Talk:House mouse

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shannon.tai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Life Cycle

When do female mice cease being able to reproduce? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.154.61 (talk) 00:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

When they reach menopause. duh! lol. or when they refuse infertility treatments? haha, is this a joke? Punkymonkey987 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Mice do not experience menopause, nor do the majority of land mammals, excluding humans (and recently described, chimpanzees) Mice continue to reproduce throughout their lifespan, but do have what is called an estropause, where around 9–12 months of age, they begin to experience irregular estrous cycles, but are typically still able to carry litters to live birth. Acgarretson (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Population

Could they perhaps be THE most numerous mammal on the planet? After all, wherever we go, mice follow. I wouldn't be surprised if they came to the moon if we ever set up a colony or research station there.I doubt it people are always laying traps. Mice run VERY FAST so make sure you watch out and the mice can get hurt very easily! REMEMBER THAT!!!

I don't know about these most populous rankings. Urban myth would indicate that Rattus Norvegicus gives it a run for its money as do sheep. May I request a citation to support this claim. That would be interesting. Shoot me down in flames if you know better but this looks like a very dubious 'pubfactoid'. That is a 'did you know' fact people come out with down the pub.

--Dan Allen 09:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

The citation added to this claim was to someones account of their war time experiences and although mentioning mice, not directly relevant to the second most populous ranking. If it still isn't cited in a month, I'm removing it.

--82.26.82.102 20:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I added the first plausible website reference I could find. It was still saying citation needed. I was curiously looking what could be the most populous mammal on earth, when I found out they probably mean man. As I have a plague of mice and probably killed some 100 of them (and they are still eating poison), I wonder if mice would not be more numerous than man (in population count). In body mass, I guess humans are the most populous.

--87.64.195.78 03:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

See Lee Silver's "Mouse Genetics" at the MGI site for verbatim quote, and see list of references. Very much NOT a 'pubfactoid' - Berry, R. J. (1981). Population dynamics of the house mouse. Symp. zool. Soc. London 47: 395-425.

Subspecies

This is what I would add to the subspecies section:

• Mus (musculus) musculus Linnaeus, 1758 (East European House Mouse)
• Mus (musculus) castaneus (Waterhouse, 1843) (Southeast Asian House Mouse)
• Mus (musculus) domesticus (Rutty, 1772) (West European House Mouse)

An additional subspecies was described by Prager, Orrego and Sage (1998) from the Arabian Peninsula:

• Mus musculus gentilulus Thomas, 1919
  
  

The following were previously identified as subspecies, but have since been found to belong to the subspecies above:

• Mus musculus homourus (Hodgson, 1845)
• Mus musculus molossinus (Temminck, 1845; the Japanese house mouse - actually a hybrid of musculus, castaneus and domesticus, Bonhomme 1989)
• Mus musculus bactrianus (Blyth, 1846)(southwestern Asian House Mouse)
• Mus musculus brevirostris (Waterhouse, 1837)
• Mus musculus praetextus (Brants, 1827)
• Mus musculus spicilegus (Petényi, 1882)
• Mus musculus spretus (Lataste, 1883)
• Mus musculus manchu (Thomas, 1909)
• Mus musculus orientalis (Cretzschmar, 1826)
• Mus musculus tytleri (Blyth, 1859)
• Mus musculus urbanus (Hodgson, 1845)
• Mus musculus wagneri (Eversmann, 1848)

There is also a lot of information that should be mentioned when creating new subspecies entries in the future:

• Mus (musculus) musculus: Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus striatus Billberg, 1827; Mus albicans Billberg, 1827; Mus niveus Billberg, 1827; Mus hortulanus Nordmann, 1840; Mus nordmanni Keyserling and Blasius, 1840; Mus helvolus Fitzinger, 1867; Mus tomensis Kastchenko, 1905; Mus raddei Kastchenko, 1905; Mus tataricus Satunin, 1907; Mus sareptanicus Hilzheimer, 1912; Mus germanicus Noack, 1918; Mus heroldi Krausse, 1922; Mus funereus Ognev, 1924; Mus borealis Ognev, 1924; Mus hapsaliensis Reinwald, 1927; Mus vinogradovi Argyropulo, 1933; Mus nogaiorum Heptner, 1934; Mus polonicus Niezabitowsky, 1934; Mus kaleh-peninsularis Goodwin, 1940.

• Mus (musculus) castaneus (Waterhouse, 1843) was originally described as Mus castaneus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus manei Gray; 1843, Mus rama Blyth, 1865; Mus taitiensis Zelebor, 1868; Mus albertisii Peters and Doria, 1881; Mus commissarius Mearns, 1905; Mus canacorum Revilliod, 1914; Mus momiyamai Kuroda, 1920; Mus sinicus Cabrera, 1922; Mus mystacinus Mohr, 1923; Mus dunckeri Mohr, 1923; Mus frederici Sody, 1933; Mus mohri Ellerman, 1941.

• Mus (musculus) domesticus (Rutty, 1772) was originally described as Mus domesticus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus albus Bechstein, 1801; Mus flavus Bechstein, 1801; Mus maculatus Bechstein, 1801; Mus niger Bechstein, 1801; Mus islandicus Thienemann, 1827; Mus adelaidensis Gray, 1841; Mus nudoplicatus Gaskoin, 1856; Mus varius Fitzinger, 1867; Mus cinereo-maculatus Fitzinger, 1867; Mus melanogaster Minà-Palumbo, 1868; Mus albinus Minà-Palumbo, 1868; Mus rubicundus Minà-Palumbo, 1868; Mus poschiavinus Fatio, 1869; Mus flavescens Fischer, 1872; Mus simsoni Higgins and Petterd, 1882; Mus muralis Barrett-Hamilton, 1899; Mus subterraneus Montessus, 1899; Mus faroensis Clarke, 1904; Mus ater Fraipont, 1907; Mus airolensis Burg, 1921; Mus jamesonii Krausse, 1921; Mus subcoeruleus Fritsche, 1928; Mus formosovi Heptner 1930; Mus caudatus Martino, 1934; Mus mykinessiensis Degerbøl, 1940.

• Mus musculus homourus (Hodgson, 1845) was originally described as Mus homourus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus nipalensis Hodgens (nom. nud.), 1841; Mus darjilingensis Hodgens, 1849; Mus kakhyenensis Anderson, 1878; Mus caroli Bonhote, 1902; Mus ouwensi Kloss, 1921; Mus formosanus Kuroda, 1925; Mus tantillus Allen, 1927; Mus taiwanus Horikawa, 1929; Mus boninensis Kuroda, 1930.

• Mus musculus molossinus (Temminck, 1845) was originally described as Mus molossinus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus rotans Fortuyn, 1911; Mus kurilensis Kuroda, 1924; Mus orii Kuroda, 1924; Mus yonakuni Kuroda, 1924; Mus albula Minouchi, 1928; Mus kambei Kishida and Mori, 1931; Mus tokagii Kishida and Mori, 1931; Mus yamashinai Kuroda, 1934; Mus longicauda Mori, 1939; Mus kuro Kuroda, 1940.

• Mus musculus bactrianus (Blyth, 1846) was originally described as Mus bactrianus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus gerbillinus Blyth, 1853; Mus theobaldi Blyth, 1853; Mus gentilulus Thomas, 1919.

• Mus musculus brevirostris (Waterhouse, 1837) was originally described as Mus brevirostris by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus abbottii Waterhouse, 1837; Mus parvulus Tschudi, 1844; Mus azoricus Schinz, 1845; Mus mollissimus Dehne, 1855; Mus nattereri Fitzinger, 1867; Mus flavescens Barrett-Hamilton, 1896; Mus jalapae Allen and Chapman, 1897; Mus caoccii Krausse, 1920; Mus far Cabrera, 1921; Mus percnonotus Moulthrop, 1942.

