This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Red kangaroo 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 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
"A little-known fact is that the red kangaroo has a weak anabolic poison in the claws of its hind legs."
Where has this fact come from?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.113.54 ( talk • contribs)
Kangaroo's can retract their testes, but I was under the impression this was for protection when fighting with each other, not because the bounce to much.
I added some interesting facts given to me by my friend who works in a zoo as a volunteer docent. I am assuming that these are completely factual since the zoo has a strict policy about giving misinformation to visitors (it is not allowed under any circumstances). I also have access to the exhibit (I may ask if I can take pictures so that I may contribute them to the article. I may be able to get a halfway decent group of pictures to supplement the existing photo) Morganismysheltie 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a Professional Kangaroo Shooter in the state of Western Australia. I have shot both Red kangaroos and Western Grey kangaroos. I can atest to the fact that by weight alone, Red kangaroos are not the largest of the two. The biggest Red (male AKA "Boomer")I have taken weighed in at 47 kg gutted. The biggest Grey (male AKA "Boomer") I have taken weighed in at 62.5 kg. This roo stood at a little over 7 feet tall standing (measured from the heel to the top of the head, not the ears) and a touch shy of 9 feet tall "propped" (in the fighting stance measured from ball of the the extended foot to the top of the head). Hanging from the base of the tail, his neck and shoulders were touching the ground. My rack is 6.5 feet high. The biggest Red I have seen shot, by a friend in the Pilbara, stood 7 feet tall "propped" and weighed in at 49 kg gutted. Incidently, gutting accounts for approximately 45% of the "on hoof" weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper1 ( talk • contribs).
This page needs a total re-write by someone who knows something about animals. What is written here is largely amateur nonsense. e.g. (i) "It has two appendages with small claws (much like arms)". Is it possible that these are arms? (ii) "It can go long periods of time without water, as long as it has access to green plants as they have the ability to take moisture out of plants." Is this some kind of unique ability or could it possibly be that all animals including humans can absorb water this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.51.86 ( talk • contribs).
My dad and I shot roos in NSW. I hardly ever saw a SMALL RED in NSW. They were always fully grown and stood at around 7ft. The shooter is right and the person who wrote this article for WIKI obviously never saw one unless it was in a zoo - where they tend to be smaller..marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.194 ( talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the current paragraph on size is fine. It gives measurements obtained from a reputable source, which is cited, then goes on to mention that reports of larger animals is not unusual. I have tried in the past to find recent surveys and studies which conclude average sizes nearer those witnessed by hunters (professional or not) and drivers, but failed. The problem with using sizes reported by roo shooters is there is not documented evidence, or if the animal was not shot, the size may have simply been misjudged. Also, determining average sizes from roo shooters could be problematic if there is a bias for larger animals. Perhaps someone could find any records from a museum or zoo which states a size for the largest recorded M. rufus? Regarding the water usage and gut biology, I don't know enough to change much. However, I notice they are very well arid adapted and live quite happily in areas with little permanent water, or lush, green grasses for that matter. Cheers, T.carnifex ( talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely removed "people say that we can look after red kangaroos if we get the right feeding program e.g we need grass abd plants so they can eat and we also nedd water so they can drink. but they also can live long periods without water cause thay have the ability to suck moisture out of them, this may be included in the feeding paragraph" part of the introductory paragraph since: 1. Poorly written, amateurish. 2. Does not contribute to the paragraph. 3. Needs to be put somewhere else. ReinforcedReinforcements ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
How does the kangaroo manage to move its legs independently underwater when it can't do so on the ground? bibliomaniac 1 5 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone find the habitats of the Red kangaroo?-- 68.98.154.196 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just removed
"In 2007, Australian scientists discovered gills behind the ears of a male Red Kangaroo. These allowed it to breathe underwater for up to 3 minutes, before resurfacing to eat its regular diet of young saltwater crocodile. This new subspecies is now being held in Adelaide Zoo"
from this page. Jezzamon ( talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for preserving this gem on the talk page :D —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.112.201.245 (
talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people are just stupid. Zoo Pro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no preference to what image is used on the articles "description" section however it should be noted that the constant reverts and changes could be considered edit warring in a mild form. I would personaly like to see 2 images of a Male and Female both in an upright position that are both standing like the current female. Zoo Pro 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The image in the infobox depicts both male and female animals, if you are able to find a single image of both a male and female roo together i have no problem with a change. Zoo Pro 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit war over the photo is starting to annoy me, i dont care who removed the illistration however i am annoyed that it was replaced with a crapy image. I will restore it to what it was and any further changes should be discussed on the talk page. Zoo Pro 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you can sometimes find good free pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/ . Select all three of the Creative Commons checkboxes at the bottom. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Except for the fact that females are quite a bit smaller, both sexes look very similar. You can come across grey males of the species (although it's not common), and in central Australia both sexes are most commonly red. T.carnifex ( talk) 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture that claims to be a Red Kangaroo joey is a red necked wallaby (probably) - it certainly is not a red kangaroo - someone can change it if they feel inclined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.51.186 ( talk) 06:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Description section includes the sentence: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (11 in) tall."
