Talk:Fauna of Australia/Archive 1

Misc
I came across this page changing over links. I think it either needs significantly more information or to just get included in the Australia article. I vote for the former.

Some more sentences about why Australian native animals are interesting would be good.

But the main problem is that the page doesn't even acknowledge the existence of non-mammalian animals. Some skinks and stuff, please?


 * So someone add them! I'm not a biologist, and this page was only started a couple of days ago so it's naturally stubby.

I think this belongs as a seperate page, because the general Australia article is already too long. There are about four screens of information in it and there is a definite limit to how much information people are able to absorb from one article. This is only a very brief listing because I only just started it to fill in the hole I perceived in the information - ie. there were entries for various Australian animals that didn't link to anywhere visible. Even if this page were just a list of links, I think it would still have a place in the wikipedia, because it unifies all the 'Australian animal' entries and links them together in a place where they can be easily found. KJ

Well, you fixed all my complaints. Great! Also thanks for following up on my possum stub, 'sgreat to have a Australian animals expereriencer in the ranks. Until I added stuff a little while ago the 'pedia didn't even know that were any kind of opossums other than the Virginia, or that possum wasn't just a mis-spelling.

-Aidan

The article says: "Australia is also home to the only three monotreme species in the world - the echidnas and the platypus." What's the third? Dhum Dhum 10:24 Dec 6, 2002 (UTC)


 * There are two species of echidnas and one platypus species. - Cordyph

Added a sub-section to link to the list of recently extinct Australian animals that I'm working on at present.

The general organisation of this Australian native animals page and the pages it links to is a little chaotic. My feeling is that the best way to sort this out this will become clear as more content gets added, but if anyone wants to jump in and do it sooner ... great! Tannin 03:01 Dec 27, 2002 (UTC)

Humans?
Any reason why humans are not included while dingos are?
 * Maybe its because almost all land areas on Earth or populated by humans, so it can be assumed that humans are present there. And most people have a vague idea that we originated in Africa.   &bull;  &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  22:51, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

Title
Maybe this should be titled 'List of Australian animals'. Animal is completely unambiguous (I know that some people get flora and fauna mixed up). It also indicates that the article is a list, and fits in well with the convention of using Category:Animals instead of Category:Fauna. &bull; &rarr;  I&ntilde;g&oacute;lemo  &larr;&bull;  22:54, 2004 Sep 17 (UTC)

What to include?
I agree that spiders and other arthropods might be better of in their own list.

But in Australian fauna are we including -
 * Animals exclusively endemic to australia (or possibly own list, or have some sort of identifier in this list)
 * Any animal endemic to Australia
 * Any animal that can be found in Austrlia
 * Animals that migrate seasonal in Australia (including whales oddly missing from this list)

I have several Animal texts, including a few Aus specific ones. So I think this might become my first pet-project after my exams in a few weeks. --ZZ 01:35, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've proposed three more subpages to compliment this page - Australian insects, Australian spiders and Australian marine life.

Additionally, Thylacines (tasmanian tigers) are extinct, why are they included in the list?--ZZ 03:28, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Also feel Australian snakes might be desired.--ZZ 05:48, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Current objective
List up this well. Then move lists to list pages, and make this a page with a pragraph or two on each category of Australian animals. Explaining broad generalities on each group, and what makes them unique from other groups - this is nota list of... page, but it should probably start out that way.--ZayZayEM 14:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Possible Wiki Links
I am currently testing an automated Wikipedia link suggester. Ran it on this article, here are the results:


 * Can link fresh-water: ...s== Australia has both salt-water and fresh-water species of crocodiles and turtle...
 * Can link Clarence River: ...s king brown *Rough-scaled snake or Clarence River snake...

