Talk:Red kangaroo

May 2006

"A little-known fact is that the red kangaroo has a weak anabolic poison in the claws of its hind legs."

Where has this fact come from?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.113.54 (talk • contribs)

Removed. There is no factual basis for this statement whatsoever, it is either a prank or a misattribution of something more properly ascribed to the platypus. There is no such thing as an "anabolic poison" either. - Miwa * talk * contribs ^_^ 23:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

June 2006

Kangaroo's can retract their testes, but I was under the impression this was for protection when fighting with each other, not because the bounce to much.

I added some interesting facts given to me by my friend who works in a zoo as a volunteer docent. I am assuming that these are completely factual since the zoo has a strict policy about giving misinformation to visitors (it is not allowed under any circumstances). I also have access to the exhibit (I may ask if I can take pictures so that I may contribute them to the article. I may be able to get a halfway decent group of pictures to supplement the existing photo) Morganismysheltie 22:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Red Kangaroo and size

I am a Professional Kangaroo Shooter in the state of Western Australia. I have shot both Red kangaroos and Western Grey kangaroos. I can atest to the fact that by weight alone, Red kangaroos are not the largest of the two. The biggest Red (male AKA "Boomer")I have taken weighed in at 47 kg gutted. The biggest Grey (male AKA "Boomer") I have taken weighed in at 62.5 kg. This roo stood at a little over 7 feet tall standing (measured from the heel to the top of the head, not the ears) and a touch shy of 9 feet tall "propped" (in the fighting stance measured from ball of the the extended foot to the top of the head). Hanging from the base of the tail, his neck and shoulders were touching the ground. My rack is 6.5 feet high. The biggest Red I have seen shot, by a friend in the Pilbara, stood 7 feet tall "propped" and weighed in at 49 kg gutted. Incidently, gutting accounts for approximately 45% of the "on hoof" weight. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sniper1 (talk • contribs).

• Hmm, having looked into the users contributions, I'm a bit wary of this information. However, having said that, I have also heard accounts from professional roo shooters, truckies, bushies, etc, of red kangaroos getting much larger than the 6ft quoted in the page. There are also a few websites around that quote sizes larger than 6ft, however their reliability would be difficult to prove. Is there anyway of knowing where the figure of 5.9ft came from? T.carnifex (talk) 15:21, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Page revamp needed

This page needs a total re-write by someone who knows something about animals. What is written here is largely amateur nonsense. e.g. (i) "It has two appendages with small claws (much like arms)". Is it possible that these are arms? (ii) "It can go long periods of time without water, as long as it has access to green plants as they have the ability to take moisture out of plants." Is this some kind of unique ability or could it possibly be that all animals including humans can absorb water this way? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.203.51.86 (talk • contribs).

My dad and I shot roos in NSW. I hardly ever saw a SMALL RED in NSW. They were always fully grown and stood at around 7ft. The shooter is right and the person who wrote this article for WIKI obviously never saw one unless it was in a zoo - where they tend to be smaller..marcus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.84.24.194 (talk) 09:25, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

The small intestine is designed to absorb moisture, possums seem to be better than macropods at this. Koalas have the same ability as possums though in drought they need to drink. Enlil Ninlil (talk) 10:55, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the current paragraph on size is fine. It gives measurements obtained from a reputable source, which is cited, then goes on to mention that reports of larger animals is not unusual. I have tried in the past to find recent surveys and studies which conclude average sizes nearer those witnessed by hunters (professional or not) and drivers, but failed. The problem with using sizes reported by roo shooters is there is not documented evidence, or if the animal was not shot, the size may have simply been misjudged. Also, determining average sizes from roo shooters could be problematic if there is a bias for larger animals. Perhaps someone could find any records from a museum or zoo which states a size for the largest recorded M. rufus? Regarding the water usage and gut biology, I don't know enough to change much. However, I notice they are very well arid adapted and live quite happily in areas with little permanent water, or lush, green grasses for that matter. Cheers, T.carnifex (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I completely removed "people say that we can look after red kangaroos if we get the right feeding program e.g we need grass abd plants so they can eat and we also nedd water so they can drink. but they also can live long periods without water cause thay have the ability to suck moisture out of them, this may be included in the feeding paragraph" part of the introductory paragraph since: 1. Poorly written, amateurish. 2. Does not contribute to the paragraph. 3. Needs to be put somewhere else. ReinforcedReinforcements (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless it's completely re-written, it doesn't need to be put anywhere else... Mainly because it doesn't belong anywhere (except, perhaps, here in the talk page) for the same first two reasons you removed it. Undoubtedly, these animals can be looked after in captivity. Zoo's are evidence of this. Can they be farmed and harvested like other stock animals? Perhaps. Although, if I recall correctly, it's not as easy as one first thinks. The final point our amateur editor makes is null; the animal's ability to draw water from its feed is already mentioned in the article. Discussion on how effective it is at doing this, and how reliant on water it is, is being held here (although I can't help but notice that the discussion has somewhat stalled, and no action has been taken on the remarks posted above). T.carnifex (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