This should say: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 feet 11 in) tall."
I went to edit this and discovered that the underlying text uses the "convert" function" to display 1.5 meters and it's conversion: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall."
This seems to indicate that there's a bug in the "convert" function. Can someone report this to whoever maintains that function? Thanks.
--halcabes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcabes ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
@ ZooPro: Based on what exactly do we know (for sure), that the picture of the "grey" kangaroo is indeed a female red kangaroo?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red kangaroo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This page has no taxonomy section, which is inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages on biota. Jamesray1 ( talk)
The taxonomical designation of an animal is defined by scientific consensus, scientists seem to be using M. rufus over O. rufus, this can be seen on google scholar with 78 articles using M. rufus in 2020 while only 16 use O. rufus. As such I believe it would be prudent to change the article to use M. rufus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeriatricJacob ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
After researching the issue a bit further and getting feedback from editors more familar with topic, I'm now leaning more towards using Osphranter only in the lead instead of Macropus. Because this reclassification was not just suggested in a paper from 2019 but already by others in 2015 (see below) and it is not just the Australian Faunal directory that has adopted this taxonomy change but the Handbook of the Mammals of the World apparently as well. Meaning it seems to be adopted internationally as well and not just in Australia with the most recent publication switching to/suggesting the change.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The article currently suggest the reclassification is due to the 2019 publication. However the Australian Faunal Directory itself states here:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is Megaleia rufa absent as a synonym? Grassynoel ( talk) 04:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to find an academic paper showing the top speed of a red kangaroo. Can anyone access this one (or any other one)?
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02916.x
BrightOrion (
talk) 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Red kangaroo 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 |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | There is a request, submitted by Catfurball, for an audio version of this article to be created. For further information, see WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia. The rationale behind the request is: "Important". |
"A little-known fact is that the red kangaroo has a weak anabolic poison in the claws of its hind legs."
Where has this fact come from?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.113.54 ( talk • contribs)
Kangaroo's can retract their testes, but I was under the impression this was for protection when fighting with each other, not because the bounce to much.
I added some interesting facts given to me by my friend who works in a zoo as a volunteer docent. I am assuming that these are completely factual since the zoo has a strict policy about giving misinformation to visitors (it is not allowed under any circumstances). I also have access to the exhibit (I may ask if I can take pictures so that I may contribute them to the article. I may be able to get a halfway decent group of pictures to supplement the existing photo) Morganismysheltie 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a Professional Kangaroo Shooter in the state of Western Australia. I have shot both Red kangaroos and Western Grey kangaroos. I can atest to the fact that by weight alone, Red kangaroos are not the largest of the two. The biggest Red (male AKA "Boomer")I have taken weighed in at 47 kg gutted. The biggest Grey (male AKA "Boomer") I have taken weighed in at 62.5 kg. This roo stood at a little over 7 feet tall standing (measured from the heel to the top of the head, not the ears) and a touch shy of 9 feet tall "propped" (in the fighting stance measured from ball of the the extended foot to the top of the head). Hanging from the base of the tail, his neck and shoulders were touching the ground. My rack is 6.5 feet high. The biggest Red I have seen shot, by a friend in the Pilbara, stood 7 feet tall "propped" and weighed in at 49 kg gutted. Incidently, gutting accounts for approximately 45% of the "on hoof" weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper1 ( talk • contribs).
This page needs a total re-write by someone who knows something about animals. What is written here is largely amateur nonsense. e.g. (i) "It has two appendages with small claws (much like arms)". Is it possible that these are arms? (ii) "It can go long periods of time without water, as long as it has access to green plants as they have the ability to take moisture out of plants." Is this some kind of unique ability or could it possibly be that all animals including humans can absorb water this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.51.86 ( talk • contribs).
