Talk:Brown rat/Archive 1

Archive 1

Body weight

"Adult body weight averages 320 g in males and about 200 g in females, but a very large individual can reach 500 g"? What's the source of this? In my experience it's more like 300 g for does and 500 g for bucks. // Liftarn

Could that be a difference between wild-living and domesticated rats? - MPF 23:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Yes, read the article on fancy rats it describes them as 300 to 500 so it is that domesticated rats are heavier.

Questioned statements about city rats

"Rats live wherever people live. It is often said that there are as many rats in cities as people, but that is an untrue urban legend. It is probable that New York City, for instance, has only 250,000 rats, not eight-million."

"Rats in cities are not wanderers. They stay within 65 feet (20 meters) of their nest, and take the same trails to their food source every time they go out. They will cross an alley, but not a street."

These two statements taken out as they are unfounded, and far from true, particularly the latter - MPF 23:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read the above information in an article in the New York Times Magazine. I consider that to be an accurate resource. User:Dinopup

Robert Sullivan, in his recent Rats : Observations on the History and Habitat of the City's Most Unwanted Inhabitants apparently roundly debunks the # of rats = # of people urban myth. Probably has other useful rat facts in it as well. Amazon quotes these: "if you are in New York... you are within close proximity to one or more rats having sex" and "26% of all electric cable breaks and 18% of all phone cable disruptions are caused by rats, 25% of all fires of unknown origin are rat-caused, and rats destroy an estimated 1/3 of the world's food supply each year.".- Nunh-huh 00:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about using anything from the Sullivan book. Sullivan is not a scientist. His "facts" are introduced like this.. "By one estimate...", "According to one study...", "One rat expert theorizes..." but none of these sources are actually identified. There are no notes that would identify any of the sources for this information. tom

More to the, point he doesn't even make sense: "25% of all fires of unknown origin are rat-caused". Does not compute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The UK official National Rodent Survey found a 2003 UK population of 60 million Brown Rats, about equal to the UK human population. Whether that Acording topopulation density applies elsewhere may well vary. But the second para above is definitely inaccurate; rats most certainly cross streets, I've seen them do so on several occasions, and even more often found dead rats run over in the process of doing so. And any rat that used the same trail every time would very quickly fall prey to a predator; unpredictability of movements is a key to survival for any wild animal. - MPF 14:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The only "National Rodent Survey" I can find is published by the National Pest Technichians Association, and while I can't find the 2003 edition anywhere, the 2005 edition doesn't have any estimated total population figures, nor would its methods be likely to give one. --bjh21 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The "UK National Rodent Survey" is not an ideal source since it is a subset of the English Houses Condirion survey report. This deals with rat infestations within the demense of individual properties and the numbers of a sample survey found to be infested.I presume it is this one: Meyer, A.N., Shankster, A., Langton, S.D., Jukes, G. (1995). National commensal rodent survey 1993. Environmental Health, 103: 127-133

A more accurate assessment of UK population numbers is found in: Harris S., Morris P., Wray S., Yalden D. (1995) A review of British Mammals: Population estimates and Conservation status of British Mammals other than Cetaceans. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. ISBN 1 873701 68 3 This gives a total UK population of 6.75 Million (pre-breeding population)

Rats in cities have very few natural predators. tom

The 60 Million number is being used by the Keep Britain tidy group. It originally comes from an estimate made by Boulter a century previously where he equated 1 rat to each cultivated acre. UK now has a population of 60M hence 60M rats. See: Channon, D, Murfitt E. 2005. UK Rat myths explored International Pest Control, vol 47, 4 July/Aug 2005 192-4

Acording to http://www.tenant.net/tengroup/Metcounc/Dec00/rats.html rats outnumber people in NY 12 to 1. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Acording to http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/rats.asp people outnumber rats in NY 36 to 1. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Picture not appropriate

The picture is of a fancy rat. Although fancy rats are biologically Rattus norvegicus, it feels like putting a picture of a dog to an article about wolves. Though I have never seen a wild brown rat, I doubt they ever look as "good" as the picture shows, bathed, fur shining and groomed etc. --Farside 15:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pet-related material