• Mus musculus praetextus (Brants, 1827) was originally described as Mus praetextus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus gentilis Brants, 1827; Mus rebudia Loche, 1867; Mus pallesceus Heuglin, 1877; Mus candidus Laurent, 1937.

• Mus musculus spicilegus (Petényi, 1882) was originally described as Mus spicilegus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus acervator Petényi, 1882; Mus acervifex Petényi, 1882; Mus canicularius Petényi, 1882; Mus caniculator Petényi, 1882; Mus sergii Valch, 1927.

• Mus musculus spretus (Lataste, 1883) was originally described as Mus spretus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus hispanicus Miller, 1909; Mus lusitanicus Miller, 1909; Mus mogrebinus Cabrera, 1911; Mus lynesi Cabrera, 1923; Mus rifensis Cabrera, 1923.

• Mus musculus manchu (Thomas, 1909) was originally described as Mus wagneri manchu by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus yesonis Thomas, 1928; Mus takayamai Kuroda, 1938.

• Mus musculus orientalis (Cretzschmar, 1826) was originally described as Mus orientalis by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give one synonym for that subspecies: Mus vignaudii Prévost and des Murs, 1845.

• Mus musculus tytleri (Blyth, 1859) was originally described as Mus tytleri by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give no synonyms for that subspecies.

• Mus musculus urbanus (Hodgson, 1845) was originally described as Mus urbanus by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus dubius Hodgson, 1845; Mus viculorum Anderson, 1878.

• Mus musculus wagneri (Eversmann, 1848) was originally described as Mus wagneri by the author. Schwarz & Schwarz give the following synonyms: Mus major Severtzow, 1873; Mus tokmak Severtzow, 1873; Mus pachycercus Blassford, 1875; Mus bicolor Tichomirov and Kashkarov, 1889; Mus gansuensis Satunin, 1902; Mus mongolium Thomas, 1908; Mus severtzowi Kashkarov, 1922; Mus oxyrrhinus Kashkarov, 1922; Mus decolor Argyropulo, 1933; Mus bieni Young, 1934.
  
  

Note that all subspecies given here were originally described as true species, except Mus musculus manchu!

from Schwarz & Schwarz, 1943 The wild and commensal stocks of the house mouse Mus musculus Linnaeus Journal of Mammalogy, pp. 59-72

Elatrin (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Question

I have a question that hopefully someone can answer for me, my roommate just caught a rather small mouse in our apartment (by catch I mean he actually caught it humanely, not in a trap), he now is keeping it in a large box in our room as our pet. Is there a significant risk of disease from having him around here? What kind of disease? Would people advise release? Thanks for any help!

Don't know about the disease, but I do know that I wouldn't be happy if someone grabbed me by the neck and put me in a box. Cheers, AxelBoldt 22:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Discussion for merge suggestion for C57BL/6

I dont see a need to merge. There are lot of data on each of the lab strains. we should have separate articles on each of them. --Dr.saptarshi 07:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. There are probably lots of articles of strains of lab mice on Wikipedia already. This article could use a list of those in the end, though. // habj 09:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Also don't see need to merge. A link from house mouse with a short summary referring to the full article on BL6 would be better. Jasu 13:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I too oppose the merge. --Jcbutler 00:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No need to merge. The C57BL/6 article stands well on its own. It's also practical. Anyone who needs the C57BL/6 information for business or science purposes would appreciate that it had its own entry. Dr. Saptarshi's idea of seperate articles for each lab strain is something I support. Again, no layperson researching 'house mouse' is going to be thinking in the back of their mind, "What was that I heard about C57BL/6 on the news the other day?". 67.121.144.150 11:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge: a C57BL.6 is very different to a "house mouse" and the info contained in the two articles would be of interest to substantially different readerships. PMN 032207

I don't think it is a good idea either, and since it's obviously not going to reach consensus, I'll go ahead and remove the merge tags. —Celithemis 23:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Addition

Something about the ability of the mouse to get into tight places, underneath doors, through holes that look impossible for them to go through, etc. would be relevant. Also, something that talks about what they can gnaw through - IE, how strong their teeth are.

Why the M

May I ask why is "Mouse" capitalized in this (and various other animal) article's names? I would have thought it would be more logical for them to be lower case, since they aren't a proper noun? Sorry if this is the wrong place to write this, kinda new here... :) Aillema 22:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself. A quick Google search suggests that sometimes the M is capitalized, and sometimes it isn't elsewhere on the Web, though I wonder if any of the other capitalizations are influenced by the capitalization here on Wikipedia. 24.124.50.106 (talk) 09:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

theres a Mouse in the House :0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.122.79.188 (talk) 14:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Article titles are like sentences in that the first word is capitalized whether it's proper or not. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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) 16:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

House Mouse → House mouse — Bwrs (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support per WT:RODENT#Capitalisation: reliable sources mostly use sentence case (for example, [1]). Ucucha 20:16, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't much care either way, but I should note that the reasoning behind the capitalization is that it differentiates the whole name "House Mouse" as a species name. This is exactly the same as if my name was Steven Wall; we use the caps - not not Steven wall - to make sure people know it's my surname. That said, WP:TITLE supports using the most colloquially used name, and even the Encyclopedia of Life doesn't use the caps for mouse. Steven Walling 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, but Steven Wall is a human being, not a Human Being, and Mickey Mouse is a house mouse, not a House Mouse. Station1 (talk) 21:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. :) Steven Walling 09:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support as per guideline and discussion at WP:RODENT. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

Mice

how many are born in mice litter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.72.237.153 (talk) 02:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The litter sizes of mice vary considerably, average is around 5-7 but can be up to 15 or more. Acgarretson (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Priorities, people: Subgenus but no Domain?

What is more redundant than a Subgenus? The Species is very arguably the real Subgenus, as it is always the full Genus and not the Sub- that is the Genus Taxon at the front of a binomial for a Species, or for that matter the trinomial for a Variety/Subspecies, or the quadennomial for an Infraspecies/Race. (Even if these terms aren't regarded as synonymous, I still keep seeing them in various places used one or the other depending what species is being further divided, which is different from one being above the other.) Anyway, I get yelled at for including Domain, which I'm pretty sure was recently elevated to a major rank just like Kingdom and the others below it, and here I see a Subgenus in a Taxobox. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 19:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The subgenus here is directly above the taxon discussed, and therefore can be included. Ucucha 23:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Most other Articles that discuss individual Species stop at Genus rank, aside from the Species-level taxon discussed. Given how binomials work, the fact remains that a Subgenus is never needed for reference. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Most genera don't have subgenera. Use of the subgenus here provides additional context (the subgenera of Mus are quite distinctive). Ucucha 01:42, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

wordy gurdy

instead of:

House mice consume and contaminate food meant for humans, pets, livestock, or other animals. In addition, they often cause considerable damage to structures and property. They can transmit pathogens that cause diseases such as salmonellosis, a form of food poisoning.

how about:

House mice consume and contaminate food, pet food and animal feed. In addition, they often cause considerable agricultural and property damage. They also transmit disease causing pathogens and parasites.

i simply found the original text a bit wordy and redundant. Vinithehat (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the picture of a Japanese mouse a rat?

The photo of what is called a japanese mouse looks more like a rat. Any experts out there? DrChrissy (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant the video of the Japanese house mouse looks like a rat. DrChrissy (talk) 15:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you look at the full size video:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mus_musculus_-_japanese_house_mouse.ogv

It looks less ratty. The white fur on the tail make it appear bald and more rat-like. ViniTheHat (talk) 20:20, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm unable to play the video. The still image appears to show ears and a thick tail that to me, look more like a rat, however, I have never seen a Japanese house mouse before. Thanks for your input. DrChrissy (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it's just a fancy colored regular house mouse, who just happens to be in Japan. It didnt look too special. : ) ViniTheHat (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a marketing platform

Deleted what initially appeared to be suspicious content about mice as carriers of nasty cooties, with a footnote link that had no text except for another numbered hyperlink, said link ultimately leading to an exterminator's sales page. One good thing came of the ruse: I registered with Wikipedia to edit, after years of merely reading.Lala Catnip (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Is Mice as an invasive species accurate?