move independently?

How does the kangaroo manage to move its legs independently underwater when it can't do so on the ground? bibliomaniac15 06:29, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

They Dont Swim. ZooPro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they do. T.carnifex (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Habitat

Can someone find the habitats of the Red kangaroo?--68.98.154.196 17:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I just removed

"In 2007, Australian scientists discovered gills behind the ears of a male Red Kangaroo. These allowed it to breathe underwater for up to 3 minutes, before resurfacing to eat its regular diet of young saltwater crocodile. This new subspecies is now being held in Adelaide Zoo"

from this page. Jezzamon (talk) 06:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for preserving this gem on the talk page :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.201.245 (talk) 03:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some people are just stupid. ZooPro 07:37, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroo Image's

I have no preference to what image is used on the articles "description" section however it should be noted that the constant reverts and changes could be considered edit warring in a mild form. I would personaly like to see 2 images of a Male and Female both in an upright position that are both standing like the current female. ZooPro 00:24, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who keep adding low quality (whether its low res, blurred ect) seem to fail to see that itis not just on how the animal is standing or facing, sure I would like it to be in the same position as the female but we (Wikipedia and Commons) do not have an free-use image which as the same or better quality then the Melb Zoo RK. User:Bobisbob2's reason to change a good quality to a blurred, unnatural (These roo's are found in bare ground areas of Australia [IE: the outback]) low quality image, using the edit summary of terrible background which is hardly a valid reason. Bidgee (talk) 00:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd venture that the description and infobox images should be traded IMO, although the present situation is also fine. The animal's natural habitat is actually important in my view in a presentation picture. Orderinchaos 04:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The image in the infobox depicts both male and female animals, if you are able to find a single image of both a male and female roo together i have no problem with a change.ZooPro 08:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This edit war over the photo is starting to annoy me, i dont care who removed the illistration however i am annoyed that it was replaced with a crapy image. I will restore it to what it was and any further changes should be discussed on the talk page.ZooPro 02:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it crappy? Illustration image is unrealistic. By not caring who removed it shows that you will do what you want and not others feel, and also the original infobox image was inplace for sometime therefore is classed as the consensus during a dispute. I have some photos taken today and see how they went shortly. Bidgee (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the photos File:Male and female Red Kangaroos (Macropus rufus).jpg, File:Mob of Red Kangaroos (Macropus rufus).jpg, File:Mob of Red Kangaroos (Macropus rufus) 01.jpg and File:Mob of Red Kangaroos (Macropus rufus) 02.jpg. Bidgee (talk) 07:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept the zoo photo as the lede image. Atleast it's better than the painting. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm dropping in in response to a note on the Mammals WikiProject. When male and female forms of a species look different, as they do here, we should put two pictures in the taxobox. See Lion for an example. I'll do that here if nobody objects or beats me to it. The zoo pictures are OK, but they don't really add information that's not in closeup pictures of individuals that are already in the article. I'd like to see pictures that illustrate various aspects of the topic: animals engaging in particular behaviors, animals of different ages, things kangaroos eat, pictures of kangaroo habitat, footprints, etc. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, you can sometimes find good free pictures here: http://www.flickr.com/search/advanced/ . Select all three of the Creative Commons checkboxes at the bottom. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Except for the fact that females are quite a bit smaller, both sexes look very similar. You can come across grey males of the species (although it's not common), and in central Australia both sexes are most commonly red. T.carnifex (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture that claims to be a Red Kangaroo joey is a red necked wallaby (probably) - it certainly is not a red kangaroo - someone can change it if they feel inclined —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.203.51.186 (talk) 06:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversion of size from metres to feet and inches

The Description section includes the sentence: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (11 in) tall."