The source of the pet's litter should be carefully monitored, as wild animals make poor pets.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Has it been mis-edited? Loris 16:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Name

According to the entry on rats in Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, Leonard and Dale Pitt, UC Press, 1997, "The Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus named them [Norway rats] as an ethnic joke." Thought it was an interesting allegation. jengod 07:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The second sentence in the introductory paragraph says that no one knows why they are called Norway Rats, but then the last sentence answers that question: "at that time it was still thought to have originated in Norway." Even if it's not techically redundant, it still is rather clumsy phrasing. CFLeon 00:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I read somewhere that pet rats comes from a line that was domesticated from London 200 years ago and named 'wild city Norways'. Carl Linnaeus published his first work of classification in 1758. So I think the name originates during that era.

hydkat 08:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Brown rats in science, citation needed

It will be tough to find a specific citation that says that when molecular biologists refer to rats it is usually R. norvegicus. It would be easy to list a host of citations where brown rats are used extensively. Perhaps the simplest way to support this statement is to point out the amount of genome information listed for R. norvegicus compared to R. rattus. --Aranae 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merges

I think there's room here for the one paragraph on Sprague Dawley rat and one paragraph from Wistar rat to be here instead. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed, and since the Sprague Dawley is just a strain of the Wister we can keep them in one section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

David T. Bath 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) : Wister rats are a special beast, so I'm not in favor of merging wister with r.norv. At some stage, the stub will be expanded to include a lot of details about their differences (relevant to experimental biol) to other rats, and even similarities/differences to humans. And goodness nows how much detail will come in when their DNA sequences are analyzed fully.

i agree with you that there is definitely room for expansion, but in it's present state these two articles could easily be fit within the main article, once their sections are expanded enough then split them off into their own articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

i agree on the merge, with redirects from new or existing Sprague Dawley, Sprague Dawley rat, Wistar rat, Sprague-Dawley and Sprague-Dawley rat. There are advantages with either strategy above (grow then split, or leave a stub to grow). However, the paragraphs under brown rats in science and the Wistar rat and Sprague Dawley rat pages are already quite redundant, and this redundancy will discourage attracting a group of people to diligently edit and expand any of them (the section or the pages). If the three are not merged, then the 'brown rats in science' section needs to be streamlined to not include information from the Wistar or Dawley pages. Further, the overall quality of the Brown Rat page is not completely up to gold standards yet (unsourced statements) and there doesn't appear to be people lining up to edit any of these three pages, so any voluntary editing efforts could be concentrated here to produce a gold-standard article, including wistar and sprague dawley sections, rather than diluted over three pages. As we now sit in April (8 weeks of polling), with the votes at 3:1 for merger, I recommend that, unless there are other rationales to be presented, we give the vote over to whomever next arrives and has the initiative to merge Wistar rat and Sprague Dawley rat articles in. Jethero 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Lab rats should be a separate entry. There is a vast amount of scientific research which is based upon the results achieved using one or another of these strains. Condensing all together for the sake of "Wiki-neatness" would do all of these strains and the works referencing them an injustice. What is the point in having an article so condensed that it is technically useless? --anon.

I could see merging Sprague Dawley into Wistar though, per Jethero's concerns, but it/they will just have to be split off later from the brown rat article if merged into here, and I don't see any compelling rationale for the merge. There's nothing wrong with having a subspecies/strain article about something derived from a more encompassing species, even if the new article begins as a stub (on the other hand, a second under-stub for a commercial sub-sub-type seems to be a bit much.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, and seeing that there is no consensus here-- though somehow they were merged anyway-- I am "unmerging" them. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A year later? Please get a new consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually going by the old lack of consensus, but the floor is certainly open. Currently, the "vote" stands at 4 in favor and 4 opposed. I actually like the idea of consolidating all these strains under Laboratory rat, but in the meantime, there is certainly enough detail on these breeds to warrant separate articles. I really don't think we want the brown rat entry loaded with lab stats. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable split off location. But even so, start a new dialogue on it, especially since this is the focus of a collaboration, and there should be enough folks here to take an interest in the dialogue. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Status

Who keeps putting these rats under least concern? There is no way these rats should be anywhere near the threatened category.