Notes: The article text has not been changed in any way; Some of these links may be wrong, some may be right; You can leave positive feedback or negative feedback; Please feel free to delete this section from the talk page. -- Nickj 08:22, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

While you are about your (very worthwhile) changes, Petaholmes, you might like to swap that Dingo puppy picture for a better one, on the grounds that it really doesn't look much like a Dingo at all. Or, failing that, find a picture of some other animal to show. Tannin 6 July 2005 10:55 (UTC)

Questions
--nixie 10:13, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wasn't the Irrawady confirmed to actually be the Snubfin a few weeks back? Its the other way around, the snubfin was been shown to be a seperate species from the Irrawady in June/July.
 * Dugong in Torres Strait? Yes it is and its also found off the Great Barrier Reef.
 * Okay. Thanks nixie. -- Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:26, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

"peer review" from Dave
Nixie asked for my opinion on the article, and I thought I'd post it here instead of on her talk page. It's probably good enough to pass FAC already, but I think these things should be addressed:

*the dingo's caption should probably say "first placental mammal introduced by humans.
 * What's a "general reference"?
 * Ideally, more things would be cited (the whole inverts section only has two footnotes)
 * General references are my attempt to rationalise the number of refs, I have read a number of source documents without citing anything directly from them, so in that way they they're similar to a bibliography, they are also texts/websites that peeople could use to verify anthing in the article. I agree with one of the FAC commenters that people are severly overdoing inline cites, for example everwhere I have mentioned a number of species within a genera or a family I have used the Australian Faunal Directory to verify the number of extant species, it would be ridiculous to have 30 inline cites in each of those circumstances. I have only used cites where information may not be generally understood.--nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * For clarity I've changed it to Notes and References like Autism uses.--nixie 07:04, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Origins section should have more on climate, etc. Right now, all but 2 sentences are geology.
 * That part is still a work in progress.--nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe give relative dates in addition to the absolute ones (e.g. "140 mya, during the time of the dinosaurs", "Eocene, shortly after the emergence of placental mammals")
 * Will do. --nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * "The Spotted Quoll is mainland Australia's largest carnivorous marsupial. The largest carnivorous mammal is the Tasmanian Devil." seems to be self-contradictory, as I'm pretty sure the devil is a marsupial as well.
 * Should clarify how Dasyuromorphia are the "most closely related" to ancestral marsupials (probably should read "most similar morphologically" to ancestral marsupials instead).
 * There should definitely be a discussion of convergent evolution between Australian marsupials and placental mammals elsewhere, as it's (in my opinion) one of the coolest aspects of the Australian fauna (compare thetasmanian wolf to the wolf, sloths to koalas, macropods to ungulates, sugar gliders versus flying squirrels and so on.). Some of the convergence extends beyond morphology into behavior (e.g. this article's argument about maternal care.  There may already be an article on this subject, which would make your job easier, but I'm not sure.
 * That would make a great addition. I'll try and put something together. DO you think it should be slotted into the exisitng structure or have its own section?--nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit wary of overemphasizing mammals, as they're already (roughly) half the article, so we may want to just summmarize them here and make a {mainarticle} for the details. In such an article, convergent evolution would certainly get a section of its own.  In this article, I think it should only get a medium-sized paragraph (with at least one good reference, if people want to read more), because the mammals section is already so long. Any intro to biology will have stuff on this, and this one is available online .  I also have a textbook on mammals that probably has a bunch, if you need more sources. Dave (talk) 18:58, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
 * I know very little about fish, herps, or birds, but I can look over these sections if you want. Also, are there any cool Australian parasites?  I don't think my parasitology class mentioned any.  If there aren't any, that might be worth mentioning, along with speculation about why not. Dave (talk) 02:20, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
 * There are parasites that affect all the critters, but nothing especially glamorous and gruesome.--nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The Spotted Quoll is mainland Australia's largest carnivorous marsupial. The largest carnivorous mammal is the Tasmanian Devil." seems to be self-contradictory, as I'm pretty sure the devil is a marsupial as well. The devil is not found on the mainland, just in Tasmania. It is a mammal, and the sentence could possiblu clearer. Sabine's Sunbird 03:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The absurdity is in the caption for the Spotted Quoll. A great deal of italicizing must be done for all the formal taxonomical names, as in Dasyurus maculatus. As for the common names, is there a standard for for capitalization? My own instinct is to lower case them unless an otherwise proper noun is being used, as in "Sydney funnel-web spider and the red-back spider". --FourthAve 14:00, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * The convention for birds is always to capitalise. For mammals in wikipedia it seems to have become the convention when refering to specific species. I don't know about other groups, except fish which aren't ever capitalised. Sabine's Sunbird 14:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)::::"Yellow-Bellied Marmot" vs "Yellow-bellied Sapsucker". There are inconsistancies.--FourthAve 16:09, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it is usually Yellow-bellied Anything, Sabine's Sunbird 18:18, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thats the way capitalisation on Wikipedia is going at the moment, so I have used caps for individual species, (Red Kangaroo), and lowercase for terms that apply to groups of species like (kangaroos).--nixie 07:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

FourthAve peer review
The opening paragraph has been commented upon. It does need work. For the comment about the arrival of man, you can be a little cute, saying something like "The most intrusive of non-native fauna, of course, is Homo sapiens. You might bring in a comment about Wallacea

This really is turning out to be a great article.

