

  • The title is POV. Yes, I could (and did) tone it down, but as I was going to have to trim the entire section, it was pointless.
  • "In rural Australia, kangaroos are often viewed as a pest". True, but not in all cases.
  • "and killed en masse". Not supported by any reference. Highly dubious.
  • "Given the widespread culture of shooting across rural and remote Australia, and the very strong sense of entitlement that accompanies it". Subjective opinion, original research, and not supported by impartial refs.
  • "seems likely that the number of kangaroos killed without authorization is high". Again, not supported by impartial references. The same quote continues - "The very significant toll from road accidents also has to be factored into the kill figure" but this sentence was not included in recent edits.

As the entire section was based on a highly biased essay, I have removed all of it. If anyone wants to re-enter information with reliable fact-based refs, then please do so, listing the ref with each piece of info.--Dmol (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those problem areas for Wikipedia. You're right to ask for good sources, but their absence does not disprove the words you have removed. I've lived and worked in rural Australia, and have masses of anecdotal evidence in my head to back up what was added to the article. I suspect it's largely true, but those who told me the anecdotes about great nights out in the bush "huntin' and shootin' roos" are not ever likely to write down their stories. I can't argue with your action, according to Wikipedia rules, but those rules do get in the way of the truth at times. I don't have a solution. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 8 March 2013

"The hydrogen byproduct of fermentation is instead converted into acetate, which is then used to provide further energy."

Should be edited as follows: "The hydrogen byproduct of fermentation is instead converted into acetate, which is then used to provide additional energy."

Jcp22305 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please give a specific reason in why you want it changed, as I see nothing wrong with the sentence already in the article. - Camyoung54 talk 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request, 10th May 13

Hi, please can the final sentence in the paragraph on Terminology ("Living in mobs provides protection for some of the weaker members of the group.") and the associated reference please be moved to the section on Social and sexual behaviour? It seems out of place in a discussion of kangaroo group terms and more in place where the behaviour of kangaroos in groups is actually covered. Thanks. 78.145.48.12 (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - I actually moved two sentences instead of one. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hunting/Killing Kangaroos

In most parts of Australia, kangaroos are afforded some form of protection (as are all native animals) and can only be killed in certain circumstances. Generally, they can only be killed by property owners, with an appropriate permit; and/or licensed Kangaroo Field Processors. In some cases, a property owner may transfer their right to kill kangaroos on their property to visiting hunters. It is illegal to remove kangaroo products (meat, pelt, etc). from a property unless the shooter is a Field Processor, or the hunter has obtained a numbered "yellow tag" from the property owner.

Large kangaroos (reds and greys) can only be killed with a rifle (wallabies and such can be taken with a shotgun). The Code recommends an expanding projectile with a minimum weight of 50 gr and a minimum muzzle energy of 1137 ft-lbs (.222 Remington or larger (most hunters/processors use .223 these days due to its relative low cost and easy availability)). As kangaroos have a relatively small brain, mounted high in their heads, the only approved shot placement is towards the upper back of the head and both the shooter and the kangaroo need to be stationary at the time of the shot. The code also recommends that the rifle be zeroed daily before hunting kangaroos. The hunter must ensure that the kangaroo is dead before shooting at another kangaroo. If the kangaroo is a female, the hunter must inspect the pouch for joeys. If a joey is present, it is to be shot or bludgeoned.

While many see the hunting of kangaroos as barbaric, it should be noted that they are a fast-growing species and due to modern farming practices (which open up fields for grazing and the easy access to dams and other water), kangaroo populations can expand rapidly and reach plague proportions.

Meat Generally, only the upper legs or tail are taken for meat, due to the relatively low meat content of the rest of the kangaroo. On rural properties, this is often used to feed dogs. In some areas, kangaroos are prone to intestinal worms and should be inspected prior to consumption.

References Code of Practice for Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, The (Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service, Canberra, 1990). A Guide to Hunting & Shooting in Australia (Geoff Smith, 1999) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.223.90 (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Road Danger

Unlike most animals, which tend to show some caution around roads, kangaroos appear to have little understanding or regard for the danger presented by them. Kangaroos are a significant hazard on rural roads in Australia (although they have been known to make their way into inner suburbs as well on occasion). They are particularly hazardous at dusk or dawn (when they are most active) and especially during times of drought, where they tend to travel large distances in search of water. During one particular drought, I personally observed a dead kangaroos on the side of the highway (Barrier Highway), no less than 5 meters apart over a 585 km journey (Dubbo to Broken Hill (Easter long weekend)). The eagles were all very well fed that year. Sometimes while traveling down country roads with fences on either side, kangaroos will zig-zag down the road in front of the car. They will often match speed with the vehicle, staying 20 meters or so ahead and will make little effort to cross the fence. They may suddenly double back or behave erratically at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.239.223.90 (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the grey kangaroo the most common known one?