The IUCN. Least concern is the category for the most common species. --Aranae 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Alberta

This article states that Alberta is rat-free, then later says that there is still a low number of rat infestations reported there. I am not knowledgeable enough of the situation to clarify this contradiction, can someone help? --Cam 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrected my comment --Cam 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Attached is the Government URL to the Alberta Rat Control Web Site http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441

The occasional rat strays across the border into Alberta and is then terminated with extreme prejudice, as the CIA is fond of saying. Fortunately, due to the invention of extremely selective poisons such as warfarin and brodifacoum, extreme measures such as shotguns, high explosives, and arsenic trioxide are seldom used any more. This makes it a lot safer for liberals and other people who don't think of themselves as rats. There are, however, large numbers of packrats, which are actually bushy-tailed tailed wood rats. They are native and rather cute, so we don't kill them even though they do steal things. However, anybody who is not native and not cute should watch their step. RockyMtnGuy 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Accuracy?

'but (unlike the related Black rat Rattus rattus) are poor climbers.'

They don't appear to be poor climbers.

NantucketNoon 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relaively speaking, brown rats are poorer climbers than black rats and spend much more time on the ground. --Aranae 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map have a hole in Alberta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.87.196 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It really should have an Alberta-shaped hole on it to reflect the fact that no unlicensed rats get more than a few miles into Alberta. On the CD for the Disney Movie Ratatouille they actually did something like that. If you look in the Extras, they show a map of worldwide rat distribution with a big hole in it for Alberta. Of course, then they launch into a dance routine involving a red-coated Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman fending off rats with a hockey stick, which has absolutely no real-world relationship to the Alberta rat control program, but at least the concept is there. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Secure

The Brown Rat is secure, not Least Concern, it is very widespread, and there are much more than billions of Brown Rats. The Winged Yoshi

Read the reference, Yoshi. the IUCN lists it as LR/lc. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Plague

"Contrary to popular belief, brown rats are less likely to harbor the fleas that spread bubonic plague, than other rodents like ground squirrels and wood rats."

The source cited (Merck) for this does not appear to actually support this claim. A better link is perhaps http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/info.htm ? Even so, the CDC only makes claims about incidence in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.135.211 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Brown Rat (5 votes)

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Second choice. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
3. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
4. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
5. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

• Pros: topical and important animal....Cons: a more ambitious project definitely...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm terrified of rodents. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Rodents also scare the #$%@ out of me (I have rat dreams). But they are the single largest order of mammal and we should consider topic balance. Capybara is another one to consider. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Okay. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• My first pick. Distribued globally, and needs more work than most of the articles listed. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
• A widely known and economically important animal (in its own way). This one would be my second pick.Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Laboratory rats

It has been suggested that we create a separate page for laboratory rats and include information on the various lab strains, such as Wistar, Sprague Dawley, etc. (see merger discussion above). Given that there is a section on Fancy rats, I think this would be an appropriate article. Then this page could concentrate on wild rats, the fancy rat page could concentrate on pet rats, and the laboratory page could concentrate on rats in scientific research. We could then potentially merge the separate lab breed articles into that single laboratory rat page. Comments? --Jcbutler (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Seeing no opposition, or discussion of any kind, and having been encouraged by one other wikipedian on my talk page, I went ahead and started a new article at Laboratory rat. I think we should keep most of the scientific content on that article and keep this article as an overview, and for coverage of the species in nature. --Jcbutler (talk) 21:48, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:Plague