My dad and I shot roos in NSW. I hardly ever saw a SMALL RED in NSW. They were always fully grown and stood at around 7ft. The shooter is right and the person who wrote this article for WIKI obviously never saw one unless it was in a zoo - where they tend to be smaller..marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.194 ( talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I think the current paragraph on size is fine. It gives measurements obtained from a reputable source, which is cited, then goes on to mention that reports of larger animals is not unusual. I have tried in the past to find recent surveys and studies which conclude average sizes nearer those witnessed by hunters (professional or not) and drivers, but failed. The problem with using sizes reported by roo shooters is there is not documented evidence, or if the animal was not shot, the size may have simply been misjudged. Also, determining average sizes from roo shooters could be problematic if there is a bias for larger animals. Perhaps someone could find any records from a museum or zoo which states a size for the largest recorded M. rufus? Regarding the water usage and gut biology, I don't know enough to change much. However, I notice they are very well arid adapted and live quite happily in areas with little permanent water, or lush, green grasses for that matter. Cheers, T.carnifex ( talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I completely removed "people say that we can look after red kangaroos if we get the right feeding program e.g we need grass abd plants so they can eat and we also nedd water so they can drink. but they also can live long periods without water cause thay have the ability to suck moisture out of them, this may be included in the feeding paragraph" part of the introductory paragraph since: 1. Poorly written, amateurish. 2. Does not contribute to the paragraph. 3. Needs to be put somewhere else. ReinforcedReinforcements ( talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
How does the kangaroo manage to move its legs independently underwater when it can't do so on the ground? bibliomaniac 1 5 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Can someone find the habitats of the Red kangaroo?-- 68.98.154.196 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I just removed
"In 2007, Australian scientists discovered gills behind the ears of a male Red Kangaroo. These allowed it to breathe underwater for up to 3 minutes, before resurfacing to eat its regular diet of young saltwater crocodile. This new subspecies is now being held in Adelaide Zoo"
from this page. Jezzamon ( talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for preserving this gem on the talk page :D —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
76.112.201.245 (
talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Some people are just stupid. Zoo Pro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
I have no preference to what image is used on the articles "description" section however it should be noted that the constant reverts and changes could be considered edit warring in a mild form. I would personaly like to see 2 images of a Male and Female both in an upright position that are both standing like the current female. Zoo Pro 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
The image in the infobox depicts both male and female animals, if you are able to find a single image of both a male and female roo together i have no problem with a change. Zoo Pro 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
This edit war over the photo is starting to annoy me, i dont care who removed the illistration however i am annoyed that it was replaced with a crapy image. I will restore it to what it was and any further changes should be discussed on the talk page. Zoo Pro 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
By the way, you can sometimes find good free pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/ . Select all three of the Creative Commons checkboxes at the bottom. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Except for the fact that females are quite a bit smaller, both sexes look very similar. You can come across grey males of the species (although it's not common), and in central Australia both sexes are most commonly red. T.carnifex ( talk) 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
The picture that claims to be a Red Kangaroo joey is a red necked wallaby (probably) - it certainly is not a red kangaroo - someone can change it if they feel inclined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.51.186 ( talk) 06:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
The Description section includes the sentence: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (11 in) tall."
This should say: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 feet 11 in) tall."
I went to edit this and discovered that the underlying text uses the "convert" function" to display 1.5 meters and it's conversion: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall."
This seems to indicate that there's a bug in the "convert" function. Can someone report this to whoever maintains that function? Thanks.
--halcabes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcabes ( talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
@ ZooPro: Based on what exactly do we know (for sure), that the picture of the "grey" kangaroo is indeed a female red kangaroo?-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Red kangaroo. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
This page has no taxonomy section, which is inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages on biota. Jamesray1 ( talk)
The taxonomical designation of an animal is defined by scientific consensus, scientists seem to be using M. rufus over O. rufus, this can be seen on google scholar with 78 articles using M. rufus in 2020 while only 16 use O. rufus. As such I believe it would be prudent to change the article to use M. rufus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeriatricJacob ( talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
After researching the issue a bit further and getting feedback from editors more familar with topic, I'm now leaning more towards using Osphranter only in the lead instead of Macropus. Because this reclassification was not just suggested in a paper from 2019 but already by others in 2015 (see below) and it is not just the Australian Faunal directory that has adopted this taxonomy change but the Handbook of the Mammals of the World apparently as well. Meaning it seems to be adopted internationally as well and not just in Australia with the most recent publication switching to/suggesting the change.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 07:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The article currently suggest the reclassification is due to the 2019 publication. However the Australian Faunal Directory itself states here:
-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 03:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Why is Megaleia rufa absent as a synonym? Grassynoel ( talk) 04:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to find an academic paper showing the top speed of a red kangaroo. Can anyone access this one (or any other one)?
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02916.x
BrightOrion (
talk) 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)