# Talk:Diprotodon

How does one pronounce this? I always read it as dip-ro-TO-don, before I knew much about it, but now knowing the etymology of the word, I guess perhaps it is di-PRO-to-don? -postglock 05:49, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
The link to "diprotodon.com" seems to be a spam link.

It is indeed pronouced di-PRO-to-don. T.carnifex (talk) 04:50, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it Diprotodon australis or Diprotodon optatum? Are these two different species? If they're the same, when did the naming change and why? T.carnifex (talk) 04:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think they're two different species (there is also D. minor)--Mr Fink (talk) 05:45, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Why does the header of the article state the following? The genus is currently considered monotypic, containing only Diprotodon optatum Should that sentence be removed? Or are all the "species" considered synonyms (as the Taxobox thing seems to imply)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Der Elbenkoenig (talk • contribs) 17:09, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
The source cited (2) indicates that there is only one species. It never hurts to look at sources before asking a question. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Would anyone know what the source is for this rather peculiar name? A search on Google Books turns up one reference in Prehistoric mammals of Australia and New Guinea ([1]) mentioning McCoy (1861). McCoy apparently did name at least one (putative?) species of Diprotodon, D. longiceps, but I didn't find anything more about D. annextans. The name does bear some resemblance with Trachodon annectens. Iblardi (talk) 00:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Diprotodon annextans was erected on the basis of a broken mandible from a mature large-form individual collected from near Colac, Victoria. The original description was presented at a meeting to the Royal Society of Victoria (Anonymous, 1861).although the original paper was subsequently lost(McCoy, 1865). However, an abstract was later published regarding that specimen, but with a new name,D. longiceps (McCoy, 1865), and a holotype was subsequently described (McCoy, 1876). the dentary and associated dentition of D. annextans/longiceps is morphologically similar to and falls within the range of variation of specimens from all major Diprotodon assemblages. (see Price 2008)Vrkunkel(talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC).

