Talk:Common brushtail possum

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

New Zealand High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as High-importance). It is requested that an audio file(s) be included in this article to improve its quality. Australia: Biota High‑importance Common brushtail possum is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as High-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

It is requested that one or more audio files be included in this article to improve its quality. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request.

References to Australian wildlife journals will be added soon, along with some more pictures. Disinformation originating with New Zealand forestry industry should not be reinserted - please - otherwise this whole Wiki concept will be hijacked by big corporates for even more propaganda. (Unsigned comment by 202.76.170.19

Please sign your comments, otherwise discussion is not possible. Note however that the ecology of this species is very different in New Zealand from in its native conditions seglea 30 June 2005 17:31 (UTC)

I have removed the following claims, which are inherently implausible, and for which I have found no evidence in the scientific literature or via Google. If they are reinserted, they should be accompanied by references to authoritative sources:

"They make and use tools both for foraging and making nests."

"Common Brushtails have at least forty different vocalizations forming a rudimentary language. Their 'nouns' are usually produced while inhaling and sound like a series of pitched clicks. Their 'verbs' are produced while exhaling and have a variety of sounds."

"[...the males guard the rest of the troup] in an organized fashion under the command of the dominant male. "

"They have been introduced to North America by the United States Military for training for special operations, similar to wolves and certain marine mammals. Their are persistant rumors of their introduction into the Indian subcontinent for similar purposes by other nations." seglea 30 June 2005 17:38 (UTC)

Thanks Seglea: I'd confirm all those claims are ridiculous. These are not intelligent animals, far less so than rats and dogs. Marsupials have very small brains and occupy very narrow ecological environments where not much intelligence/cunning is required for survival. The koala is the prime example of this kind of species in its niche (eats one things, sleeps all day, has a tiny brain, moves slow etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.2.96 (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The comment regarding the lack of intelligence of possums is clearly unsubstantiated. Any animal which manages to thrive in an urban environment is exhibiting intelligence. Possums do not exist in a 'narrow ecological environment'. They exist in city parks, suburban gardens, country towns and in national parks. A basic observation of possum behaviour would reveal the ability to solve problems, which makes them notoriously difficult to manage. Possums quickly respond to a changed environment. Place bird netting around a fruit tree and they will jump on branches to shake fruit to the ground. They will place their body weight on branches of surrounding trees to bring themselves into contact with unreachable fruit, and swing hanging bird paths around to reach fruit placed on the far side etc. They have extremely tactile hands, excellent night vision and a well developed sense of smell. If possums truly did lack intelligence thye would not be such a pest. While some people's hatred of possums is understandable (given the livelihood of farmers may be jeopardised by possums), this doesn't excuse irrational anti-possum propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.178.79.201 (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have again removed the following, which was reinserted by an anonymous user:

"They have in excess of forty other vocalizations which can be said to form a rudimentary language". The criteria for saying that forms of animal communication form any kind of language are well known and quite strict; I have not been able to find any research literature on possum communication that would justify this statement. If you want to put this material back, please support it with references so the strength of the evidence can be assessed. seglea 5 July 2005 12:36 (UTC)

The claims you removed are quite baseless, Seglea, as you have gathered for yourself. Thanks for cleaning the article up. Tannin 5 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

Thanks, Tannin. I guessed you'd have the information at your fingertips and was going to ask you to get involved if this stuff kept coming back. Is any of it some sort of Australian urban myth about possums? If so it might be worth a mention on that basis. But it sounds more like a solo humorist. seglea 5 July 2005 22:56 (UTC)

Not so far as I have ever heard. Just a joke, by the look of it. I'll keep my eye on this entry too. Tannin 6 July 2005 04:04 (UTC)

Judging by the comments already removed from this article, someone has been pushing some laughable 'possum propaganda.' Anyone working on improving this page should be wary of further additions of this type because there is nothing remarkable about the brushtail in comparison to other possums/animals. They are certainly no more complex than rats (less so, rather) and are not commonly known for being especially socially or intellectually advanced. I would suggest also removing the section about them having an intelligence comparable to a dog (and the statements that follow about them learning tricks), as this sounds to me like further nonsense and unsurprisingly it's not referenced. Undersparky (talk) 18:49, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but in my experience as an arbourist I can assure you that Brushtails do eat eucalyptus leaves. In Melbourne it is common to see Eucalypts (particularly mallee and corymbia groups) stripped bare by brushtails. I've seen numerous otherwise healthy park trees die from brushtail damage. We have to put guards made from PVC or sheet steel around the trunks to protect them. I'll try and remember to get a photo next time I'm out. njh 04:40, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to confirm your comments NathanHurst, brushtail possums are enormously destructive of trees, particularly in overpopulated locations like Australia's cities (where the concentration is 10x that of the bush). Exotics like elms suffer the most, with many trees destroyed. PVC tubing is very common around trees in parks now.