Several academics (KF Helleiner, LF Hirst, Andrew Appleby, etc.) have varying opinions that point to the brown rat replacing the black rat in Europe as the, or one of the, causes for the disappearance of the bubonic plague from Europe (at least on an epidemic scale). Since the plague started to disappear from areas before the brown rat arrived or really took hold, this is acknowledged to be a not-so-good theory. However, I think it warrants mention without pushing this incorrect viewpoint. How should we go about this? TeamZissou (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, never heard that one. Interesting. I think it could be pretty much succinctly summarised in about 3-4 sentences - who proposed it and on what basis and then why it is unlikely - similar to what is wirtten here above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

To Do List

OK folks (sorry, shoulda done this before now...) - please add everything you think is missing from this article below so comprehensiveness can be addressed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

• needs referencing (duh)
• Needs taxonomy section - what is it related to, and subspecies (there are apparently 211 named (??!!)) -we have to think of a way to discuss this without an enormous list.
• Expand Reproduction and life cycle - eg young are born naked and hairless etc.

I added and expanded communication, but only covered ultrasonic sounds. I expanded the etymology, distribution and diseases sections. TeamZissou (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Issue

In the section Physical characteristics, it reads:

Brown rats have acute hearing, are sensitive to ultrasound, and possess a very highly developed olfactory sense. Their average heart rate is 300 to 400 beats per minute, with a respiratory rate of around 100 per minute. Their vision is poor, around 20/600 for normal rats. They are dichromates who perceive colours rather like a human with red-green colorblindness, and their colour saturation may be quite faint.[9]

The point on eyesight is vague and confusing. "What are normal rats, then?" What does the "colour satuation" being quite faint mean? TeamZissou (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the normal/average rat has vision of 20/600, and that they don't see very vividly bright colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Iceland?

They haven't infested Iceland and northern Russia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.97.214 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Theres plenty of them in the sewers in Iceland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.111.17 (talk) 16:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

rats as pests

There should also be a section dealing with rats as pests and their effects on the food supply, especially in South Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.187.58.3 (talk) 11:37, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Mongolia?

Mongolia is colored as an infested country in the map, but actually brown rats are not found in Mongolia. --GenuineMongol (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)--GenuineMongol (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some scientists believe that the brown rat (Rattus norvegicus) originated in Mongolia. It is found everywhere except Antarctica, the Canadian province of Alberta, and some extremely remote and/or inhospitable places. Since I live in Alberta, where we do not have any brown rats, I know how hard they are to get rid of - here there is a $5000 fine for keeping a rat; and they use poison, shotguns, fire, bulldozers, and high explosives to get rid of them. In most other places they aren't willing to blow your house up and/or burn it down to get rid of the rats, so I think Mongolia probably still does have brown rats.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 17:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

About weight info

Found this news [1] recently. Can someone confirm this info? User:Dome (hr wiki)--78.0.132.56 (talk) 17:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitals?

"Brown Rat" or "brown rat"? There's inconsistency in the article regarding whether "brown rat" should be capitalised. At the moment it's mainly written with lower-case initial letters, although the page title has upper case: before I go ahead and change the few instances in the text where it is capitalised, does anyone know what the wikipedia's policy is on this? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There has been tremendous discussion on this and there are proponents of both title and sentence case (see the current discussion at WT:MAMMAL, for example). The rodent WikiProject has recently decided to use sentence case, so this article should also go there. Ucucha 23:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, looks like it's quite a live discussion, so I won't get involved for the moment: I have, however, corrected one instance of title case this article to create consistency. I guess the title might need to be changed via a page move at some point, but I'm not going to be the one to touch it! ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did. Ucucha 23:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Great stuff - although the resetting of all the pages that link to it might take a while... ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

We don't really need to care about that. In any case, articles should use either title or sentence case consistently, and in a few cases (birds come to mind) it is certainly appropriate to use title case, rather than sentence case. Ucucha 00:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Body size

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11037920

"The news emerged following reports in the Sun newspaper that a 30in (76cm) rodent was killed on a Bradford estate.

Rentokil spokesman Malcolm Padley said: "They were both around 2ft and it's fair to say our technicians were very surprised at the size.

"It goes to show that where there's a food source, these rodents will grow big".

There had been suggestions that the animals could be coypu, a plant-eating semi-aquatic rodent originally native to South America.

