Talk:Fauna of Australia

message: That photo of the guy holding the cod really appropriate? Dosent seem very encyclopedic... 121.45.22.89 (talk) 23:12, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cod Photo 

message: The lead paragraph to be used for the main page, on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/December 2005, says that the monotremes are venomous.  Is the echidna also venomous?  Or just the platypus?  Rewster 03:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Venom 

message: Do pipefish males incubate their young, or is that just seahorses?  Rewster 00:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipefish 

message: Do we have any specific examples of the over-harvested natural urchin predators whose absence leads to urchin barrens?
Also, it is not clear to me why the first paragraph lists the numbers of worldwide species for each insect order.  Why is this info necessary?  Deleting it might make the paragraph more readable.   Regards,  Rewster 01:34, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I will chase up some info on the urchins. I thought that the insect numbers were interesting since they indicate how much insect diversity is in Australia. Readability would be improved if they were converted to approximate percentages - we can comment out the actual number for future reference.--nixie 02:07, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invertebrates 

message: In the lead paragraph and under the Monotremes and Marsupials heading it says "Australia is home to the two of the five extant egg-laying monotremes". But I was always told that there were only two, and monotreme says that there are only two extant monotremes (and two other extinct families). Also, "egg-laying monotreme" is a tautology.  Nick81 26 December 2005.
*There are five living species of monotreme, the monotreme article says that, furthermore monotreme means one hole- which has no direct relation to the egg-laying abilities of the animals.--nixie 07:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monotremes 

message: Thanks for putting that superadorable koala on the Main Page. Made my night. jengod 03:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Awwwwwww...

message: This article ends abruptly --Hobophobic 19:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to worry, I spotted that and found the missing piece. Rich   Farmbrough. 19:57, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: End of the Article

message: Is there a reason platypus gets continually capitalised in the lead section? --liquidGhoul 03:59, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * There is no convention, it is still being decided, but I thought that it was only really birds that the convention applied to. The  platypus article does not use capitalisation. --liquidGhoul 04:40, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * I see that this has already been talked about in the archived talk. I think something should be concretely decided upon. The current situation is starting to get annoying. --liquidGhoul 05:58, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: *I had explicitly spelled out which convention was being used in this article in a commented out section at the start of the article.--nixie 10:24, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: * OK, sorry about all that, I didn't see it. When I was creating White's tree frog, it had been changed by someone from all caps, to none (except for the proper noun). When I researched it, I got the idea that only birds were capitalised, but now I see it is left to the preference of the author. --liquidGhoul 12:41, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Platypus capitalisation

message: Reviewing the series of edits made between Dec 22 and Dec 29, during which this article was featured on the Main Page, I noticed a chunk of text had been removed. Without narrowing down in which edit it was removed, could I ask if there was a reason? --cj | talk 10:33, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored it.  Apparently KI  (talk) took it out while creating a new article Invertebrates in Australia.  However, this new article (so far) appears to be just a copy of the invertebrate section from Fauna of Australia.   --Rewster 00:38, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-MP review

message: Shouldn't the acronym for this be ABRS and not ARBS? --liquidGhoul 12:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked out their website, and it was ABRS, so I have changed it. --liquidGhoul 06:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Australian Biological Resources Study

message: I have created a new amphibian section, to stay up to date (taxonomically). I also thought that very little was written on Australia's frogs in comparison to the other animals so I wanted to expand on it. Here it is. I would normally just add it to the article, but since this is a featured article, I think I should add it here before I add it to the article (which will be tomorrow). Any objections, please raise. Thankyou. --liquidGhoul 08:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Amphibian Section

message: I had to search a while before finding this article. Might I suggest that the following search phrases be redirected to the article "Fauna of Australia":
*Australian wildlife 
*wildlife of Australia
*Australian mammals
*mammals of Australia
Done. --liquidGhoul 09:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  redirection 

message: The article states: "Only three species of Australia's placental mammals were not deliberately introduced: the House Mouse, Black Rat and the Brown Rat." Shouldn't bats be included as "not deliberately introduced" as well, or am I missing something? I might be misreading the sentence; perhaps it should be changed to: "Only three species of Australia's non-endemic placental mammals were not deliberately introduced."
Also, it would be good to have a little more information on how the bats and rodents came to Australia. Did the bats fly from Asia to Australia? I would have thought that was further than their flight range. Maybe this is an open question among zoologists; if so the article should say so.
As for rodents, the article says they first arrived 5-10 million years ago. But how? Was there a land bridge? Or were water levels low at that point so that the Torres Strait narrowed and allowed them to swim? Ditto for the second migration of rats, 1 million years ago. 
About seals: the article says the 11 species belong to the "family" Pinnipedia, but the article Pinniped refers to Pinnipedia as either a suborder or a superfamily, not a family.
Also, the sentence about the seals comes at the end of a paragraph about cetaceans, suggesting that seals are cetaceans when in fact they are carnivores. Plus, the implication is that the seals originally arrived in Australia the same way as the dolphins and whales, by swimming. Not sure whether that is correct.
Mathew5000 09:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't answer all of these, but I can answer some. The rats and bats came over during the ice ages. The sea level was very low, and many animals were able to come across from New Guinea. This is not just the placental mammals, you also see the marsupials crossing from Australia to New Guinea, as well as many reptiles and frogs. White's Tree Frog crossed from Australia to New Guinea, and the Giant Tree Frog crossed from New Guinea to Australia. --liquidGhoul 09:13, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, I understand that. The way it was phrased (before I changed it) was still misleading/incorrect. I inserted the word "nonindigenous", which fixes the problem. --Mathew5000 02:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placental Mammals 