If it's only know from fossils, how can they come up with a mass of 2,786 kg? Most of the mass would be flesh, so how can the mass be known to such precision? I suppose it's a conversion thing, but 6,142 pounds is not a round number either. 
This source, BBC states "Weight: males 2000 to 2500kg; females 1000kg", which makes more sense, but it's smaller than 2786 kg, so I'm not sure which is correct. AtikuX (talk) 03:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Body-size metrics to estimate fossil body volume are used. Basically these are logarithmic equations based on the craniodental data and the product of the lengths of the three major body axes (anteroposterior, transverse, and dorsoventral) of fossils if the morphology is similar to a living animal (in this case the Wombat), but while very accurate for placentals it was found it did not work for marsupials (This is due to Marsupials needing 20% less food than placentals of equal body mass) and is where the "2000 to 2500kg" came from. Since 2003, proximal limb-bone circumferences are also used for marsupials. If a 3.7 mtr Diprotodon was a placental it would weigh around 1,900 kg (the weight of a 3.7mtr Hippopotamus) but the marsupial specific measurement now gives a result of 2,786 kg with 95% accuracy (consistent with the difference between modern placentals and marsupials of similar size). The 2786 kg is the estimate for the Diprotodon displayed in the Australian Museum which is considered to be of average size. According to latest research the average male weight is now estimated at between 2272 kg and 3417 kg. Wayne (talk) 13:07, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
BTW..Results of calculations are not rounded to the nearest "neat" number which is why exact numbers are shown. Though it says 2786 it means the range for that particular specimen is around 2640 to 2940kg. Wayne (talk) 13:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
For our purposes there is nothing to be gained by displaying values with false precision; even 3 significant digits in the mass value is too many. This will only lead to confusion in those without an understanding of significant digits. Nearly everyone reading a scientific paper is savvy about such issues, but that is not the case for readers (and some editors) of Wikipedia. WolfmanSF (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
But Wikipedia articles are not supposed to interpret the sources, only reflect what they say. FunkMonk (talk) 01:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Rounding estimates off appropriately is a routine and normally required procedure in science, not interpretation. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
One possible rationale for not rounding a mass estimate off would be if the value was an intermediate result that was to be used in further calculations. If, for example, you calculated mass estimates for a series of taxa, all using the same formula, and then wanted to look at ratios of body mass between taxa or of body mass to something else, rounding off before calculating the ratios might slightly degrade the accuracy of the final results. However, that rationale would not be applicable to Wikipedia. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
I think this needs a wider discussion. It is not at all clear that everyone would agree that all size estimates have to be rounded up. FunkMonk (talk) 05:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not all estimates, only those that are reported with false precision. Rounding off could be up or down, as the case may be. The comments apply to any measurement or estimate, not just body mass. WolfmanSF (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
In fact, Wikipedia does have a policy mandating rounding off, WP:NUMBERS#Uncertainty and rounding, which a mass value such as 2786 kg appears to violate. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Like all "policies", it is only a guideline, and it specifically states it depends on the context. This still needs a wider discussion somewhere before one person can singlehandedly go around and mass change everything. I don't care much about this, but the mere fact that several people are reverting you should make you seek a discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have been reverted primarily by one individual, whose hysterical and sometimes dishonest edit summaries (Dinoguy2 did not revert me in Dreadnoughtus, and in fact reverted one of Christina1969's edits in Tyrannosaurus) don't really invite discussion. The whole subject of rounding off is sufficiently elementary that one person can and should be able to singlehandedly go around and change estimates that are being reported with false precision. However, I am happy to discuss any point that you or others wish to raise. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I see others reverting you as well. It is common practice to announce mass changes somewhere before doing them, to prevent situations as then one you're currently in, which is pretty much an edit war over something of questionable significance. A good place to start: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology FunkMonk (talk) 05:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
Christina1969 (and his sock puppets) is the only one who has reverted to oppose rounding off in this article so far. WolfmanSF (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's done a very fiece attempt to display how those beasts were killed by humans. I can't say if it was right, but still it's a bit biased as source and theory choose to support this POV  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.20.209.65 (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2015 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Diprotodon. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927111457/http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf to http://www.control.com.au/bi2008/299megafauna.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070811001337/http://www.goyder.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=301 to http://www.goyder.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=301
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927002534/http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/lop/diprotodon.pdf to http://www.samuseum.sa.gov.au/lop/diprotodon.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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) 03:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

I just removed the Wrangel island reference because it's the classical 'presumed' extinction without any proofs (of mammuth by man). See the wiki article of that land where is absolutely no sure that men were ever interacting with mammuth there.

@IceAge729: Thanks for including the section on hair, there has been similar discussion about Megatherium. Can you provide a specific page number and quotation for your evidence? I can't find any reference to it in the book. If it isn't in the book, then it must be removed because then it would violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I used the book as it talks about the relationship between heat and hair on megafaunal animals. There aren’t any studies on diprotodon’s hair specifically but I have spoken to a fair amount of scientists now and felt like I should include this in the page due to the them being shown with hair consistently in paleoart. The fact of the matter is them having hair over most of Australia would be a death sentence. I hadn’t realised there was debate over megatherium, thanks for bringing that up. I’ll be interested to have a look. Thank you.  IceAge729 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

@IceAge729: I agree that some of the hairyness of some of the Diprotodon artwork looks somewhat suspect. However on wikipedia we can only add what sources explicity say and we cannot engage in novel synthesis, even if the conclusions seem obvious. I hope that that's not too discouraging, as your other edits are helpful, I had similar issues when I was a new editor, it's just part of the learning process. Here's the reference for Megatherium. EDIT: upon further inspection, the paper appears to be entirely in spanish, so see Mark Witton's summary Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the help, I have plenty else to add that I know there are studies for. Thank you for my help, I apologise for any mistakes (as well as possible future ones). IceAge729 (talk) 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m not sure the temperature was hot enough around a lot of megatherium’s range to render it hairless. Perhaps in the north of its range it would have had less, I doubt a shaggy coat however.  IceAge729 (talk) 16:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there no information as to their diet and social structure? Were they carnivores? Herbivores? Were they solitary? Herd animals?Bill (talk) 02:39, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