Like other marsupials, brushtail possums have small brains as a percentage of body mass. While they do make a variety of noises (some bizarre, like the asthma-like breathing), in no way could they claim to have a 'vocabulary'.

Is there a reference for the information about their social behaviour? It is true that the possums where I live seem to make up a colony, and that the 'top' possum is a female– but most sources say they are solitary! Could this all have been inserted by the person responsible for the hoax about tools, language and military uses (see above)? Dawnfire 04:08, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh– and interbreeding with the short-eared possum. First I heard of that!Dawnfire 08:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unverified info on social behaviour and replaced it with: "Socially they may be solitary or they may form small groups which share territory." Likewise that on interbreeding.

If there is a reliable source for this, by all means replace the information and this time STATE WHERE IT COMES FROM!Dawnfire 08:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All research reports them as being solitary animals, with get-togethers rare except in cities where they may compete for food. They usually just ignore each other, or engage in scrapping (which can be quite violent). I suspect very high mortality rates the juvenile males experience may be because they don't 'inherit' a drey and appear to 'wander' more in their early months. I read a journal article that suggested that when overpopulation occurs (eg. in Australian cities, where they exist at 10x the concentration of normal rural settings), they give birth to more males - I'm not sure what the reason for this is, though the evolutionary reasons would be intriguing. I don't believe there is any evidence for them forming groups of any kind in a natural setting, but will leave the social behaviour section alone until someone can confirm that's the case. While they don't form groups, they do seem to tolerate others living in close proximity in the cities, as long as there's a constant supply of food. They do appear to opportunistically take over each others dreys though given a chance, and people who have installed possum boxes confirm there can be endless fights over who owns the drey, with possums coming and going. Again, this might be behaviour seen in city-based overpopulation settings only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.148.2.96 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone have a source to suggest that brushies have been introduced to N. America? I have never head of such a thing...

ElZilcho —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:34, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has to be a hoax. I will remove it from the article - its been there since October without a source. It can always be inserted again if someone finds a reliable source for it Kāhuroa (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took this unsourced statement out - it was added by an IP on 13 Jan 2007 and seems a bit dodgy: "They are highly inquisitive and live in troupes of about a dozen individuals with a complex social structure not dissimilar from wolves and primates." Kāhuroa (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This page has become a minor meme on the something awful forums. Expect infrequent vandalism. 174.89.45.52 (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Trichosurus vulpecula 1.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 13, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-02-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng {chat} 21:21, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

The Common Brushtail Possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) is the largest possum species and is perhaps the most widespread mammal in Australia. It grows to about 32–58 cm (13–23 in) in length, with an additional 24–40 cm (9–16 in) for its prehensile tail (seen here hanging below the branch). It is mainly a folivore, but has been known to eat small mammals such as rats. It is common in cities, having adapted well to human habitation.Photo: JJ Harrison

Archive – More featured pictures...

Considering the number of times possums in New Zealand are mentioned, surely the map should include New Zealand. Mdw0 (talk) 00:42, 14 February 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Common brushtail possum. 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/20120323210102/http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/plants-and-animals/possum-faq to http://www.dse.vic.gov.au/plants-and-animals/possum-faq
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070715210640/http://www.australianfauna.com/brushtailpossum.php to http://www.australianfauna.com/brushtailpossum.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014021214/http://www.possumbase.org.nz/ to http://www.possumbase.org.nz/

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) 10:41, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Although i do not want to argue about at least some of the removals, nor my not referenced, observtional addition being removed, i would disagree strongly about Seglea and Underspanky, or others claiming that they are not intelligent.

I should not have to say, that Intelligence is a on a RELATIVE SCALE - what is intelligent for an ant, is vastly more intelligent than what a fungus can do... whereas both are relatively limited although perhaps/less complex of timing/mechanisms... than what we can do,.. so ;

when you assess something that is in the middle, soto speak, of simple to complex organisms, marginal differences are actually quite a lot, in terms of a particular species importance - especially if the species, like a bee, or possums, are a part of reproduction cycles, or in the case of SOME possums in my exp, active MAINTAINERS of some of the trees they live in / get food from.