However, chief executive of the Mammal Society, Marina Pacheco, confirmed this was not the case."

Looks like the top size is higher than says in wikipedia if THE MAMMAL SOCIETY confirms this

Cannibalism

Cannibalism is described as a major cause of death in brown rats. This is a myth.

Cheap pets

unfortunately rats aren't cheap pets.. small, yes.. cheap no! they require a well balanced diet, litter/ bedding that is not going to cause them respiratory problems, toys to keep them challenged and entertained. and lots of love! Also, rats aren't hardy. All carry (whether resistant or not) mycoplasma, a respiratory disease. This, if active, is not curable and can cost a lot in vets bills. Females are also prone to mammary tumours. They should ALWAYS be kept in same sex groups; unless neutered or spayed. It isn't responsible to even think about keeping them together. I bought my latest pair as a pair of males. But one was a female and already pregnant. I know have lots of babies, many of them with myco.

"All Continents, Except Antartica"

I could swear these things now live in Antarica, in our bases. I know it a bit iffy becuase they need us there to survive, but then again they would not have spread to the whole world without us anyway.

"Indeed, with rare exceptions (see below) the brown rat lives wherever humans live"

(Taken from the introduction). Care to specify exactly where in the article this is discussed? In other words, where does the article discuss human habitats with no rat populations? CapnZapp (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it mentions Antarctica. Jayjg ^(talk) 06:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

What I'm after is that instead of just saying "look below" the text could reference a section and provide a link. I feel it's shit to ask the reader to scan the entire article to find a particular factoid.CapnZapp (talk) 22:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

the phrase "look below" should be removed anyways. the article explicitly mentions antartica (which i don't know if that qualifies as a place where humans "live") and alberta, canada (which has the most aggressive extermination plan in the world). that being said, section links in article prose are usually avoided, and this doesn;t seem to be a case that merits an exception. information on where the brown does not live is obviously under the section titled "Distribution and habitat" which is listed in the TOC one sentence later. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Geographic distribution incorrect

The geographic distribution should exclude rats from the rocky mountains, and Alberta, Canada. Rat colonisation there does not yet exist. (129.128.50.162 (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC))

There are two viewpoints about Alberta: one is that b/c the restriction, extermination, and vigilance in Alberta is so unparalleled we shouldn't include it; the other is that there is no way to be 100% sure that no rat ever crosses the imaginary lines drawn through wilderness. I'm the person who originally created the map with Alberta removed, but I had to admit that there are likely at least a few isolated groups on the fringes. As for the rockies, I would be interested to know what source you have which makes such a claim. it seems possible, but that's not something we can just write in without a reference. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:30, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Picky but, what exactly are the predators of rats?

74.116.154.204 (talk) 17:25, 23 November 2011 (UTC) If the survival rate is 5% then isn't it correct to see the the 95% that don't survive as victims of those who do?

UK figures exaggerated?

The article currently reads: "In the United Kingdom, some figures show the rat population has been rising, with estimations that 81 million rats reside in the UK.[49] Those figures would mean there are 1.3 rats per person in the country". The source for that appears to be the 'Sun' and the only source they are citing for the number they give is someone "who runs (an) environmental services group"

According to a recent BBC piece (here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20716625 ) the -estimated- number is closer to 10.5 mil rats and as a result the ratio is closer to six persons per rat. And the estimation is done by "Dr Dave Cowan, leader of the wildlife programme at the Food and Environment Research Agency", who "has analysed previous studies to try to estimate a total population". Given that the BBC item is citing someone who actually did some research before publishing his numbers shouldn't the article change to reflect that? --Kkostagiannis (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Alberta's status

Alberta is no-longer rat free because we let too many human vermin (liberals and allies) move in the province, so the rats are storming the province and infesting it. Reports of rats being found in the province are in the media every day. We only have ourselves to blame for this. The article should be updated with this new info. 68.144.191.97 (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Alberta isn't rat free, this needs to be changed. http://globalnews.ca/news/1258018/albertas-rat-free-status-in-question-after-discovery-in-medicine-hat/ 142.68.129.23 (talk) 19:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Dingleballs (I just call you that because you don't have a proper moniker), the rats are all dead.