The article states that the Grey Kangaroo is not well known outside of Australia. This is not sourced, and not true. I just realized there was a species called Red Kangaroo, and knew the grey varieties existed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is Macroprodidae, should be Macropodidae In chapter Kangoroos vs. Wallabies

In chapter Kangoroos vs. Wallabies Is Macroprodidae Should be Macropodidae 83.31.46.91 (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unecessary Clarifications

In "Social and sexual behaviour" we see:

  • Oestrous females roam widely and attract the attention of males with {conspicuous signals}[clarify].[35]
  • ...the male will continue by licking, pawing, and scratching her, and copulation will follow.[clarification needed][19]
  • Consort pairing may take several days and the {copulation is also long}[clarify].

Please forgive me, but what, exactly, is unclear in these three statements? I'm only 66yo, but my youthful inexperience still permits me to join the dots without adult help—surely other readers have the same educational standard? Or is this a Kindergarten class? 203.161.102.82 (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well after a hard day of finger-painting at Kindergarten, I might want it clarified to know what are the conspicuous signals and how long is copulation in this animal.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, exactly. What does a "conspicuous signal" consist of in a kangaroo? Does she leap high into the air and turn somersaults? That would be a conspicuous signal. It's hard to imagine what other conspicuous signal a kangaroo could make. And what does a long copulation mean? Do these animals go at it for hours on end? And what does it mean by "also long"? A pairing of days isn't particularly long for mammals, where some species pair for life and many pair for the entire breeding season. So what does " "also long" even refer to? Does it suggest that the animals copulate for days on end? Or that copulation is as long compared to the pairing period as it is for mammals that pair for months at a time, so lasts just a few seconds? None of this seems very clear to me. But then, I'm a country boy and never went to kindergarten.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the length of copulation could use specification. But surely the "conspicuous signals" are abundantly clear. They are the "licking, pawing, scratching," etc. that are enumerated. How much more clearly does this need to be spelled out? Zenomax (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you read the article again more carefully. The "conspicuous signals" term relates to roaming females whereas the licking, pawing and scratching relates to the male. Clarification is still needed.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tree kangaroos

Why are tree kangaroos not mentioned in this article? Is there perhaps a taxonomic reason why they are not considered to be kangaroos?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The term "kangaroo" hasn't got any taxonomic basis. It's just based on size. The tree-kangaroo isn't an actual kangaroo but is still worth a mention. This is a year later but it does have a mention now. Jimp 13:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. If the term "kangaroo" hasn't got any taxonomic basis and it's just based on size, I think this really needs to be made clearer in the article.DrChrissy (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right. Jimp 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To add to this discussion, an orphaned tree-kangaroo joey was transferred to the pouch of a surrogate yellow-foot rock-wallaby, at Adelaide Zoo, when his mother was killed by a falling branch in November last year. The joey survived, having been successfully reared by the surrogate mother wallaby.[3]. Figaro (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is interesting but I don't see what it's supposed to add to the discussion. Jimp 12:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It illustrates that tree-kangaroos belong to the same group of marsupials as kangaroos and wallabies - which I thought was being discussed here. Figaro (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I thought the original question was based on a different assumption: not just that tree-kangaroos and kangaroos are of the same family but that tree-kangaroos are kangaroos. Kangaroos, wallaroos, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, etc. are all macropods but what makes tree-kangaroos worthy of a special mention on this page is that they have "kangaroo" in their name. Note, though, that they also have a hyphen: "tree-kangaroo" vs "red kangaroo" and "grey kangaroo". Compare this to the distinction often made with true flies vs other "flies" e.g. "crane fly", "robber fly", "bee fly", "moth fly", "fruit fly", etc. vs "butterfly", "stonefly", "dragonfly", "scorpionfly", "sawfly", "caddisfly", "whitefly", etc. Just as a butterfly isn't actually a fly, a tree-kangaroo isn't actually a kangaroo, but just as butterflies get a mention on the Fly page, tree-kangaroos are worth a special mention here. Jimp 05:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Butterflies get a mention in the context of "they are not flies, they just have 'fly' in their name", and I think that is the tack we need to use here. If we include tree kangaroos because they have "kangaroo" in their name, then we will need to include rat kangaroos as well. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about what the average person wants to read when searching on a term. I doubt that many people searching for kangaroos want information on tree kangaroos and bettongs. This is a common problem in Wikipedia articles about poorly defined subjects. Someone always wants to include "underground trees" in the tree article or "prairie dogs" in the dog article. What we need to do is find a reliable source that defines what a bog-standard kangaroo is and use that definition. We can then follow the fly article and include a simple sentence to the effect that "While a variety of animals such as kangaroo rats, tree kangaroos and rat kangaroos have the word 'kangaroo' in their name they are not kangaroos". Mark Marathon (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A single sentence like that sounds about right. Jimp 06:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you guys are seeing the point here. I would agree with the single sentence, but perhaps emphasise the tree-kangaroo by moving this to the first example. I'm afraid the distinction is also not made clear at Tree-kangaroo where it states in the lead - "Tree-kangaroos are the only true arboreal members of the kangaroo family". Maybe it is me, but I find this highly misleading.DrChrissy (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Castration