A few concerns
The article is really looking great, and could probably pass a FAC immediately. However, there are just a few points of concern. Should there be more of a discussion of the Australian megafauna here? Sure, such discussion should be brief, but perhaps more the present one sentence mention? Also, the following images are not appearing in the article for me: Image:Australian bullant02.jpg and Image:Australia Cairns Koala.jpg. Do they appear for others? If they do, disregard my concern.

Oh and what the hell is this (follow link)??--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:42, 14 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm. It seems to have disappeared. It was there though.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Are you still having trouble with the images, I don't know what the HACK think was and I can't see it now. The megafauna are mentioned in the impacts section, mostly I've tried to keep the text about extant species, if you can spot somewhere it could be added again let me know. One problem is there was mega marsupilas, birds and reptiles and the way the article is structured they'd each need to be mentioned in each relevant section--nixie 01:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I still can't see those two images. The rest work fine, but. That HACK thing disappeared soon after I spotted it. I don't what it was, or how it was done, but it was odd.
 * I suppose mentioning the Megafauna really depends on what you intend the structure or hierarchy of articles to be. How does Natural history of Australia (where a section on the Megafauna should probably go) factor in with Fauna of Australia and Flora of Australia? Is it going to be a summary article itself? Or is it going to be a daughter of Flora and Fauna? That is, do you wish to have extensive histories of both Flora and Fauna within NatHist?
 * Another option might be to have an Environment or Ecology of Australia parent with NatHist, Flora and Fauna as daughters, and then Histories of Fauna and Flora as daughters of both NatHist and Fauna and Flora respectively.
 * What I basically think is that the Megafauna should discussed more extensively under an history section.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:54, 30 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I was planning on having the natural history article covering the development of the australian environment (geology of Australia is another article I will get around to writing and would provide material for the natural history) and the flora and fauna up to the present day, so megafauna would definately be a significant section, as would the Austrlian dinosaurs.--nixie 06:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

LinkFix dump

 * User:Ambush Commander/LinkFix dump

================================================================================ LinkFix Dump Fauna of Australia 2005-08-31.16-47-10

=
=================================================================== 2  Reptiles -> Reptile 2  Amphibians -> Amphibian 2  Placental -> Placentalia 2  Venomous -> Venom 4  Indigenous Australian -> Australian Aborigines 9  Arid -> Desert 12 Wolf -> Gray Wolf 22 Arboreal -> Tree 22 Nocturnal -> Nocturnal animal 26 Bettong -> Potoroidae 26 Potaroo -> Potoroidae 26 Tail -> DISAMBIG 26 Bipedal -> Biped 30 Chiroptera -> Bat 30 Rodentia -> Rodent 30 Genera -> Genus 30 Rattus -> Rat 32 Lepus capensis -> Cape Hare 32 Sus scrofa -> Domestic pig 32 Domestic Goat -> Domestic goat 34 Ziphiidae -> Beaked whale 34 Pinnipedia -> Pinniped 38 Ratites -> Ratite 40 Bird of Paradise -> Bird of paradise 42 Bird of Prey -> Bird of prey 48 Tree Frog -> Tree frog 48 Hylidae -> Tree frog 51 Scincidae -> Skink 53 Fierce Snake -> Taipan 54 Gekkonidae -> Gecko 54 Agamidae -> Agamas 54 Scincidae -> Skink 54 Blue-tongue lizard -> Blue-tongued lizard 56 Fierce Snake -> Taipan 56 Hydrophiidae -> Sea snake 59 Respiration -> DISAMBIG 60 Percichthyidae -> Temperate perch 60 Murray cod -> Murray Cod 60 Rainbow Trout -> Rainbow trout 62 Bony fish -> Osteichthyes 62 Angelfish -> DISAMBIG 64 Heterodontidae -> Bullhead shark 64 Bull Shark -> Bull shark 81 Platyhelminthes -> Flatworm 89 Nematoda -> Roundworm 93 Mollusca -> Mollusk 97 Annelida -> Annelid 101 Onychophora -> Velvet worm 105 Crustacea -> Crustacean 113 Insecta -> Insect 117 Echinodermata -> Echinoderm 127 Insecta -> Insect 127 Mollusca -> Mollusk 127 Insects -> Insect 127 Coleoptera -> Beetle 131 Oligochaetes -> Oligochaeta 133 Cherax tenuimanus -> Marron 135 Ctenophora -> Ctenophore 135 Echinodermata -> Echinoderm 135 Brachiopoda -> Brachiopod 135 Mollusca -> Mollusk 137 Brachyura -> Crab 137 Amphipod -> Amphipoda 137 Ostracoda -> Ostracod 147 As of 2002 -> 2002 151 Extinct -> Extinction 174 CSIRO -> Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
 * 1) DONE