The section Mice as an invasive species finishes 'The estimated 700,000 mice on the island kill a total of over one million bird chicks per year'. This seemed rather a lot of deaths to me, but on checking the reference given, I can find no estimates of mice population or the number of chicks killed. I propose to delete this sentence unless there is a reference supplied. DrChrissy (talk) 12:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Reproduction

The latest changes to this article reverse previous statements, i.e. 'Males reach sexual maturity at about eight [previously six] weeks and females at about six [previously eight] weeks, but both can breed as early as five weeks.' Neither version has a citation or link. Surely this is a case where the information should be verified - whichever is correct should be allowed to remain. DrChrissy (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

T-haplotype section

I'm not convinced of the utility of the T-haplotype section - it is overly complex and too specific compared to the rest of the article. I'd like to remove it but wondered what other people think? Sarahburge (talk) 10:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Sentence on euthanasia deleted

I have deleted the sentence on narcotization being necessary before physical methods of euthanasia. This is for two reasons. First, this is not true in the UK (and probably other countries). Second, the cited web page states 'Physical methods of euthanasia, for example cervical dislocation or decapitation, can be performed without prior narcotization only if scientifically justified in the Animal Study Proposal and approved by the Animal Care and Use Committee.'__DrChrissy (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Split into House mouse and Laboratory mouse

I propose that this article is split into two, i.e. House mouse and Laboratory mouse. There seems to be sufficient information for seperate articles, and very good reasons for considering them seperately (even though they are the same species). This has already been done for Rat and Laboratory rat. It might also then be possible to merge the information for the different strains into Laboratory mouse, but this is a discussion for later. So, should the article be split?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for change item Mice and humans, the part about diseases

House mice can sometimes transmit diseases, contaminate food and damage food packaging. There is no justification though for incriminating the house mouse (the mus musculus) in the genesis and maintenance of dangerous human diseases. Although the American CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) gives a list with diseases transmitted by rodents, only few of the diseases are transmitted through the house mouse. These are not commonly reported infections in humans and most infections are mild and are often never diagnosed. The reason the house mouse has a bad reputation is that it is often confused with all kind of other mice or rodents.

In western Europe there are hardly any diseases carried by the house mouse. The situation is different depending on the continent, country, city, neighbourhood, the subspecies of Mus Musculus, location and overall hygiene in a certain neighbourhood and most importantly the specific house.

Lymphocytic choriomeningitis (LCMV) can be transmitted by mice but is not a commonly reported infection in humans, though most infections are mild and are often never diagnosed. When bringing a new pet rodent into the home, it is difficult to be sure it is LCMV free. Serological testing is not reliable for ensuring that an individual rodent is LCMV free. That’s why testing of pets is not recommended by the CDC. Infected colonies of research animals are usually euthanized.

If there are few diseases in the local population, there is less chance diseases spread. If for example about 1 to 5% of the human population has antibodies for LCMV, and the house mouse 4 to 14% and hamsters in a pet store 4% one can question who gets LCMV from who or what

There is some small concern however, especially in the USA, that women should be modestly alert not to be infected with LCMV during pregnancy. So maybe in this period they should make an extra effort to avoid getting in contact with rodents and/or their excrement, also pets

The domestic mouse is not a dangerous vector of human plague (bubonic plague) because it is much less infested with fleas than the rat, and because the flea which it naturally harbours exhibits little tendency to attack man in default of its natural host.

The Hantavirus, is a potentially fatal virus but transmitted by rodents such as deer mice. Other rodents, including house mice, are rarely if ever carriers of the virus.

Salmonella live in the intestinal tracts of humans and other animals, including birds and reptiles. Salmonella are usually transmitted to humans by eating contaminated food, including food contaminated with animal feces, so also house mice. That's why it's important to keep mice away from food. And in the end this is the only way to keep mice away. No food = no mice. Feces of birds and reptiles should be of more concern though. Lyme disease is transmitted by ticks, which may be carried by white-footed mice.

Rickettsialpox is spread by mice in general, is very rare and generally very mild and resolves within 2–3 weeks if untreated. There are no known deaths resulting from the disease. Murine typhus (also called endemic typhus) is caused by the bacteria Rickettsia typhi, and is transmitted by the fleas that infest rats. While rat fleas are the most common vectors, cat fleas and mouse fleas are less common modes of transmission. Endemic typhus is highly treatable with antibiotics. Most people recover fully, but death may occur in the elderly, severely disabled or patients with a depressed immune system. Leptospirosis is more often transmitted by dogs (urine) rats, the greater white-toothed shrew (Crocidura russula), the common vole (Microtus arvalis), the muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) and almost any other mammal. Leptospirosis is transmitted by the urine of an infected animal, and is contagious as long as the urine is still moist. Mice don’t need to drink much. Their body is very efficient in taking all the water they need from their food. Male mice scent-mark their territories with urine streaks though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Floris5 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

According recent research the house mouse is so close to us that it’s absence might even proof worse for people’s health. Children that are exposed at a young age to dander, excrement and certain microorganisms it contains are less likely to develop asthma and allergies.

If there is no food in the house but you do have insects in or under the house, mice can even be useful by eating them. And if one leaves food for birds in the garden, and leaves it there during the afternoon, evening and night, one can be sure that house mice eat most of it leaving people wonder why they see little birds but lots of mice playing around well fed. Another possibility is to be friendly to mice as one is to birds, or even see them as pets that don't need any care. All animals can bring diseases. But as the research above suggests, maybe we're better of with than without the house mouse.

References

I'm just off to bed but before I go I will make a quick comment. Although you may have a point about the diseases a couple of sentences should be all that is need to sort that out. Your last point about mouse urination is completely wrong. mice certainly do drink, although in the wild it is quite conceivable that they get most of their water from their diet. I have no idea what the Dutch paper says but house mice urinate almost constantly and use the the urine for scent marking - much experimental work has been done on this. Google "mouse urination" and you will find papers such as Rates of urine excretion by the house mouse, Sex differences in mouse urination patterns, and Molecular Heterogeneity of Urinary Proteins in Wild House Mouse Populations. To quote from Proteins in urine scent marks of male house mice extend the longevity of olfactory signals - "Dominant male mice scent-mark their territories extensively with urine streaks...The nature of their response suggests that, from a distance, mice may be unable to tell whether airborne signals emanate from scent marks or from the donor himself and we suggest that this may provide territory owners with a major advantage in defending their territories". I did try linking to these but, unfortunately, some of the sites are whitelisted by by Wikipedia and you can't link to them. I have worked with lab mice for most of my working life and i can assure you that the overwhelming odour in any mouse unit is ammonia from their urine. Although the laboratory is an artificial environment and they are fed on dry food which is always supplemented with water it is clear form the above mentioned papers that urine marking is an important factor in the wild. Richerman (talk) 01:28, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, having been to bed I have now spent a little time on this and can add some balance to the points you've made - more to come as I have more time:

First of all, salmonellosis is probably the most common disease that is spread by mouse dropping and faeces and I'm sure that before we had antibiotics this would have been quite a problem. I have given some references below with quotations from them about other diseases:

[2] Lymphocytic choriomeningitis is a viral infection that can be found in wild rodents, primarily the common house mouse (Mus musculus). Infected mice can appear healthy while being infectious. Infection in commercially obtained pet rodents from reputable dealers is unusual; however pet rodents can become infected by exposure to wild mice. People can become infected after exposure to urine, droppings, saliva, or bedding of infected rodents. Infection is also possible if these materials are inhaled (aerosol transmission). Various studies on blood samples from people suggest that approximately 5% of people have been exposed to this virus; fortunately most people who are infected have very mild or no signs of illness. However, the virus can be transmitted from pregnant women to their fetus and can cause fetal death as well as severe birth defects while the mother experiences very mild or no signs of illness.

