Jump to content

Talk:Macrotis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

unsigned items

[edit]

The reintroduction of this species at the Arid Recovery Reserve in South Australia has been so successful, that all niches within the reserve appear to have been filled.

And can we get a picture up?

status

[edit]

I think the bilby's conservation status should be included in this article as it is in many other articles for other australian marsupials. Wikipedia should play an important role in informing the world about the plight of so many Australian animals in a country that has the means but not the will to modernise it's economy and tend away from unsustainable agriculture in recently deforested tracts of land. Australia is the 224th most densely, or 6th least densely populated country in the world, that it should have so many animals on the path to extinction is atrocious. 220.238.151.140 00:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are looking at the wrong article. this article is about the genus. Click on the species article and you'll see the conservation status. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:20, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

species

[edit]

UtherSRG, in reverting my addition of subspecies you wrote "revert - there are no subspecies of eitehr bilby, according to MSW3.... they are only synonyms.)" I'm not sure how reliable MSW3 is as a source - certainly several print sources differ with this opinion. While I realize there is some controversy regarding some of the subspecies, others are documented as legitimate (ie: m. lagotis grandis). While I can understand how the "lumpers" have seen fit to dispense with extinct subspecies (not uncommon), the status of the two extant subspecies is reflected in many sources. I could try to check sources (ie: Seebeck), but maybe it's just easier to leave this detailed information out of Wikipedia. User:Ian T 17:08, 15 Oct 2007 (UTC)

MSW3 (Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed 2005), is the canonical taxonomy of mammals. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
While it's US based, the board does include Australians. Subspecies definition is an inherently difficult and controversial area. For example, in MSW3, the currently recognised subspecies of Koala are listed as "Synonyms", whereas the extinct and extant subspecies of Numbat are listed as "Subspecies", so possibly it's a problem of definition in this work. There can never be a "canonical taxonomy of mammals" though the MSW3 does appear a good general source. As far as the surviving bilby subspecies go, they are still referenced as such in textbooks (though Seebeck's "Bilbies & Bandicoots" and the Australian Museum's "Complete Book of Australian Mammals" list all subspecies, neither are current). The Queensland and Northern Territory/Western Australian subspecies do exhibit some physical differences. It bears further investigation (as do the Koala and Numbat). User:Ian T 10:24, 16 Oct 1007 (UTC)

New image

[edit]

I recently uploaded a new photo of a Bilby that I took at File:Bilby at Sydney Wildlife World.jpg (right). Please feel free to use if you find it helpful. Dcoetzee 12:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice picture, is there any chance we could change the caption? That is most definitely not a baby bilby underneath, the face morphology is totally different. I would guess it is a hopping mouse or some other rodent. A baby bilby looks like this. Cheers --Miss.chelle.13 (talk) 10:53, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merging of Bilby Articles

[edit]

I recommend the species Bilby articles are merged with the main Bilby article. For a start, the species articles are stubs, and adding information from them would basically be repeating information placed on the main article. Following on from that, as the genus article covers only one species (as 1 out of 2 is extinct), it is practically a species page anyway, written with all the information that is found in a species article, based on one species (the Greater Bilby). Additionally, the search "Bilby" comes up with the Genus article, and I'm fairly sure most would expect it to result in the Greater Bilby page. Based on these reasons, I think the articles should be merged (I have copied this to all 3 bilby talk pages, to keep discussion on one page, please discuss on the genus talk page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article should be about the genus, any marsupial species is deserving of an article, including exinct ones, and each of these is easily expanded with facts lumped here. This is not an article about a 'bilby' aspect of a 'bandicoot' concept, the title is one common name that happened to be applied to two separately described populations of animals; by the same rationale the lot could be moved there. Reliable sources separate these concepts, and give a generalised description, named Macrotis, that concerns its relationship to the web; that would be the appropriate scope for the content of this article. Expand the other articles instead. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the information given about the genus is based on one species. The fact is that the information on this page seems to be mostly about the Greater Bilby. It is even stated in the Lesser Bilby's page that it is smaller than the Greater Bilby. If I expand the other one, this one may have to be rewritten, and I suggest the default path of Bilby changed. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Facts regarding the type species should be at that article. I would doubt the only difference is size, those distinguishing characteristics and its extinction are a suitable way of expanding what is already a start class article. It follows that this article would be much shorter, but the history of its taxonomy would be useful; the facts surrounding the obsolete name under type species for example. The fact the article discusses the extant and type species is circumstantial, neither fact accords it a special priority in this article. How that came about is appropriate, well documented, and notable. Merging the facts on separate populations is ungainly, constrains expansion, and is a bit of workaround for less widely discussed organisms. It also gives tacit support to concepts associated with baraminology, or whatever that cluster of reactionary positions is called these days - something about bandicoots swimming here from the middle east via S. america - probably worth mentioning that too. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As there are two species, it should be a compare/contrast. Right now it is more a description. I understand that there is only one species alive today, but the other should be mentioned. Dealing with ungailiness is simply a matter of writing well. I suppose its lack of sources on the extinct species that is the problem though. I disagree that it gives support to baraminology (something I actually only learned about earlier today, on wikipedia too!), and don't see why that should be included at all. Though I agree that a taxonomic description would be useful. Maybe move it from the intro, though what's there would be short. I guess I'll copy some of this information to the Greater Bilby page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 20:49, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose this old merge proposal. See Talk:Greater bilby#Move?. Andrewa (talk) 06:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Moving "Bilby" search result

[edit]

I suggest making the search for "Bilby" result in what is currently the "Greater Bilby" page. There is only one extant species of Bilby left, and when people think of Bilby, they don't think of the Genus of two animals, but of the one species, the Greater Bilby. Thus searching Bilby most people would have the intention of reaching information about the current species. This page could be renamed Bilby (Genus) and added to the disambiguation page. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 07:41, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd go along with that redirect, as the reader looking for 'the extinct Bilby' find what they are looking for. The disambiguation covers that, it should be moved to Bilby, the name of the genus is Macrotis and that should be the name of this page: sources will trump an estimation of 'what people think'. Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for not providing sources, it would just be hard if searching bilby to figure out whether they refer to the genus of the species without individually checking each one. So then I agree, Macrotis would be a better name. I'm not quite sure how to make all the redirects though. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 17:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, as the Macrotis page already exists, I'll request the pages be moved, and the Greater Bilby is renamed Bilby. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 01:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move?

[edit]
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: pages moved per request. - GTBacchus(talk) 01:29, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Bilby → Macrotis —

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.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Macrotis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add

{{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macrotis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 16:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Macrotis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, 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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 17:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macrotis&oldid=1204625659"