The fact that they can be a pest, should NOT somehow be used as a claim to justifying calling a relativly intelligent animal UNintelligent.

only a few days ago, one indicated to me that my garden arch was needing repair, in a intelligent, cooperative way - you also said, Seglea/whoever,.. on par with/like dogs -

dogs are one of the most intelligent, actually - but NOR are dogs and rats comparable, Underspanky - i've done enough Animal-Psychology, to know - while most rats might be able to understand that some things it can get through to get into a house, and others cannot, and to actively remember and identify the differences ( a grill compared to a hinge, a scratched-hole, compared to a open plug-fitting, yet to've been closed up, etc )... dogs (bred, i mean) have good social adaption/imitation memories and learning-centre adaptive traits... that doesn't mean that EVERY one you meet, will be lassie...

but it does mean that when a rat might have an oppertunity to adapt to a social need, that i cannot with anywhere near as good a range of COGNITION OF NEED, as dogs.

They have mostly(if not completely) more internally-driven instincts, they will socially adapt for their OWN children, or at a low level of immediate need and organisation FOR, needs...

...but they do not have the kinds of dream/imagination social capacities of dogs, at a higher level of emotional awareness, or similar - do not value the INDIRECT effects, when identifying emotion - if i make my owner happy, them BEING happy, will affect others in a way i want, rather than them being angry/demanding... or ... my owner who puts me in pit-fights, is in a apathetic, shocked, emotionally-sensitive state, after losing one of their own children... ill be physically playful and alert, with them, to SEEM like im still able to do what i need to be able to, for them to continue to want to keep me - if they think i'm not still a ferocious fighter, he might get rid of me... etc.

THAT kind of REASONING, is something well and truly established, with dogs. rats? no, Possums have PHYSICAL APPEARANCES a little like rats, and people often cannot be BOTHERED LEARNING or observing the differences.

you have grouped both together, when they should be quite far apart.

As i said at the start of my criticism, when youre NOT starting from either end of the scale... humans are definately at one end...

then SEEMINGLY insignificant differences, are actually a LOT.

im saying this because the co-operative help (drawing my attention to a broken garden-arch) i received from a possum not two nights ago, says to me...

this animal could understand REPAIRS... and the oppertunity if not also, need, to report them.

yes, it would be in their interest, i would not deny that,..

...but that would not detract from whether or not it is intelligent, to do so.

quite the opposite - doing things that is in your interests, is a big part of what being intelligent, is all about.

at least when talking about it in biology generally - abstract arts / creation, obviously not... but would that be a fair comparison / quesiton ?

of course not...

being able to THINK a problem out, is definately a sign of intelligence, whether you like them or not. Same goes for anyone else reading this and wanting to compare gross differences, for a marginal-difference question.

i don't USUALLY care about marginal differences either! and if i was in NZ , i could happily munch down on a Possum Kebab!

But that does NOT mean, i would say they are not intelligent - i happily chow down on pig, cow, and i would a brumbies, if it was in the supermarket, WHILE STILL CALLING THEM, intelligent.

mmmm, intelligence, delicious! NZ, yes, but not here - here they are a valuable animal, in terms of the reproductive chain, food chain, and topsoil redistribution dynamics, as well as a few other things, like having a place in Aboriginal culture / sky-myth-methaphor, etc.

The intelligence question should not be acted upon in gross experience of DOMESITCATED v non-domesticated.

People often find criticisms in WILD creatures, compared to under our control ones, rather than sticking to the question impartially.

communicating to me to make me aware of a repair that needed doing, is DEFINATELY intelligent in my book.

Vurrath (talk) 20:00, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just removed this. Certainly OR ("original research"), and very close to a rant. More that that it is unclear what the point(s) is/are - and caps DON'T help. - Snori (talk) 23:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on wiki or possums, so I won't make any changes to the page. I'll leave that to more qualified people.

The image labelled "Dentition of a common brushtail possum" File:Animaldentition_trichosurusvulpecula.png looks nothing like the teeth in the image labelled "Skull of a common brushtail possum" File:Trichosurus_vulpecula_02_MWNH_929.JPG nor those shown at https://www.bien.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Skulls-of-Tasmania-Rainbird.pdf page 29.

The "Dentition of a common brushtail possum" image contains the words "Sooty Tapoa". Googling this results in various versions of poorly hand-drawn images dating from 1839 and 1856 - this image is one of them.