If you took a look at the "Paleobiology" section, you'd find out that Diprotodon was a sexually dimorphic herbivore that consistently ate fibrous plant matter.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:34, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
So as I said, no description of social structure. As for diet, the article indicates that it ate fibrous plant matter but says nothing about what else it may have eaten, so we can't tell if it was herbivorous or omnivorous.Bill (talk) 17:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the current wording about the diversity of diprotodontids over time somewhat confusing. The 2012 paper The Rise of Australian Marsupials: A Synopsis of Biostratigraphic, Phylogenetic, Palaeoecologic and Palaeobiogeographic Understanding has a more complete account, and suggests that diprotodontids were already diversifying by the Middle-Late Miocene and reached their apex of diversity during the Pliocene. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're mixing up Diprotodontidae and Diprotodontia. That source only mentions diprotodontids once in a list of diprotodontian families, and only says all the listed groups evolved by the late Oligocene Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2022 (UTC)
@Dunkleosteus77: That's not actually true, if you actually scroll through the whole document and then do a search (or actually download the pdf), it's mentioned dozens of times. Relevant quotes include: The predominantly herbivorous diprotodontians were the most abundant forms in late Miocene fossil assemblages with 10 families represented. Of these, diprotodontids and macropodids are the most diverse and abundant... and Diprotodontids are represented by at least sevengenera and nine species in the Pliocene, this being the highest diversity recorded in the family’s long history. The spread of open forests were evidently beneﬁcial for this now-extinct family. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:15, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Diprotodon/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: AryKun (talk · contribs) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

An interesting article that seems on first look to be a good candidate for FAC; I'll review over the next couple of days. AryKun (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
You mention that Diprotodon is Greek in the lead, but this isn't mentioned in the text.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"and "D. loderi"" Is the "and" needed? It's a bullet list, it would look better without an interruption.
it's a full sentence in list format Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"koalas), infraorder" → maybe "koalas), and infraorder "
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Isn't there any study more recent than Black and Mackness? 1999 is pretty old for a phylogenetic study.
that's why there's also another tree from 2020 on the right Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"Similarly, Diprotodon" Similarly doesn't sound quite right here; it's the type of Diprotodontidae, obviously it would share the family's characteristics. Maybe just remove the linker.
done Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"This combination is not seen in any living marsupial" But you mention wombats have continuously growing first incisors the previous sentence? Or are the second and third incisors also continuously growing in them?
wombats only have one pair of incisors Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Wouldn't the bite force of another large grazer (like an elephant or rhino) provide a better comparison than an alligator?
The only reason I included elephants in Josephoartigasia was because the author was trying to make specific ecological comparisons with elephants, but the true bite force of herbivores is difficult to study, so if I included it here it would seem like Diprotodon is much stronger than an elephant which may not be accurate Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"MIS5" → What is this?
first brought up in Evolution Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
"The largest...Paludirex and Quinkana," Wouldn't this also include the saltwater croc, since it seems to be larger than both Paludirex and Quinkana?
added Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 17:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
These are all the comments I have. Overall, a great and very interesting article; the description of the anatomy is somewhat complex, but the glosses mean that most anyone with at least high school level biology should be able to understand it quite easily. I'll do a check on the sourcing later. AryKun (talk) 17:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
All of the sources are reliable and appropriately used.
Spot-checks (ref numbers based on this version):
Ref 1 supports all claims made.
Ref 64 supports all claims made.
Ref 94 supports all claims made.
Okay, I'll be passing the article now. AryKun (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Giant wombat has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 April 2 § Giant wombat until a consensus is reached.  Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes made:

Fixed sentence structures.
Removed unnecessary clarifications.
Added citation needed flags, some may be unnecessary.
Be aware of repeated content.
Fixed commas.
Removed unnecessarily complicated words.
--Be 4584 (talk) 22:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)