This should say: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 feet 11 in) tall."

I went to edit this and discovered that the underlying text uses the "convert" function" to display 1.5 meters and it's conversion: "The average Red Kangaroo stands approximately 1.5 metres (4 ft 11 in) tall."

This seems to indicate that there's a bug in the "convert" function. Can someone report this to whoever maintains that function? Thanks.

--halcabes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halcabes (talk • contribs) 05:56, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Did a quick fix by adding "|ft". Bidgee (talk) 06:10, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Picture

@ZooPro: Based on what exactly do we know (for sure), that the picture of the "grey" kangaroo is indeed a female red kangaroo?--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:28, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Red kangaroo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/trade-use/wild-harvest/kangaroo/national.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing taxonomy section

This page has no taxonomy section, which is inconsistent with other Wikipedia pages on biota. Jamesray1 (talk)

Using Macropus rufus over Osphranter rufus

The taxonomical designation of an animal is defined by scientific consensus, scientists seem to be using M. rufus over O. rufus, this can be seen on google scholar with 78 articles using M. rufus in 2020 while only 16 use O. rufus. As such I believe it would be prudent to change the article to use M. rufus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GeriatricJacob (talk • contribs) 09:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

While it is certainly a point of contention (like so many things in taxonomy), that sounds like original research; Wikipedia should rely on a reputable external source for that kind of analysis. The Australian Faunal Directory is the national government's combined taxonomy for fauna, and it is updated based on the literature, so it seems like the most suitable basis for how we name Australian taxa. Wantok (toktok) 00:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

That is undeniable a good source! However

• a) it gives macropus rufus as well
• b) the measuring stick for names or classification is in doubt the international scientific consensus (or the by far most common (international) use) rather than the preferred use in Australia.

Having said that the best way to deal with competing or differing names is to simply mention them all. If both scientific names are in widespread use and used in current/recent scientific literature, then both should be mentioned. The same goes for common names. Hence "big red" can be added, but it can't be used to replace "giant red langaroo" which seems rather common in scientific literature.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomic disputes are very widespread, of course. I don't think Wikipedia should attempt to be a taxonomic arbiter for every species by independently trying to assess international usage, but should follow primary taxonomic aggregators where possible. In this case the Australian Faunal Directory is the most obvious source: it acts as the official Australian national faunal taxonomy, with frequent revisions based on the literature. It is the source of faunal taxonomy for various high profile services such as the Atlas of Living Australia. The position of the AFD is that O. rufus has been the primary designation since 2016, with various M. rufus subspecies (such as M. rufus occidentalis) as synonyms (i.e. secondary names). Wantok (toktok) 00:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree that WP can't be the arbiter for taxonomic disputes. But imho the conclusion from that is not simply picking or designating the Australian Faunal Directory version as the correct one (that would be acting as arbiter) but rather stating all versions in common (current) use in cases of taxonomic conflicts.--Kmhkmh (talk) 02:20, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

After researching the issue a bit further and getting feedback from editors more familar with topic, I'm now leaning more towards using Osphranter only in the lead instead of Macropus. Because this reclassification was not just suggested in a paper from 2019 but already by others in 2015 (see below) and it is not just the Australian Faunal directory that has adopted this taxonomy change but the Handbook of the Mammals of the World apparently as well. Meaning it seems to be adopted internationally as well and not just in Australia with the most recent publication switching to/suggesting the change.--Kmhkmh (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Taxonomy changes and timeline

The article currently suggest the reclassification is due to the 2019 publication. However the Australian Faunal Directory itself states here:

"The genus Macropus was split by Jackson & Groves (2015), by raising the subgenera Macropus, Notamacropus and Osphranter to genus level."

--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I missed that originally. Quite right - Jackson & Groves is the definitive work at the moment and that initiated the change, as I understand it, which was later backed up by the genomic work in the 2019 paper. Wantok (toktok) 00:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Why is Megaleia rufa absent as a synonym? Grassynoel (talk) 04:56, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Speed

Hi, I am trying to find an academic paper showing the top speed of a red kangaroo. Can anyone access this one (or any other one)?
https://zslpublications.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1469-7998.1987.tb02916.x BrightOrion (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2022 (UTC)