Could I suggest that this image be replaced with another, eg https://www.bien.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Skulls-of-Tasmania-Rainbird.pdf An Illustrated Key to the Skulls of the Mammals in Tasmania R. H. GREEN & J. L. RAINBIRD Queen Victoria Museum and Art Gallery, Launceston, Tasmania 1983 ISBN 0 7246 1127 4 Page 29 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrytre (talk • contribs) 07:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Bahudhara: Please follow WP:BRD. That source is obviously not RS. No WP:SECONDARY in 11 years. Invasive Spices (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Invasive Spices: "That source is obviously not RS"? That would seem to be a pretty outrageous claim, I hope you have some evidence for it.

From the Royal Society of Western Australia's website, About Us and Our Mission:

The Royal Society of Western Australia (RSWA) is the premier society of scientists in Western Australia. It is a cross-disciplinary organisation that fosters exchange among scientists and promotes science in all its aspects, through publications, meetings, symposia and special events. The Society also honours and encourages outstanding achievement in Western Australian science by regularly awarding a number of awards.

At the core of the society is the Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia, a peer-reviewed journal that publishes original scientific research with an emphasis on local science. The journal has a broad ranging scope that covers any branch of the natural and physical sciences, as well as anthropology and archaeology ...

The Society was established in 1914 and is modelled on the Royal Society of London, the world’s oldest scientific academy. The Royal Society of Western Australia’s Patron is Her Majesty the Queen. The Vice Patrons are currently the Governor of Western Australia, Her Excellency the Honourable Kerry Sanderson AC, and Professor Lyn Beazley AO FTSE, who served as Chief Scientist of Western Australia from 2006 to 2013.

I do have to say that the Wikipedia article on the RSWA does need a lot of work, compared with the article on the Royal Society of South Australia, with which I'm much more familiar (I'm not a member, I'm only a humble BSc. who has studied under some of its illustrious presidents). As I've never been to Western Australia, I'll have to handball that task to @JarrahTree:, as it's more his bailiwick. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 02:40, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the Royal Society of Western Australia's publications are very valid WP:RS and require no challenging in any way. To do so is.... JarrahTree 04:09, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It would also take a lot of work to argue that the RSWA is not a reliable source. We cite its journal a few hundred times in this encyclopedia [1]. This looks like a valid reference. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't denigrate the publisher. I denigrate the source. No WP:SECONDARY in 11 years. This WP:PRIMARY is clearly not well regarded. Have you found a secondary that I have not? Invasive Spices (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What. Hold on, Invasive Spices. You do not "denigrate" the publisher, the Royal Society of Western Australia, but you do "denigrate" ("discredit"?) the source, by which I presume you mean the journal they publish? A peer-reviewed, academic journal indexed by EBSCO, published for over a century now? Archived by libraries all over the world, and cited in hundreds of academic books? You can take your case to WP:RSN, and I wish you good luck. In the meantime, please stop disrupting this article. Oh, be prepared for ridicule when you explain at RSN that this journal is, as you say, a primary source. Drmies (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

by which I presume you mean the journal No. Do you have a WP:SECONDARY citation of this^[1] WP:PRIMARY? — Invasive Spices (talk) 18:07, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good grief. Since when has a peer-reviewed scientific journal article not been a sufficient source for an uncontroversial factual statement? Stop flailing about, I really fail to see what the point of this exercise is supposed to be. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:24, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elmidae: The cited text is not uncontroversial

It is the Australian marsupial most often seen by city dwellers, as it is one of few that thrive in cities and a wide range of natural and human-modified environments. Around human habitations, common brushtails are inventive and determined foragers with a liking for fruit trees, vegetable gardens, and kitchen raids. Its once vast distribution alone has been greatly affect by drought, epizootic disease and intrusion of invasive mammals into its habitat.

Invasive Spices (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. First of all, "do you have a secondary citation of this" is not English that I can understand. That citation you gave is to an academic journal. It is a secondary reference. A journal article on a topic, that's practically the very definition of a secondary source. Drmies (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This again. Yes I will go be disruptive at RSN. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The passive-aggressive "This again", that probably points at the normal processes of collaborative editing. You've been blocked before for disruptive editing, and if you're going to spread the disruption (because that is what this is, this arguing and edit warring, while you're up against a consensus of four experienced editors) from here to there, you might find yourself blocked again. Drmies (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Not bringing up unrelated past events is part of WP:CIVIL. Because I'm required to defend my actions: I was blocked inappropriately because an admin and an editor continued an offline conflict onto Wikipedia. I'm left no choice but to permit this NOTHERE spoiling for a fight to continue.

Use of Talk: for its intended purpose is not disruptive.

What edit warring? Invasive Spices (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]