[3] Page 5 - The reservoir host serves as a common infectious pool whereby disease carrying microorganisms are transferred from infected to uninfected ticks....The White footed mouse is an excellent reservoir host for Lyme borelliosis - house mice are also competent reservoir hosts but only carry about 10% of the tick infestation borne by white footed mice.

and on page p407 talking about crimean-congo haemorrhagic fever - small mammals seem to have the greatest potential to contribute to maintenance and transmission of the CCHF virus in Europe, Eurasia and the Middle East. Numerous species are infected with the virus in the wild including .... Mus musculus bactrianus.

Richerman (talk) 10:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

hi Richerman, salmonellosis is spread by contaminated food, of course this could be contaminated by house mice, but that's why it's important to keep mice away from food. I searched for CCHF virus and it says it is spread by Mus musculus bactrianus, which is the Southwestern Asian House Mouse, or do you have other info? Then I changed the urination part. Then about LCMV: It seems there is some conflicting references about whether the house mouse is "to blame" or that the house mouse is just one of many ways this disease, mostly benign, mild, if at all spread by the house mouse. On wikipedia and many other sources it says "LCMV is naturally spread by the common house mouse, Mus musculus", but the source for this statement is Hill, A. Edward (1948). "Benign lymphocytic meningitis". Caribbean Medical Journal XI (1): 34–7.. According http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16731068 though, that's true: Obstetricians should educate their pregnant patients about the risks of exposure to laboratory, pet, and wild rodents. as this is the most important source for concern about public health. On http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22889536 it says: Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus: an underrecognized cause of neurologic disease in the fetus, child, and adult.

ok, can somebody turn this into standard english, since it's not my native language, and of course shrink it to 50% of the enormous text it has become now... tnanks Floris5 (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

BTW, shouldn't be there a section about how to keep the house mouse out of your house?

Mouse control section

This article is about the House mouse - the animal - not about it being a pest. Recent edits have been made giving unverified statements about how to control the animal when it is considered to be a pest. I tried to alert editors by adding that citations should be given. I suggest this entire sub-section should be removed, although I believe these edits have been made in good faith. unsigned post by user:DrChrissy

I agree and I've removed the section. I'm sure the additions were made in good faith but it was entirely the wrong tone and mostly unreferenced. I'm not against having a section on mouse control but it must be a simple reporting of what methods are used and not give advice on how to use them. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an instruction manual see: wp:NOTAMANUAL. I've also removed a lot of the information that had been added about diseases as it was full of opinions, irrelevant information about other species and synthesis. There may be uninformed prejudices out there but we counter these by adding simple, unbiased facts - not by adding our own opinions and not by synthesizing sources to show that other species are more likely to be vectors of disease. For instance, I can't read the Dutch papers that were cited, but I'm sure they don't advocate inviting House mice into our homes to improve our children's immune systems. I'd missed the last postings from Floris5 but when I have some time I'll have a go at rewriting the section using some of the sources given above unless someone else does it. Richerman (talk) 15:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

but I'm sure they don't advocate inviting House mice into our homes to improve our children's immune systems

Yes, funny enough, they actually do exactly that: http://www.jacionline.org/article/S0091-6749%2814%2900593-4/fulltext . And you can put the Dutch text in Google Translate... Floris5 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

After a quick read-through I can't find it in the paper you have linked to. The closest I can find is where it says "Conceptually, in environments characterized by high allergen exposure, our results raise the possibility that enhancing microbial exposures could be more effective than allergen abatement. Moving forward, the challenge will be to define whether specific allergen- and bacteria-associated mechanisms account for these effects to enable formulation of evidence-based interventions" Have I missed something? I have also run the text from the Dutch article about the Hygiene hypothesis through google translate and there is no mention of exposure to mouse allergens or bacteria at all - only experiments carried out on laboratory mice. There is a mention of bacteria but the google translate (somewhat broken) English version says "One of the most convincing to me is the study of Swiss children [who] grew up on a farm," says Prof. Mary Yazdanbakhsh (Parasitology). "They were found to have much less chance of allergies than children from the neighborhood who also grew up in the countryside, but not on a farm. In the stables and through contact with the animals, the peasant children with all kinds of bacteria in touch" In other words, early contact with bacteria from farm animals seems to be beneficial. You seem to be falling into the trap of using wp:synthesis to support your conclusions. Richerman (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

It says "mouse" in the paper on the link provided and on http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24908147 : Results: Cumulative allergen exposure over the first 3 years was associated with allergic sensitization, and sensitization at age 3 years was related to recurrent wheeze. In contrast, first-year exposure to cockroach, mouse, and cat allergens was negatively associated with recurrent wheeze (odds ratio, 0.60, 0.65, and 0.75, respectively; P ≤ .01). Differences in house dust bacterial content in the first year, especially reduced exposure to specific Firmicutes and Bacteriodetes, was associated with atopy and atopic wheeze. Exposure to high levels of both allergens and this subset of bacteria in the first year of life was most common among children without atopy or wheeze. Conclusions: In inner-city environments children with the highest exposure to specific allergens and bacteria during their first year were least likely to have recurrent wheeze and allergic sensitization. These findings suggest that concomitant exposure to high levels of certain allergens and bacteria in early life might be beneficial and suggest new preventive strategies for wheezing and allergic diseases.. But I'm sure there now comes a rule, that must be there somewhere, that says that an encyclopaedia can't depend on one source or research ;-)

About the Dutch article on the Hygiene hypothesis: Indeed they don't mention mouse allergens or bacteria. Funny that they do mention a German study from 2009 in which they administered a nasal spray with bacteria from a farm to pregnant mice predisposed to asthma and by doing so their offspring developed no asthma. I'm pretty sure the mice don't have much problems with mice allergens though. The article is from the University of Leiden, Netherlands. There is research and the group from this University is also doing research on the Indonesian island of Flores on the effect of worms on the immune system. They have found that the absence of worms (as in modern societies) is an important reason for developing more allergies and asthma. They don't propose not to clean your house anymore or to give you a worm infection, but they are "trying to isolate the molecules that can reduce the risk of getting allergies and autoimmune diseases".

The newspaper Trouw article says: Babies who are born in the city have less risk of developing asthma and allergies when there are also animals around. And not just pets like cats, but also pests like cockroaches and mice. According to research by leading US allergists, pulmonologists and pediatricians that was published in an American journal (that is the research mentioned above). Babies who are exposed in their first year of life to dander of cats and mice, droppings of cockroaches and certain bacteria it contains, are less likely to develop asthma and allergies by the time they are 3 years old. The effect was already known to children who are born in rural areas with many livestock. According to the researchers, the outcome of the investigation is no reason not to keep the house clean. But maybe a little less. Because a little less clean environment triggers the immune system to fight relatively harmless things like pollen, dust mites and animal dander. (they obviously mean: not to fight) Floris5 (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

You're quite right, silly of me to miss that reference in the link. There is no problem with using a single source as long as you don't give it undue wp:weight. As for the worms - I've heard of that before. There has been research about the effect of hookworms on the immune response in autoimmune diseases such as ulcerative colitis. There is even a bit of a cottage industry in culturing the worm eggs to deliberately infect people with the disease, although it's definitely not a strategy recommended by the medical profession. As soon as I have some spare time I will have a look at rewriting that section for you. Richerman (talk) 11:51, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread, I would think it difficult to cover the issue in a way that reflects the truth rather than the collective 'wisdom' of the population as a whole. In the case of a breeding pair and a reasonable food supply, house mouses can produce a litter of about 6 about every 6 weeks. They are highly suspicious of traps, however baby mouse are less risk adverse than adults, so even if traps are successful, they are more likely to be removing babies which aren't the problem as opposed to the breeding female. In many cases there's not a breeding female and the problem goes away come spring when the mouse ventures outside and falls prey to predators. Ultimately the answer is to remove food sources from mouse reach (or to get a cat), but still every general store seems to sell mousetraps. I don't understand how mice can retrieve food from all manner of strange objects but know to ignore food placed in traps, but that is my observation. Presumably most research available will be produced by the pest control industry with not much counter argument available?80.1.165.31 (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

All one big happy family clade...

