Talk:Brown rat

Alberta
see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Brown_rat_distribution.png#Alberta as well as even older "HOAX map removed" discussion on this page
 * also see the comments on the edits and reverts in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Brown_rat_distribution.png

Is it a Social Animal?
The intro does not describe it as a social animal. The article spends a lot of time discussing social behavior, but also calls it a territorial animal, which doesn't sound social to me. (But then, I'm not a biologist.) The article could use a sentence or two resolving this apparent contradiction. MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:52, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

what's the 'benefit' of spreading these worldwide?
or negative consequences, as many of those areas surely most had their native rats, or similar rodents, not to 'need' new ones? 12.146.12.12 (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Berkenhout
that is an interesting point. You are correct that Berkenhout does not use the genus name Rattus at all in this work, and classifies the species as Mus norvegicus instead. This both contradicts the text currently int he article (Berkenhout gave the brown rat the binomial name Rattus norvegicus, believing it had migrated to England from Norwegian ships in 1728) and the universal usage of Rattus norvegicus (Berkenhout, 1769) in all databases. I have no idea what to make of that. In the absence of a clear explanation, maybe pointing out this mismatch in the text would be useful. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 12:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I didn't notice that the name was also discussed in the text. From what I can see, Berkenhout can't have introduced the name Rattus norvegicus as he didn't use that name, as currently stated in the text. He may have introduced the norvegicus part. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)