From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Mammals / Monotremes and Marsupials  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials.

Technical cosmetic issues[edit]

The text of this article overlaps with the links to "Main Page", "Recent changes", etc., in the upper left corner. Can someone figure out how to fix that? Michael Hardy 18:44 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Red-necked pademelon[edit]

I just uploaded some photos of the Red-necked Pademelon taken in Lamington National Park, Queensland.'Bold text''''Bold text''''Bold text''''''' Could someone please craft a page for them? - See User:Gaz/Images - Thanks, Gaz 14:59, 7 Oct 2003 (UTC) minor edit by UtherSRG (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Fossil genera[edit]

Should these be added to the classification? There are article for most of the fossil macropod genera now. --Peta 02:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Sure... as long as it's not done one genera at a time. Add all the fossil taxa that you can find at once. I had a conflict with another editor who just wanted to add the one fossil taxa that he wanted listed on another family article, without adding anything else.... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I was hoping you'd have a list ;). I'll check the recent literature and see if there is anything missing. --Peta 21:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


Macropods are endemic to continental Australia, not withstanding the introduction of some animals to the UK or New Zealand they are native only to the Australian mainland, continental island of New Guinea, continental island of Tasmania, and some other smaller continental isles. (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC) ==


I have read the revised taxonomy of Kear and Cooke 2001 and the extinct genera resemble little of what is here. Am looking to revise this part based on this and other references others can provide. Of corse peer reviewed that is. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Here is the paper!Kear%20&%20Cooke%20(2001)%20A%20review%20of%20macropodoid%20(Marsupialia)%20systematics%20with%20the%20inclusion%20of%20a%20new%20family.pdf Enlil Ninlil (talk) 06:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a 'macropod'!!![edit]

'Macropods' do not exist- The name of this page, including every single reference to 'macropod', should be changed to 'macropodid' (as in Macropodidae). For there to be such a thing as a 'macropod', an order specifically called 'Macropoda' must exist... but it doesn't!!! Ronny Corn (talk) 12:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that the correct scientific term is "macropodid", that does not mean that there is no vernacular word "macropod" with essentially the same meaning. This word does, in fact, exist (for example, it is listed in the Concise Oxford English Dictionary), and since Wikipedia prefers common terms to scientific ones where they exist, it is, in my view, the correct title for the article.Anaxial (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
Great to see the move. It's something that has always bugged me, so good work everyone. Cheers, T.carnifex (talk) 12:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

MacropodMacropodidae — This article claims that "macropod" is the common name for the family Macropodidae, which includes the kangaroos and wallabies and their closest relatives. However, "macropod" is also commonly used to mean the broader group Macropodiformes (or Macropoda, or Macropodoidea), which also includes the families Potoroidae and Hypsiprymnodontidae (the "rat-kangaroos") according to the classification currently used on Wikipedia. See, for example, the recent book Macropods: The Biology of Kangaroos, Wallabies and Rat-Kangaroos (ISBN 9780643096622), or doi:10.1111/j.1365-2656.2000.00450.x, which lists a potoroo as a "macropod". On the other hand, doi:10.1111/j.1469-7998.1999.tb00997.x mentions "macropods and potoroids", and thus excludes the latter from "macropods".

Evidently, "macropod" is an ambiguous term, and thus it should be avoided in accordance with one of the rules of our policy on article titles, WP:PRECISION. Some editors may prefer "macropod" because it is a "common" name, but the reason we use common names (for example, we use "tree-kangaroo" and not "Dendrolagus" as the article title) is that they are more generally recognizable, and I fail to see how "macropod" is much more generally recognizable than the more precise "Macropodidae". Ucucha 10:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Support. I think "macropod" is more generally recognizable than the Latinate family name, but I tend to agree that the most common usage applies to the broader group. After the move, Macropodiformes should be moved to Macropod with appropriate hatnotes. Powers T 13:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that last move; the term is ambiguous, and should not be used for either article. I cited sources that do use a narrower meaning of "macropod", which agrees with the one currently used in this article. Ucucha 13:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I hate to send someone to a disambiguation page, when Macropodiformes probably gives them most of the information they need. Powers T 13:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Redirecting "macropod" to Macropodiformes seems reasonable to me. Ucucha 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Okay, so you agree it's the primary topic; but I also submit it's the common name for that group. Powers T 15:17, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Support Despite my comments in the section above, I think you've provided clear grounds for believing the term to be ambiguous (though not, as the previous editor claimed, necessarily wrong), and therefore would not be preferred. Anaxial (talk) 23:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Clearest consensus I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Take it and run. ;) Bob the Wikipedian (talkcontribs) 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


There seems to be a problem in this section. It says "There are two subfamilies in the Macropodidae family: the Sthenurinae ... is now represented by just a single species, ... the Banded Hare-wallaby", but the "banded hare wallaby" is actually listed under lagostrophinae. I presume there has been a reclassification, but the section needs to be consistent.

Baska436 (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. Lagostrophus is now placed in its own subfamily. Ucucha (talk) 00:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)