This article seems to be putting too much emphasis on the fact that "Mice are ... amongst the closest relatives of humans other than lagomorphs, treeshrews, flying lemurs and other primates". It makes more of a mention of it than the rodent article does, which would seem to be a more relevant place to make the comparison. Is there any particular reason for making such a big deal of it? I assumed the article would do on to explain the significance of this (e.g. relevence to using mice as lab animals), but I didn't see anything about that.Iapetus (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Best way to get rid of house mice

Ok, understood, WP is not a "how to do"... But please help me a little. Yes indeed, I'm here to defend the house mouse a little because the words mouse and mice in general are far too often confused with the house mouse, mus musculus. Under pig there is a section about (serious) health issues for humans. Nothing is mentioned about "applying laws and regulations" or "comply with the law" for pest control or extermination of the pig by "using pathogens or predators, as well as poisoning and trapping" like the section "As pests and disease vectors" under rodent does mention explicitly. One refers to the pest management manual of the US CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/ipm_manual.pdf and to the UK's HGCA's "Rodent control in agriculture guide" (http://www.hgca.com/media/177133/g56_rodent_control_in_agriculture_-_an_hgca_guide.pdf).

On it's own webpage about diseases directly transmitted by rodents in general, at http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html, the CDC explicitly mentions the house mouse only as a minor threath to public health, mainly because of LCM being a minor threath to pregnant women. LCM can also be transmitted by other animals and pets.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board is a so called QUANGO and "under consideration" (see http://www.channel4.com/news/bonfire-of-the-quangos-promised and http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101125071349/http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ndpb/public-bodies-list.pdf), a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, as such being criticised for many years. HGCA is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB), a statutory levy board, funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain and managed independently of both commercial industry and of Government (http://www.hgca.com/corporate.aspx). So not really independent or governmental enough to decide about extermination of the house mouse and to "comply with the law". HGCA's main objective is to promote agriculture and their own products and services, not public health, and preventing crops and storage being damaged by rodents.

So can I delete the alinea starting with "Because rodents are a nuisance and endanger public health, human societies often attempt to control them." under the section "As pests and disease vectors" at the rodent article? Since WP is not a "how to do" and the references are questionable?

For people trying to specifically get rid of house mice, here is what I find useful to tell them: If one wants to rule out any chance of the house mouse spreading any diseases, the only practical working solution (for me) is to prevent the house mouse from entering the house. Try to find all holes larger than 1 cm and use metal materials like aluminium foil or steel whool. If you can prevent a mouse from getting it's daily 3 grams of food (as an average) by keeping your house clean and storing food in a safe place, you won't have a mouse problem almost by definition. Well, if your neighbour is not that clean you can hear them walking around... Keeping it clean is a non harmful way for the mouse as well as people. Especially using poison, because what's bad for the mouse will probably also be bad for humans or their pets, as one's cat might eat the poisoned mouse. While leaving food around any other method is pointless since any dead mouse, by poison or trap, is replaced quickly by another brother or sister. There will be as many mice as there is food. Floris5 (talk) 00:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

It is self evident that mice are a nuisance, endanger public health to a certain extent, and that human societies often attempt to control them. The references given are fine to support that statement. Richerman (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

haha, you're just teasing me here :-) Floris5 (talk) 00:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

@Foris5 Your information is really original research. I'm afraid it really does not belong in an encyclopaedia.DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

@DrChrissy Do you mean the last paragraph above here? I totally agree, that's why I posted it here. But what about the first 3 paragraphs? So, from "Ok, understood, WP is not a 'how to do'" till "Since WP is not a "how to do" and the references are questionable?". There I tried to explain that the above mentioned references used in the article about rodent(s) are biased and questionable. They give citations/references for the idea that as Richerman puts it not very encyclopaediacly that "it is self evident that mice are a nuisance, endanger public health to a certain extent".

It's exactly what I try to explain: why say "it is self evident that mice are a nuisance and endanger public health" while in my opinion dogs and cats are more a nuisance to me and also endanger my health more than the house mouse by (for dogs) peeing against the front of my house next to my front door and spreading leptospirosis that way, right on the spot where I put my bags with groceries to open my door. And about cats, I tried to help a cat that was trapped in my garden once and hang with one frontleg in a wire. I wanted to free the completly stressed cat but he bit me in my arm as a thank you. I needed strong and new antibiotics to get over the infection caused by it. The owner only told me that it was stupid of me and that I should have called the pet ambulance we have here. So I make sure no cats can enter or leave my garden anymore (well, with my help of course they can) and house mice and the complete common blackbird family is welcome instead. A little sanctuary in the middle of an enormous amount of belligerent cats in the center of Amsterdam! Floris5 (talk) 00:23, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

BTW, it's another tip, as long as you leave something to eat, enough for 1 house mouse, so 3 grams, at a different moment each evening (and keep everything completly clean and hide all food), something very funny happens. In stead of a house mice invasion, running around your whole house, you just see the same mice once in a while, inside and outside in the garden, and they defend their territory from other mice entering my house. Especially since they are waiting for their daily meal. I know, it sounds a little too much, but I make video's of them, have them on Youtube, and I can recognize certain house mice, for example one has had a fight and misses some hair in her neck. She is with only 1 child inside and outside the whole time. So, I really think social behaviour and real amounts of house mice earn more decent and honest research. As said before, it's physically and scientifically impossible to have more mice than you have food littering around in a ratio: 1:8 as a mouse of 24 grams needs 3 grams food a day because of their fast metabolism. So, last time, house mice are not the problem, littering food around by lazy people is... Floris5 (talk) 01:05, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

It's a pity the plural of "house mouse" isn't "hice mice". JIP | Talk 11:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

It is if you're posh. Richerman (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Polyandry

The diversity of alleles increases in offspring from multiply mated females than those from singly mated females. [4]

Thonhauser, K. E., Thob, M., Musolf, K., Klaus, T., Penn, D. J. 2014. Multiple paternity in wild house mice (Mus musculus musculus): effects on offspring genetic diversity and body mass. Ecology and evolution. 4: 200–209.

The proper citation will need to be added to this on the Article page - currently it is listed as a link to the abstract, but the full article citation is neededEvol&Glass (talk) 23:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Below are some references to learn more about polyandry in the house mouse (Mus musculus musculus). Feel free to comment about the articles!

Thonhauser, K. E., Thob, M., Musolf, K., Klaus, T., Penn, D. J. 2014. Multiple paternity in wild house mice (Mus musculus musculus): effects on offspring genetic diversity and body mass. Ecology and evolution. 4: 200–209. [5]

Firman, R.C., Simmons, L.W. 2008. Polyandry facilitates postcopulatory inbreeding avoidance in house mice. Evolution. 62: 603-611. [6]

Dean, M.D., Ardlie, K.G., Nachman, M.W. 2006. The frequency of multiple paternity suggests that sperm competition is common in house mice (Mus domesticus). Molecular ecology. 15: 4141-4151. [7]

Arnqvist, G., Nilsson, T. 2000. The evolution of polyandry: multiple mating and female fitness in insects. Animal Behaviour. 60: 145-164. [8] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shannon.tai (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

In the section on evolutionary consequences, I furthered it by creating the subheading: Intrauterine Insemination. Furthered information on polyandry in respect to two related house mouse species Mbastani (talk) 00:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)mbastani

Removed the first sentences of the second and third paragraphs - information had already been stated and was redundant. I provided transitions that created a nicer flow. In addition, I linked "Polyandrous" to its page so that information would be readily accessible to readers. Overall, I thought the information was relevant and the article was well-written.Kyranavia (talk) 23:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Polygamy

Hello all, I am currently in the process of doing research on polygamy in the house mouse. Below are just four of my preliminary sources. Feel free to give me suggestions of anything you think I should take out, or on any major articles I should use that I currently do not have. Any help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

1. Dobson, F. S., and Baudoin, C. (2002). Experimental tests of spatial association and kinship in monogamous mice (Mus spicilegus) and polygynous mice (Mus musculus domesticus). Can. J. Zool. 80, 980–986.