In August 2012, an 80-metre-long rats’ nest was found in the landfill and residents called in sightings, resulting in at least 100 Norway rats being killed by city staff. It took six hours for 21 workers and two excavators to dismantle the nest.

They killed 147 rats in 2012, and after that they only found dead rats. In 2013, the number of rat infestations in Alberta returned to zero, and the province reverted to Rat Free status. If they found another infestation in 2014, you can expect they will hit it with everything they've got and all the rats will be poisoned, pulverized, shot, and burned before the month is out. Don't be caught with an unlicensed rat in Alberta because the fine is $5,000 or 6 months in jail for scofflaws, and they don't take rats alive. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

HOAX map removed

The map of rat range is a complete hoax, its problems noted above in this thread back in 2011. Yes, there are rats in the province of Alberta, Canada. No, there are no rats in the Sahara desert or the Himalayas. We've been hoaxed. Do not restore! Carrite (talk) 16:47, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I restored the map, dingleballs. THERE ARE NO BROWN RATS IN ALBERTA! It's true - deal with the reality. We killed them all years ago, with extreme brutality involving poison, shotguns, high explosives and incendiary devices. Any rat that steps across the border dies a grim and painful death, and all the citizens enjoy it because they get first whack at rat-flattening. The rats are gone, and we are not letting them back in. There are big surly men in pickups with 12-gauge shotguns waiting for any rat foolish enough to stray across the border, and they take their job seriously. If the shotguns don't work, the poisons, explosives, and Tiger torches come out. If they can't get the rats out of your house any other way, they'll blow up your house, set fire to the ruins, and shoot any rat that runs for it. If you get in their way, they will charge you with "Harbouring a Rat" and fine you $5000. The Liberals might object to all of this, but there are darn few Liberals left in Alberta, either. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I re-restored the map after checking the details. It's accurate. There are no permanent Norway rat colonies anywhere in Alberta and if the government found any, they would kill all the rats. We have bushy-tailed woodrats here, but those aren't true rats, nor are our kangaroo rats. OTOH, I've trekked through the Himalayas, and I'm pretty sure there are are brown rats there, because there are far too many people up there, they don't control pests, and their garbage management is awful. I can't really say about the Sahara, but odds are where there are people there (and there are), they probably have rats living in their houses. But here in Alberta? No, we don't have no stinkin' rats. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I also don't know where the map make got the idea that Iceland was rat free. Parts of Reykjavík are famously rat-infested as has occasionaly been covered in the media. --Bjarki (talk) 16:28, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Iceland should be colored red, too. From what I read, rats were introduced to Iceland by trading ships in the 18th century, in addition to which Reykjavik had a bad infestation of rats after World War II when Allied ships introduced many more rats. Alberta is still rat free because it is landlocked, has no sea ports, and was settled very late in modern history. It took rats centuries to get there overland from Eastern Canada, and when they arrived the Alberta government invoked legislation which forced people to report and/or kill any rats they saw. There are few other places with such drastic legislation, besides which Albertans are very keen on killing rats themselves to preserve their rat-free status.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

And, Greenland should be colored red, as well. A source I read said the brown rat reached there by ship in 1780. Of course, it's only going to be found in the coastal towns and not on the Greenland ice sheets.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Average Length of the Brown Rat

According to Wildscreen Arkive (http://www.arkive.org/brown-rat/rattus-norvegicus/), the average length of the brown rat is 31.5 - 48 cm, while this article states that the average length of the brown rat is 25 cm long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robii707 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Adding to the Article

Using the following sources, I plan on contributing information about the mating cycles of rats and how ejaculations for males occur in intervals and are most effective when done in series; also discuss how females take turns mating and female preferences for different characteristics in males, such as novelty, recent sexual activity, odor, and dominance + social stressor in adolescence. Any advice/feedback is welcome!