message: I wanted to put a  (featured article tag) on this page. It's been done already and I'm glad for all the editors. Please find a thumb|corporate barnstar dedicated to Wikipedia editors barnstar from a wanderer. --DLL 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured 

message: I have moved the long addition on quarantine concerns to the conservation aticle, the concept is already established in this article and the section is too long and has some issues with POV. This article is already long and any long additions should be useful and discussed here first.--Peta 02:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually the problematic sectoion is already included in invasive species of Australia, problems with it can be worked out there.--Peta 02:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Quarantine additions

message: FYI to someone who knows more about formatting pages than I -- at least on my browser, many of the photos are not wrapping around the text, but appear above it. I'd fix it but this is above my coding ability. Aloha. Arjuna 01:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What browser are you usuing? Also, which photos? Thanks --liquidGhoul 01:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Photographs

message: It should be described in the article that the introduction of foxes by the british was one of the most contributing measures of the endangerment of local australian fauna (primarely marsupials).
As there were no such predators, marsupials have become seriously endangered.
Furthermore, introduction of the western honeybee (apis) has endangered the local (honey)bees, and because of there unique way of pollinization, certain local flora is endangered too, since they need these bees for their seeproduction. Toxic toads have also become a serious pest, and are seriously invading the country and deminishing their predators rapidly.
Please insert this information into the article, thanks.
KVDP 13:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foxes, toxic toads, western honeybee and more 

message: The article states that Blackbucks are introduced to Australia. I think this is a mistake, as I have never encountered this information, and I live in Australia. If they were introduced, they are certainly not here now, so I have removed this statement from the article. Frickeg 05:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Blackbucks are not native to Australia, although they may have been introduced before Europeans.  KP Botany 19:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blackbuck 

message: Hi there - I am an Australian editor involved in the WIkiproject Indonesia. Our collaboration of the fortnight is Fauna of Indonesia. Thus, I am asking if any editors from this excellent Australian page could provide us with some advice on how to develop the article - or even help! Just drop a note on the article's talk page, or start editing! Of course, we can will look at this Australian ourselves, but the more heads the better. Just to get you all interested, Indonesia apparently has the world's second highest level of diversity after Brazil. kind regards and thanks in advance. --Merbabu 14:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A request - [[Fauna of Indonesia]]

message: Article says:
Australia is home to two of the five known extant species of monotremes 
But monotreme article suggests all five species and either platypus or echidnas. So that would mean all five are in Australia. Format (talk) 08:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are (at least) four species of echidna, only one of which (Tachyglossus aculeatus) occurs in Australia; it's also found on New Guinea. Three others, classified in the genus Zaglossus, occur in New Guinea only. Ucucha 13:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Monotremes]]

message: I think it is time for a separate article for this section.  It is getting too large and no doubt it will expand if given the chance. Green Squares (talk) 16:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't too large because it is such a broad topic (30k prose). An expansion isn't going to kill it. The more pressing danger is WP:FAR due to a lack of citations. Judging by the list at WP:URFA it will probably get nominated soon as people work through the 2005 list. YellowMonkey  (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh - much of it is sourced with a tertiary source. It could do with some buffing and some of the facts I suspect need to be clarified. I'd take it to FAR but I think it'd be nice to get Australia out of the way first. I will ask Sabine's Sunbird to look at the bird segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it is, yes, although if I just found another book called "Fauna/Animals of Australia" it may not be explicitly styled as tertiary but it would have the same structure with 2 pages on an overview of every group, followed by half a page on each animal. Things like "Field Guide of Australian Frogs" and other textbooks on frogs aren't designated an encyc but are built the same way, because with an umbrella textbook, on all fauna, there isn't enough space to cover anything except the core summary of the basics. Before I added Egerton, most of the books listed by Petaholmes would probably cover the same kind of depth as Egerton was 500+ pages. I mean, if I wrote a tertiary article on Churchill or whatever by simply paraphrasing a 10-page mini-bio from an encyclopedia or some mini-web-bio, that isn't in accordance with the ideal of distilling a 500-page textbook down into an article, but in this case we're distilling the whole 500 pages into a compact piece, so a whole book on all fauna may be ok for an article on all fauna, although not for taking one page out of the book for one animal. If we get a special textbook for each subfamily of birds, fish etc, we'll be here a long time. On another note, there are equivalent structured works that are called "Ox/Camb companion/guide to..." that aren't explicitly "dict/encyc" but have the same thing with hundreds of bite-sized things. YellowMonkey  (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)  07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Silly me. Hadn't noticed that roos, Wallabies, platypuses, etc had been killed off by somebody without being noticed YellowMonkey  (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)  07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Mammals of Australia