2. Szenczi, P., Bánszegi, O., Groó, Z. and Altbäcker, V. (2012), Development of the Social Behavior of Two Mice Species With Contrasting Social Systems. Aggr. Behav., 38: 288–297. doi: 10.1002/ab.21431

3. Firman, R. C. and Simmons, L. W. (2010), EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION OF SPERM QUALITY VIA POSTCOPULATORY SEXUAL SELECTION IN HOUSE MICE. Evolution, 64: 1245–1256. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.2009.00894.x

4. Klemme, I. & Firman, R. C. 2013: Male house mice that have evolved with sperm competition have increased mating duration and paternity success. Anim. Behav. 85, 751—758.

Pubh101 (talk) 02:01, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I added a polygamy section onto the main article. It is still in its rough draft stages and I will be improving it, but it is a tentative section I have written. Any suggestions are welcome. Thanks! Pubh101 (talk) 07:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The section looks OK but, as a rule, you should use your sandbox for rough drafts rather than putting them in mainspace articles. Richerman (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The alternative is to create a sandbox for the article (House mouse/sandbox), but the same thinking applies. Either way, other editors could have addressed the problems such as referencing style before the problems have hit the mainspace article.DrChrissy ^(talk)

Hey, might want to add if increasing male fitness also increase in reproduction from that specific male? Sluology (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC) And also, does polygamy lead to decrease in inbreeding depression?Sluology (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC) i also reworded some sentences in the polygamy section Sluology (talk) 03:57, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello Richerman and Dr.Chrissy, Thank you for taking an interest in my writing enough to comment on it. I realize that rough drafts should be kept off of the main article pages. However, as part of an assignment for the class I am currently taking, we were told to post directly on the articles mainspace. My work has already been peer reviewed and I am currently working on a much better version that I am sure will be more satisfactory. I hope to make it as informational and well written as any other topic on Wikipedia, and any thoughts or comments for suggestion on the revised edition I will post very soon would be greatly appreciated. Thank you. Pubh101 (talk) 17:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

As an FYI Richerman and Dr.Chrissy - for the class, the information added was not intended as a "rough draft" but rather the best work possible. For timeline information on the assignments leading up the edit, visit our course wikipedia page (https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/courses/Saint_Louis_University/Evolutionary_Biology,_3010-02_(Fall_2015)/timeline) - as you can see, the students have done extensive work before posting! Thank you again for your interest and help! Evol&Glass (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments for polyandry section

I rephrased some wordy sentences, edited some structural errors, and rearranged sections. I also added the link to the word, inbreeding depression, in order to clarify the meaning of it for the readers.

For the paternity confusion, it will be more helpful to put information about the process of confusion of mice in order to be clear how polyandry cause confusion. In addition, it would be more clear to explain what kind of conflict there is where you said “there is conflict when multiple sets of gametes are present intrauterine in female house mouse [...]” The overall general information of polyandry is good, but it would be better if more details about paternity confusion and intrauterine Insemination (evolutionary consequences of polyandrous house mice) are added. Jihyek13 (talk) 03:32, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

• Make sure to cite the article or source you are getting info from after every sentence. I know it can be a pain, but it is in line with the correct way to cite things. • What exactly do you mean by variation can occur across and between a population? Wouldn’t those mean the same thing if you are only referring to one population? Or maybe I’m just confusing myself. • In this sentence “By mating with multiple unrelated males, female house mice can have more diverse offspring, which can increase levels in the population and reduce reproductive failure resulting from unfavorable combinations of parental genotypes,” it can increase levels of what? I’m not sure what you were going to say there. • Changed “Polyandry has evolved to avoid inbreeding avoidance in house mice” to “Polyandry has evolved to avoid inbreeding depression in house mice, cause I’m sure that’s what you were trying to say. • Changed “There is conflict when multiple sets of gametes are present intrauterine in female house mouse that allocates more metabolic resources from the mother” to “There is conflict when multiple sets of gametes that are present intrauterine in female house mouse allocate more metabolic resources from the mother” cause of grammatical issues. • In the second to last paragraph, you say Paternity confusion is the act of infanticide. However, they are not exactly the same thing. One can occur without the other, because being confused about paternity does not mean they will kill babies, and vice versa. I feel that it might need to be reworded to avoid this confusion, but maybe I’m not understanding a certain aspect of it, and so I want to leave it up to you on how to word it, or even if you should. • While the final paragraph is a good one and I can understand it fine, a lot of people might not from how scientifically wordy it is. • Overall, I think it is very informative and a very good section. However, the biggest issue is citing after every sentence with info from the source. But overall, good job! Pubh101 (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Polygamous Behaviour

After we eliminated the overlap between the polygamy and polyandry sections, our information regarding the evolutionary results of polyandrous behavior flows really well. I appreciated you mentioning polygyny in your section to help steer your topic towards the male aspect, leaving my section on polyandry focusing on the female aspect. Shannon.tai (talk)

While I was researching sperm competition in male mating behavior, I found additional information that I added to your article: “The competitive aspect of insemination increases the frequency of polyandrous events and fertilizations. Polyandry has evolved to increase reproductive success.” I also added the proper citation for these two sentences. Shannon.tai (talk)

Evo1995 (talk)Comments added by EVO1995Evo1995 (talk)

Over all, the polygamy section was an interesting addition to the article regarding mating behavior. Since my species had low rates of polygamy it was informational to read about polygamous relationships in animals, in this case the house mice. The section added was easy to follow, but you could add more details regarding mating behavior and evolutionary changes within the house mice.

I changed the sentence structure, “shows behaviors characteristic of mate-defence polygyny" to "shows characteristics of mate-defence polygyny in behaviour." Moreover, I changed "...with pups and are less likely and slower to retrieve pups” to "less likely and slower to retrieve pups" because "and" was redundant in the sentence. Also, the last sentence was a run-on, so added a period and a transition. Lastly, I created a new heading as the author introduces behavioral and evolutionary consequences by the polygamous behavior observed in these mice.

I believe sexual selection plays a role in promoting genetic diversity within house mice. Since sperm competition increases alongside male fitness. Maybe you can find an article discussing sexual selection in greater detail, of how the female is attracted to more fit mice or if male mice size has affected males to reproduce more litter and express higher rates of polygamous behaviour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evo1995 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Evo1995 (talk) 05:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)evo1995

Hey, you might want to add if increasing male fitness also leads to increase in reproduction from that specific male? And also, does polygamy lead to decrease in inbreeding depression? I also reworded some sentences in the polygamy section.Sluology (talk) 06:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

In Response

In response to Sluology, thanks for your edits! Now, as far as inbreeding depression is concerned, I know that Shannon addresses that in her polyandry section, so I feel that if I also did, it might be a little redundant. Therefore, for the moment, I'm not going to address it, since once again, I feel Shannon does a good job doing that exact thing. In response to if increasing male fitness leads to increase in reproduction from that male, I feel that the last couple sentences of my section address that issue, but in the opposite way. Increasing male fitness doesn't lead to increased reproduction, but increased reproductive success, which results from the polygamous mouse mating for longer periods of time, leads to increased fitness.