Galef BG, Lim TCW, Gilbert GS. 2008. Evidence of mate choice copying in Norway rats, Rattus norvegicus. Animal Behavior Vol 75 (3) 1117-1123

McClintock MK, Anisko JJ, Adler NT. 1982. Group mating among Norway rats II. The social dynamics of copulation: Competition, cooperation, and mate choice. Animal Behavior Vol. 30 (2) 410-425.

McClintock MK, Anisko JJ. 1982. Group mating among Norway rats I. Sex differences in the pattern and neuroendocrine consequences of copulation. Animal Behavior 30 (2) 398-409

Ventura-Aquino E, Banos-Araujo J, Fernandez-Gausti A, Parades RG. 2016. An unknown male increases sexual incentive motivation and partner preference: Further evidence for the Coolidge effect in female rats. Physiology & Behavior 158: 54-59.

Davis HN, Connor JR. 1980. Brief report: Male modulation of female reproductive physiology in Norway rats: effects of mating during postpartum estrus. Behavioral and Neural Biology 29(1): 128-131

Miller N. 1911. Reproduction in the Brown Rat (Mus Norwegicus). The American Naturalist. 45 (538): 623-635.

Brooks JE, Bowerman AM. 1971. Estrogenic Steroid Used to Inhibit Reproduction in Wild Norway Rats. The Journal of Wildlife Management. 35 (3) 444-449.

Woodside B, Wilson R, Chee P, Leon M. 1981. Resource Partitioning during Reproduction in the Norway Rat. The American Association for the Advancement of Science. 211 (4477) 76-77.

McCormick CM, Cameron NM, Thompson MA, Cumming MJ, Hodges TE, Langett M. 2017. The sexual preference of female rats is influenced by males' adolescent social stress history and social status. Hormones and Behavior. 89: 30-37.

Gilbert AN, Rosenwasser AM, Adler NT. 1985. Timing of parturition and postpartum mating in norway rats: Interaction of an interval timer and a circadian gate. Physiology & Behavior. 34 (1): 61-63. Ags5930 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Maximum size

In light of the recent find in Sweden of a brown rat with a body size of 39,5 cm this sentence may be too harsh:

"Stories of rats attaining sizes as big as cats are exaggerations, or misidentifications of other rodents, such as the coypu and muskrat."

The source is an Swedish online newspaper so perhaps it needs further verification, but from the images it would seem like a Brown rat of catlike size.

Link: http://www.hemhyra.se/stockholm/jatteratta-satte-skrack-i-solnafamilj

80.71.135.34 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)Hakim Ghoula

(I know this is a year old, but forgive my comment necromancy...) That's still far from cat sized. I keep rats - I've only twice had rats that size in three decades of owning them in groups of up to 16. And pet rats are significantly longer and heavier, on average, than wild ones. The expectation is for a 450-500g buck and a 350-400g doe. An 800+g pet buck is generally regarded as enormous, So to find a wild rat of that size is beyond rare.

Similarly, the article also says the maximum litter size is 14, and I know of several litters exceeding that. Two of my rats came from a litter of 18; all kittens survived, and 17 of them were does! Well nourished and cared for rats can be prodigious in size and offspring compared with their wild brethren. So if it's rare in domestic breeding, it's probably even rarer in the wild.

AndyRatchick (talk) 10:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree this is too harsh. 40cm body length is extremely large for a rat and many cat bodies are of this length. See also evidence including photographs at http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/monster-rats-the-size-of-cats-found-on-south-london-housing-estate-a3226916.html. Billysugger (talk) 01:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

White rats

"Brown rat (Redirected from White rat)" - yet no mention of white rats. What gives? 92.25.47.124 (talk) 14:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Brown rats, wild type, vary from darker gray, almost black to agouti (orange-tan + gray with darker guard hair) to mostly orange-brown. White, spotted/blotchy and other 'odd colors' occur in Domestic rats, domesticated laboratory grade brown rats – these short-haired, often paler forms aren't seen in wild.