message: :It isn't too large because it is such a broad topic (30k prose). An expansion isn't going to kill it. The more pressing danger is WP:FAR due to a lack of citations. Judging by the list at WP:URFA it will probably get nominated soon as people work through the 2005 list. YellowMonkey  (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 06:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sigh - much of it is sourced with a tertiary source. It could do with some buffing and some of the facts I suspect need to be clarified. I'd take it to FAR but I think it'd be nice to get Australia out of the way first. I will ask Sabine's Sunbird to look at the bird segment. Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically it is, yes, although if I just found another book called "Fauna/Animals of Australia" it may not be explicitly styled as tertiary but it would have the same structure with 2 pages on an overview of every group, followed by half a page on each animal. Things like "Field Guide of Australian Frogs" and other textbooks on frogs aren't designated an encyc but are built the same way, because with an umbrella textbook, on all fauna, there isn't enough space to cover anything except the core summary of the basics. Before I added Egerton, most of the books listed by Petaholmes would probably cover the same kind of depth as Egerton was 500+ pages. I mean, if I wrote a tertiary article on Churchill or whatever by simply paraphrasing a 10-page mini-bio from an encyclopedia or some mini-web-bio, that isn't in accordance with the ideal of distilling a 500-page textbook down into an article, but in this case we're distilling the whole 500 pages into a compact piece, so a whole book on all fauna may be ok for an article on all fauna, although not for taking one page out of the book for one animal. If we get a special textbook for each subfamily of birds, fish etc, we'll be here a long time. On another note, there are equivalent structured works that are called "Ox/Camb companion/guide to..." that aren't explicitly "dict/encyc" but have the same thing with hundreds of bite-sized things. YellowMonkey  (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)  07:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Thanks. Silly me. Hadn't noticed that roos, Wallabies, platypuses, etc had been killed off by somebody without being noticed YellowMonkey  (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll)  07:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAR 

message: Hello, I have an interest in the Pebble Mound Mouse. I've noticed that there is no parent page for the Pebble Mound Mouse family. There seem to be three or four varieties. Should there be a parent page for them ? What about Australian rodents ? (Jimmy Heat (talk) 09:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a pebble mound mouse article would certainly be in order. They form a distinctive group within the genus Pseudomys that is probably going to be a separate genus soon (including the species calabyi, chapmani, johnsoni, and patrius). Ucucha 12:16, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Good, I look forward to seeing a Pebble Mound Mouse article here soon. It's surprising how obscure the creature is. (Jimmy Heat (talk) 11:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Indigenous Rodents 

message: Are there only two crocodile species in Australia ?  The article isn't clear on this, it mentions that Australia has both saltwater and freshwater crocodiles but not that these are the only species.  --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:58, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. It is badly worded - I'll change. Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:52, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crocodile Species 

message: nominated Fauna of Australia for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Featured article review for Fauna of Australia 

message: Although marsupials and placental mammals did coexist in Australia in the Eocene, only marsupials have survived to the present.
What kind of placental mammals?80.141.178.33 (talk) 14:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Tingamarra, which is supposedly a primitive ungulate (and known from a single tooth). Ucucha (talk) 16:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammals in the Eocene 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Fauna of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110928231645/http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0057.pdf to http://www.qm.qld.gov.au/inquiry/factsheets/leaflet0057.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:21, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fauna of Australia. 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/20140221185455/http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/dugong_2002.pdf to http://www.reef.crc.org.au/publications/brochures/dugong_2002.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amonline.net.au/birds/research/figure1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320221926/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/07-fauna-2a-amphibia-myobatrachidae.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/07-fauna-2a-amphibia-myobatrachidae.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320222003/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/09-fauna-2a-amphibia-microhylidae.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/09-fauna-2a-amphibia-microhylidae.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725081627/http://www.australiangeographic.com.au:80/journal/australian-amphibians-among-oldest-in-the-world.htm to http://www.australiangeographic.com.au/journal/australian-amphibians-among-oldest-in-the-world.htm/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110320222149/http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/15-fauna-2a-chelonia-general.pdf to http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume2a/15-fauna-2a-chelonia-general.pdf
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ento.csiro.au/science/ants/ants_in_australia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Fauna of Australia. 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/20110725033425/http://www.australianfauna.com/saltwatercrocodile.php to http://www.australianfauna.com/saltwatercrocodile.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050719035500/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/fish/index.html to http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/action/fish/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050723101859/http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/36-ind.pdf to http://www.deh.gov.au/biodiversity/abrs/publications/fauna-of-australia/pubs/volume1b/36-ind.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: I note in one paragraph about the dingoes that it says "Fossil evidence suggests that people from the north brought the dingo to Australia about 5000 years ago" while the text with the photo of the dingo says 4,000 years. Are these supposed to agree? 
Tzali (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They probably should. All the sources seem to be from the same time period too, unfortunately the two books don't seem to be available online. CMD (talk) 15:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dingos - arrival in Australia 

message: The redirect Australian native snail 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  until a consensus is reached.   Jay 💬 18:41, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Australian native snail]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]