In response to Evo1995, Thank you also for your edits! In response to your concerns, I have all the major effects on behavior and evolutionary changes, but I am trying to find more. Once I do find more however, I will add them to article where they best fit! As far as sexual selection is concerned, or the female attraction to fit mice, I will try to find articles going into more detail on sexual selection in house mice, but I will need to discuss any info found with Shannon first, as the sexual selection part will be on mostly the female side, and therefore will probably fit better into her polyandry section. I have no found an article on if male size affects their litter production. Litter production is affected by sperm competition, which will change the characteristics of the sperm, not the mouse's body itself, but if I come across an article that says differently, I will add it.

In response to Evol&Glass, I took out the unnecessary words at the beginning of the section. I also feel that I worded the beginning to more clearly describe what is meant by behaviors characteristic of mate-defense polygyny. I didn't know if you wanted me to explain what infanticide was, or why it happens, or why communal nursing leads to less, but I explained why communal nursing leads to less, and I feel that Shannon explains why it happens pretty well within her polyandry section. To explain why paternal investment is lower in polygamous mice, I added the fact that they spend more time involved in sexual competition. I did reword the sentence to say females who mate with multiple males tend to produce more offspring and I combined it with another sentence to flow better, and also kept the fitness aspect in there. I also reworded the next part to say sperm competition favors males with faster, more motile sperm in greater numbers, but also kept mention of the fitness aspect. Overall, I feel that I still need to meet with Shannon.tai to really make this the best it can be by ironing out all the overlaps.

Pubh101 (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to Polyandry Critiques

In response to jihyek1, thank you for rephrasing, editing, and rearranging my sections. It is much appreciated. I added more information about paternity confusion to give my readers more background to the evolutionary consequences of polyandrous behavior. I also clarified the intrauterine insemination section that contained the confusing statement of multiple gametes in the intrauterine. Shannon.tai (talk)

In response to Mbastani, thank you for furthering information regarding the evolutionary consequences of polyandry in house mouse by adding the section of “Intrauterine insemination”. It was interesting how multiple gametes within the intrauterine can lead to detrimental effects of both the mother and offspring. This point extends from cryptic female choice within the womb of pregnant mothers. Shannon.tai (talk)

In response to Dr. Fowler-Finn, you’ve said that the third section seems a bit odd since it only has one idea in it. To solve the problem, I added an additional idea “Intrauterine Insemination” underneath the subtitle of “Evolutionary Consequences” to provide more evolutionary consequences. Now there are two ideas instead of one. Thank you for your correction that polyandry is mating with multiple males, so it can’t vary between the sexes. I got rid of all sentences that say that polyandrous behavior varies between the sexes. Instead, I implemented the sentence, “Males and females show different levels of multiple mating”. I’ve also separated multiple mating in females and males by deleting the sentence concerning the variation of polygamous behavior in males. Rick (the student working on the polygamy section) and I have talked to each other to minimize the amount of overlap regarding the polyandrous behavior of females and the evolutionary results of sperm competition. He is going to talk about the increased sperm quality of males, and I will be talking about the increased litter size of females. I deleted my section “Increased insemination” and encouraged Rick to include it in his to further talk about the evolutionary consequences of males resulting from polyandrous behavior. I also corrected that polyandrous behavior can lead to more diverse offspring which can increase the levels in the population. I understand why it was wrong to say that polyandrous behavior can increase the genetic variation within the gene pool. In terms of structure, I integrated the evolutionary explanations of “Avoiding of Inbreeding Depression” into the section about variation and let the evolutionary consequences stand as its own section. I also got rid of the subtitles to minimize the confusion of topics. I’ve also elaborated more about the reasons why multiple paternity occurs more often in large populations rather than small populations. I’ve also deleted the first sentence, because it was reiterated in my body paragraphs. Finally, I’ve elaborated on the statement that females show bias toward unrelated males rather than related males and provided a link to another Wikipedia article “Sexual Selection in Mammals, Polyandry”. Shannon.tai (talk)

Suggestions for Polygamy and Polyandry Sections

I clarified what exactly polyandry is because I was a little confused when I read the article at first. There were also many repetitive statements that can be removed to simplify and make the text flow better. I removed some sentences that repeated just how common polyandrous behavior is in house mice. The last two paragraphs of the Polyandry section should be combined and simplified because they both deal with the females mating with non-related males. I went ahead and combined the paragraphs, rearranged some things, and removed repetitive statements. Overall this section is very informative, feel free to simplify the section further because I felt as if the information was being dragged on and repeated.

Spreetycakes (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:29, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Final comments on changes of the polyandry sections by author

Thank you to all that have helped me write about polyandry within house mice! I really appreciate everyone’s feedback, constructive criticism, and edits! Shannon.tai (talk)

In response to the critiques made by Sprettycakes, I gave a brief description of what polyandry was to make the information flow from the preceding section of “Polygamy” smoother and to clear up any confusion. I also took your advice of getting the rid of the repetitive statements about how polyandry could result in genetically diverse offspring and the occurrence of variation in a population. I also combined the two paragraphs talking about the variation of polyandrous behavior in the first section in order to made everything less choppy. Shannon.tai (talk)

In response to Pubh101, thank you so much for correcting my grammar. All the sentences you corrected were grammatically correct and more eloquent. I also made sure I cited after every sentence I wrote that reported non-common knowledge. In general, I got rid of the lengthiness of the sections and created short, declarative sentences. Shannon.tai (talk) In response to Kyranavia, thank you for providing transitions in my sections about polyandry. When you provided the link to the word “polyandry”, I think someone deleted it, because it was not there anymore However, I linked the pages “Polyandry” and “Polyandry in Nature” to my article. I also added 2 links going to other Wikipedia pages in my article “Polyandry in Nature” and “Inbreeding Depression”. Shannon.tai (talk)

In response to Professor Fowler-Finn, thank you clearing up the topics of paternity confusion and infanticide for me. I was confused before and thought that paternity confusion led to the act of infanticide. However, I realized that paternity confusion prevents the act of infanticide. Thank you for your suggestions of how to make my arguments clearer and more succinct. I also realized that I had to cite after every sentence that reported non-common knowledge. That is crucial in scientific writing to prove credibility. Shannon.tai (talk)

Image of distribution

The image showing the distribution of the house mouse appears to show they do not exist in central Africa or a large area of the South Americas - is this correct? DrChrissy ^(talk) 15:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Habitat Missing!

There is no information on the habitat of this species - not even a mention of the fact that they can be found on all six continents or in nearly every biome. Nada. This seems like an oversight. Tofof (talk) 08:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Really? How about where it says: "House mice usually live in proximity to humans, in or around houses or fields. Originally native to Asia (probably northern India),[57] they spread to the Mediterranean Basin about 8000 BC, only spreading into the rest of Europe around 1000 BC.[58] This time lag is thought to be because the mice require agrarian human settlements above a certain size.[58] They have since been spread to all parts of the globe by humans." Richerman (talk) 23:57, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, it does say that, and I missed it. Mea culpa.

Further, please forgive the wall of text that follows. I wanted to make quite clear that, despite the overbreadth of my earlier assertion, that my concern wouldn't be trivially dismissed.

That said - I searched for habitat, range, distribu[tion/ted], ecology, continent, climate, biome, dwell, old world, new world, and world, without finding anything other than the range map.

Moreover, I certainly and deliberately didn't read the section you quote from, Mice and humans, nor its subsections Mice and diseases, Invasive species, nor In folk culture. And why would I? That's not where ecological information belongs.

Most basic animal articles on Wikipedia tend to include sections on Taxonomy, Bio-/zoo-/physi-ology, Ecology, and Behavior. This article has taxonomy and behavior covered, but is weak on physiology, and completely lacks a discussion of mouse ecology - other than the discussion of invasiveness - and even that's inappropriately shimmed into the aforementioned Mice and Humans section. It lacks information (in any centralized way) about ecological topics - not only are range and habitat missing (two distinct, different topics), but similarly absent are diet, predation, competitors, or even an ecology catchall. Again, I searched for many relevant terms in the page -- diet, eat , (which turns up only that they eat poop and unspecified things that birds in New Zealand sometimes eat), subsist, consume, herbivor[ous/e], grain, strategist, prey, predator (which turns up only information about the unusual physiology and behavior of mice on Grough Island).