when a kangaroo has been castrated , does it affect how tall or large he will get??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.4.58.247 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo's Diet

I found a footage of a kangaroo eating dead bird's meat, dating from November 22, 2013. The text here on kangaroo's diet states that they are 'strict herbivores', but this questions this fact. Could someone please add a new sentence or rephrase the current one so that, in reference to this video (use this video as a reference), this article states that very rare cases are known where kangaroos have eaten meat? I'm not very good at phrasing formal sentences, so it'd be good if someone with more experience did it. Thanks! The link: since it's on YouTube, and Wikipedia doesn't allow YouTube links, paste this after youtube.com's URL: /watch?v=nMVvm8sDGXM

Bye! Boky (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since you posted on my Talk page asking me to come here, I shall. You seem to misunderstand the issue of YouTube references being unacceptable as sources. The point is that if YouTube is the only source, not only is that source unacceptable, we also cannot include the content. Hence my removal of it. If the claim you apparently saw in the video is true, I'm sure some more scientific journal or even mainstream traditional media should have covered it by now. Try Google. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that it is WP policy not to allow YouTube postings, however, I believe this is not an absolute "ban". Most of my edits are related to animal behaviour and sometimes a video example is the best way of informing readers. For example, on the Tool use (animals) article I posted a YouTube video of a corvid repeatedly sliding down a snow covered roof on a tray! I have been unable to find a reputable source mentioning this behaviour, other than the video. However, unless the video has been manipulated in some way, it shows exactly that. I think the problem arises when people try to interpret animal behaviour from the videos. I have not seen the video of the kangaroo eating, but can we be sure it is meat that it is eating and that the kangaroo actually ingests it?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I have viewed the video now. It does appear that the kangaroo is orally manipulating a bird-like object, however, it does not show that the kangaroo is eating (i.e. swallowing) the bird or its parts. In addition, it does not show that the kangaroo is actually eating meat - it could be selecting and eating partly digested plant material previously eaten by the bird.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Kangaroos are not strict herbivores as this video clearly indicates https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMVvm8sDGXM. I think they should be given the status of "opportunistic omnivores" rather than as strict herbivores. Thus the change should be from " although all are strict herbivores" to "although kangaroos are considered to be herbivorous, opportunistic scavenging of animal carcasses have been noted" with a relevant link to the video. PoetDog (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your suggestion however a youtube clip is not scientific evidence and as the animals digestive and behavioral systems are that of a strict herbivore the actions of one individual should not be used to judge or classify an entire species/genus. Regards ZooPro 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

The kangaroo is not actually of 'least concern', as this wikipedia page states, but is a 'vulnerable species', according to the world animal foundation and numerous other sites. Source: http://www.worldanimalfoundation.net/f/kangaroo.pdf 67.236.20.34 (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: Wikipedia uses the IUCN Red List, which lists all 4 species commonly known as kangaroos as "least concern" Cannolis (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Kangaroo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence of predation

Their ears rotate, so they have a history of predation. has anyone written about what preyed on them, the goanna or the marsupial lion? their current behaviors show they are still reacting to threats of predation, from their evolutionary history.2602:304:CFD0:6350:8C97:25D:ED22:D176 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Left handed, are they?

http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822(15)00617-X?_returnURL=http%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS096098221500617X%3Fshowall%3Dtrue RippleSax (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ "The Anguish Of Wildlife Ethics" in "New Formations" (Doi:10.3898/NewF.76.08.2012) 2012, Freya Mathews [4]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Kangaroo&oldid=694794243"