This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brown rat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Brown_rat_distribution.png#Alberta as well as even older "HOAX map removed" discussion on this page
The intro does not describe it as a social animal. The article spends a lot of time discussing social behavior, but also calls it a territorial animal, which doesn't sound social to me. (But then, I'm not a biologist.) The article could use a sentence or two resolving this apparent contradiction. MiguelMunoz ( talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
or negative consequences, as many of those areas surely most had their native rats, or similar rodents, not to 'need' new ones? 12.146.12.12 ( talk) 05:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Stefan2: that is an interesting point. You are correct that Berkenhout does not use the genus name Rattus at all in this work, and classifies the species as Mus norvegicus instead. This both contradicts the text currently int he article (Berkenhout gave the brown rat the binomial name Rattus norvegicus, believing it had migrated to England from Norwegian ships in 1728
) and the universal usage of Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) in all databases. I have no idea what to make of that. In the absence of a clear explanation, maybe pointing out this mismatch in the text would be useful. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
12:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Brown rat article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 90 days
![]() |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Brown_rat_distribution.png#Alberta as well as even older "HOAX map removed" discussion on this page
The intro does not describe it as a social animal. The article spends a lot of time discussing social behavior, but also calls it a territorial animal, which doesn't sound social to me. (But then, I'm not a biologist.) The article could use a sentence or two resolving this apparent contradiction. MiguelMunoz ( talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
or negative consequences, as many of those areas surely most had their native rats, or similar rodents, not to 'need' new ones? 12.146.12.12 ( talk) 05:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
@
Stefan2: that is an interesting point. You are correct that Berkenhout does not use the genus name Rattus at all in this work, and classifies the species as Mus norvegicus instead. This both contradicts the text currently int he article (Berkenhout gave the brown rat the binomial name Rattus norvegicus, believing it had migrated to England from Norwegian ships in 1728
) and the universal usage of Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) in all databases. I have no idea what to make of that. In the absence of a clear explanation, maybe pointing out this mismatch in the text would be useful. --
Elmidae (
talk ·
contribs)
12:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)