Those details that are present are scattered, contradictory, or uncited. Are House Mice crepuscular, or are they nocturnal? Both claims are made. Neither has a source. Are they herbivorous plant-eaters, or omnivorous? Again, both are mentioned, neither has a source. 'Food', an obviously critical component of the social behavior section (by frequency that it's mentioned there), lacks anything more specific than merely "plant matter" - not even elaborating to leaves/seeds/fruit/etc, much less naming foods - in the entire article. If you want any information about continents, you're more likely to find it in the taxonomy section than anywhere else.

Even the basic Mus_(genus) article does a better job introducing and discussing even this specific species than this species' own article. That article contrasts Fancy and Laboratory mice with their wild brethren - noting the former's size and the latter's uniformity of traits. In comparison, this article's introduction emphasizes the Laboratory mouse's genome-sequenced date, importance as a model organism, and then .. mentions that it's a model organism again, without using those words - devoting more words to that than to the wild species!

Let us quickly contrast with some other animal articles. Begin with House Sparrow - another 'house' animal, and as such, the best chance of being organized similarly -- ie mentioning habitat only within an 'X and Humans' section. Nope - dedicated sections for its Distribution, Habitat, Feeding, Nesting, Predation, in addition to the 'And Humans' section that focuses on exactly that. Their range map is clearly delineated into original and introduced ranges, with the distinction and label both visible in the thumbnail. And the image uses the typical term, native/natural, rather than aiming for autochthonic and misspelling it. And, in particular, diet, distributed, introduced, habitat, climate, world, feeds, eats, predators, and grain: literally all these critical words appear in the article summary.

I'm hard pressed to find an animal article that's 50kb+ that lacks any of these sections, and I literally can't find even a single 10kb+ animal article that lacks all of them.

• Gray Wolf? Headings for Ecology, Habitat, Diet, Enemies & Competition, and Range & Conservation (and even subsectioned by continent). Its introduction covers habitat, current and historical range, distinguishing features, specific diet, and competitors.
• Humpback Whale? Ecology, Range & Habitat, Feeding & Predation, and its introduction covers physical and behavioral characteristics, range, migration, habitat, diet, and feeding techniques.
• Eastern_coral_snake has sections on Range, Habitat, Feeding.
• Three-spined_stickleback has Habitat, Distribution, and Diet.
• Pyrenean_brook_salamander? Distribution & Habitat section.
• Even a random coral, Acropora_nasuta has both Ecology and Distribution & Habitat.
• Or Achatina_fulica, a snail, with Distribution, Ecology, Habitat, Feeding among its sections and subsections, distinct sections for and-Humans and Invasiveness, and of course again its introduction covers Range and Diet.

How about smaller articles, or other mouse articles?

• Striped Field Mouse is a tenth of the size of this article, and yet dedicates entire sections to Distribution and Habitat and to Ecology.
• The diminuitive Cactus Mouse article includes Distribution and Diet as its only section.
• Wood Mouse includes a dedicated Habitat section, and it details Diet, Foraging, and Biome in the Behavior section.

Surely the Common Rat is an obvious contemporary to the House Mouse. Again, dedicated Diet and Distribution and Habitat sections. And again, its introduction has details of the distribution in addition to the nearly identical fact that it shares a distribution with Humans. And, appropriately, that article only devotes a quick one-sentence summary to the derivative Laboratory Rat in the introduction. Critically, what distinguishes House Mouse from Laboratory Mouse article is that this article is for discussing the wild animal - so why does it fundamentally lack a information about that 'wildness', ie ecology?

TLDR: Please add an Ecology section (with topics Diet, Range, Habitat, Predation, and so on)

Tofof (talk) 03:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not be WP:Bold and simply edit the article - I doubt this would be considered controversial. DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

The comment made on 18:36, 22 December 2016 (UTC) was removed for violation of WP:NPA.

(comment returned - no personal attack made or intended, merely an explanation) Yes exactly, I'm afraid that like many new users you misunderstand how wikipedia works. At some time someone started an article on the house mouse and since then various people have added bits and pieces. The other articles you refer to have probably been built up by different people with different ideas. Who are you expecting to add the information you want? - the person who started it (they may be long gone) or one of the others who have made small contrubutions? Also you are criticising the content of the article but admit to not having read large sections of it. We are all unpaid volunteers who add what we see fit to add we don't always do what someone else thinks we should do. If you are bothered by how the article is arraged or by lack of content, then you need to go away and do some research and then fix it. But please don't expect someone else to do it for you. Richerman (talk) 6:36 pm, 22 December 2016, Thursday (5 months, 10 days ago) (UTC+0)

'You do it then, newcomer' is unhelpful, but further has nothing to do with the article's deficiency. I have made my contribution: a rationale for why such a section belongs. What I don't have is the appropriate domain knowledge to create such a section. I would have otherwise; my edit history (from 2006) attests to major reworks and that I don't generally leave 'to do' items on talk pages as I've done here. The article has a deficiency. Let us discuss the article's content here here as I've done, address edits instead of editors, or better yet, take our own advice instead of dispensing it.Tofof (talk) 04:22, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Colour choice of range map is really bad

I didn't even notice there are two different reds until somebody pointed it out to me and even now I'm having a really hard time figuring out which areas are which kind of red. Why not pick two colours that are a bit further apart? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.114.146.117 (talk) 05:08, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Just had a look and I totally agree. I would change it, but I have no idea how to. DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House mouse. 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/20050313011817/http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/uac/notes/classes/rodentbio/rodentbio.html to http://www.ahsc.arizona.edu/uac/notes/classes/rodentbio/rodentbio.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 06:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

How heavy is a house mouse?

The article says 'The weight is typically 40–45 g (1.4–1.6 oz).' Really? I think that's about twice the true value. See here and here. I suggest changing the weight range to something like 15-35. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 19:55, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Disgruntled Wikipedian

Hi! I need a little bit of help stopping this editor who keeps replacing the article with 'RAT! Treated like dirt by many admins since 2016 DEAD RAT! GET LOST YOU DEAD RAT!' Thanks.BlacknoseDace (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Colour

An earlier version [[9]] had the colour as "They vary in color from white to grey to light brown to black", this was changed to "In the wild they vary in color from light to dark agouti (light to dark brown) but domesticated fancy mice and laboratory mice are produced in many colors..."

I found the current agouti (gene) page completely meaningless in this context, but presumably it said something like "Agouti is a type of fur coloration in which each hair displays alternating bands of dark and light pigmentation" [[10]] at the time of the edit.

I am going to simplify the description to "vary in color from grey and light brown to black" (wild Mus musculus tend to be just grey-brown in New Zealand ([[11]])). The 'agouti' reference might well be right, but probably too much detail for the brief outline description here, but I don't have a reference for their 'natural' colour, so if any body does it would be appreciated. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Couldn't think of a better way to handle it, so restored the agouti colouration page, and added back a link. --Tony Wills (talk) 08:20, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomy, woefully inadequate--more suitable elsewhere

The discussion on taxonomy and the clad diagram (added 19 Nov 2013, and apparently unchanged since) might be appropriate as an OPENING to a section in an article on rodents in general. Here, I think it's out of place. In this article, one should expect a discussion of how they fit into the rodent family, specifically. It might be kind of cool (or perhaps, to some people, disturbing) to think that they are among the "closest relatives" to humans, but considering the level to which you have to climb to find the relationship, I don't think they're all that close. Uporządnicki (talk) 12:56, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm! I just looked into things further, and discovered that the detail I've, uhm, objected to was added by a very highly respected Wikipedian who was also a career scientist of accomplishment, and who died--to my thinking, tragically young--in 2017; his Userpage is preserved as a memorial. Uporządnicki (talk) 13:13, 27 September 2021 (UTC)