Talk:Macropodidae

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Macropodidae article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials Mid‑importance

	Mammals portal 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Mid-importance).

Technical cosmetic issues

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

I just uploaded some photos of the Red-necked Pademelon taken in Lamington National Park, Queensland. 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)[reply]

Fossil genera

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Distribution

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.122.106.228.67 (talk) 22:33, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy

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 http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/research/files/!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)[reply]

There is no such thing as a 'macropod'!!!

'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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move

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)[reply]

Macropod → Macropodidae — 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Redirecting "macropod" to Macropodiformes seems reasonable to me. Ucucha 13:28, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ready to close - I'm ready to close the move request, but I want to be clear: Is the agreement to move Macropod to Macropodidae, and then redirect Macropod to Macropodiformes? -GTBacchus^(talk) 14:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clearest consensus I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Take it and run. ;) Bob the Wikipedian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Classification

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)[reply]

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

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macropodidae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

What were the creatures like that kangaroos developed from? When did a big thumping tail develop? What were the nearest relatives in South America, Africa, Antarctica (Gondwanaland) like? MBG02 (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MBG02, interesting questions, getting those facts in requires me to revisit library, one day. cygnis insignis 06:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bare statement

"Other species (e.g. Simosthenurus, Propleopus, Macropus titan) became extinct after the Australian Aborigines arrived and before the Europeans arrived."

I removed this from the lead as it is bare of references and any indication of the notability or relevance of a contentious debate surrounding human impact on megafauna. The earlier genera of mammals needs a lot more context, and mention of fossil taxa that had no direct threat from humans. cygnis insignis 06:15, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Before European settlement of Australia, about 65 species of macropods existed. Six species have since become extinct and a further eleven have been greatly reduced in numbers."

Again, similar to above, the lead is best as a summary of the content, which is awaiting expansion. cygnis insignis 06:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]