Removing so called "hoax map" again

I'm removing the map altogether because:

• The map is without sources. There has been much discussion about the status of Alberta, but the rest of the world is not documented at all. If we look at the history of the file, we find a deleted file from Dutch wikipedia and a user inactive for 6 years, so I don't know how the map was constructed.
• The map is completely wrong.
  • Wikipedia has been shamed for it in a newspaper
  • The map incorrectly shows rats living in deserts (sahara, gobi, saudi arabia). Several sources aggree that the rat only lives near water.
  • The map incorrectly shows rats living in cold places (Himalayas, Kamchatka, Yukon, Andes). The rat does not hibernate. So where there aren't human homes to warm them, the rats don't survive in these regions.
  • However, contrarily to what the map says, there are rats in Iceland, though as in most of the world, only in human settlements.
• For other species that only live where human live, wikipedia generally doesn't show a map. For instance, see Dog, Head louse, Domestic pigeon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yitscar (talk • contribs) 08:43, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Since that map has just seen another change (forcefully expressed), I'm going ahead and removing it entirely pending some clarification of the above points. I agree that showing blanket distributions across Africa and Australia, including almost certainly rat-free inland deserts, is misleading and unjustified. In the face of these discrepancies, wrangling about whether Alberta should or should not be excluded is indeed premature. I would also agree that we'd be best off not having a map here at all, rather than one that will have to make broad guesses for various 10⁶ km² chunks. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like if you're going to show a distribution map of an animal, it should be based on political boundaries. IE if the rat is found in Canada, the entire country of Canada is shaded in. You can't say that rats exist at the 49th parallel but not the 49.0001, that's absurd. But you can say "they exist in this country, they don't exist in this one". 76.64.118.162 (talk) 21:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

That makes no sense. Organisms don't care about political boundaries. We certainly don't colour in the entire US to show the distribution of the Gila monster. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:31, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

• I just reverted another reinstatement of the map, this time with just Alberta neatly excised. These maps are wildly incorrect. However, I have found it frustratingly difficult to come up with a single publication that gives a detailed global distribution. This will probably have to be pieced together by continent, or parts of continents. As an example, all previous maps shown here just completely colour in Australia. Compare that with the actual distribution from occurrence records: yeah... it's a fringe, mostly on the east coast, and 95% of the continent does not have a brown rat population.

I'm sorry, this may be a slog, but we are way better off not having a map at all than one that makes such gross errors. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:58, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

• So... next round, I guess. Rewindturtle, the problem is not whether Alberta is or is not rat-free (although it is ludicrous to assume that the exact boundaries of the province denote a rat-free area... but okay, works as an approximation); the problem is that there are many other areas in the world that are also rat-free, such as inland deserts, which this map indiscriminately colours in. I have not been able to find a reliably sourced world map that provides an accurate depiction. This means that a) one would have to be constructed, taking specific sources for individual continents into account (see above for a usable source for Australia); and b) that in absence of such a map, we are doing everyone a disservice by publishing an obviously faulty one. As you are currently trying to do. Your map is not a defensible one, and in its current form it cannot go into the article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:17, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

The global population distribution map of the brown rat should be on the Wikipedia page as it is unique and of interest.

If the brown rat was only found in a single forest on Earth, that would be a notable piece of information about it. Similarly, if the brown rat is found everywhere in the world except a few locations, that information is notable and should be included in the Wikipedia page. Those claiming that the brown rat is found in Alberta have clearly not done any research into the subject. The brown rat can not survive in the mountainous regions of the province and there is a strict rat control service that exterminates any that are found in the prairie regions. The map is very eye-catching and accurate, thus it is a good idea to have it on the brown rat's Wikipedia page.

"Eye-catching" + "wrong" = BAD in an encyclopedia. The Alberta thing is being discussed in the article; we do not need to throw faulty maps at the reader to make the point. What's your response to the issues laid out above - that the map is plain wrong in many other respects? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Rewindturtle, you have now been reported for edit-warring. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:57, 18 April 2021 (UTC)