There was an error midway through the dump, so one link was not checked. Beware! &mdash; Ambush Commander (Talk) 21:27, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
 * Done. --nixie 10:56, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My version of the opening sentence still a problem
Before there was a logical problem ('because'). Now I'm not sure that it's any better. Any ideas? I suppose I'm thinking along the lines of a somewhat grander, bigger statement at the opening, pointing out uniqueness, diversity, and the exotic nature of much of the fauna. What thinkest thou? Tony 05:49, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The lead definately needs some more drama. --nixie 06:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

The exotic, beautiful, often extraordinary visual appearance and behavioural characteristics of the fauna spring to mind as something to whet the reader's appetite with at the opening ... Tony 10:05, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

MYA?
How do people feel about using this initialism to stand for 'million years ago'; it's not uncommon in fields that involve the frequent use of the phrase. But would it jar? Tony 10:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Names
MoS for animals says, basically, caps for species common names - lowercase for a name that applies to a group of species, I had them all in this format.--nixie 12:19, 4 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The format that was initially in place was correct. Further to that, many links worked only with the capitalisation (indicating a need for redirects), and are now red links in lower-case.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:52, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Mea culpa
Sorry to cause extra work with the caps. Tony 14:58, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

One of the pics is now malaligned. Can that beautiful pic of the dingo be enlarged a little? Tony 01:33, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by malaligned? I try and keep pics 200 - 250px at the most out of consideration for people on dial-up.--nixie 01:40, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The use of upper and lower case for species appears to be inconsistent. I'd much prefer lower case throughout, but if upper case has to be used, can they all be that way? Tony 02:18, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It was consitent for the common names of birds and mammals, unfortunately there is no standard for invertebrates, fish or reptiles and people want to argue that it shouldn't be cosistent for the mammals and birds. I would prefer to see everything in caps, but the actual article capitalisation will need to be keep the various capitalisation incase there is no redirect for the various versions with and wihout caps, like this Fat Snake --nixie 02:29, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Smaller pics are a pity, since they're really good! Dial-up is fast receding as a mode of connection. Is 'Crown of Thorns' hyphenated? Tony 02:51, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Crown-of-Thorns is hypenated for its Wikipedia entry, online the hyphenation varies as does the capitalisation. I don't know of any invertebrate databases where I could check it, so I'll leave it as is. I don't mind the big pics at home on my big monitor, but on small monitors the big images are quite distracting, I haven't been affected by loading times given I either use ADSL or a T1 connection, but there are probably enough there to slow the page loading time. I'm sure it will some up one way or another on FAC.--nixie 03:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Opening: Why are the ancient ecosystems fragile? Is it because they're ancient, or is there a simple reason that could be stated here? Tony 07:15, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Peta—I thought the opening was better before; what was wrong? Tony 09:45, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

It dissucced the same things twice again, I think this version has less reptition and less over-generalisation. I find the driest continent idea particularly misleading since Australia is such a big place and there are big wet (only seasonally in some places) parts where the greatest flora and fauna diversity occurs. It also broke the MoS, since the title of the article is supposed to appear in the opening sentence. There's still room for improvment.--nixie 09:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The opening sentence is now too short, and 'megadiverse' sits oddly. Can we dispense with Calidcott's phrase? How about: 'The fauna of Australia is extraordinarily unique, diverse and exotic'. A slightly longer sentence would be preferable. Tony 13:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We could just replace "exotic" with "megadiverse", and thus erase any ambiguity the word might have brought. Okay, so that's a bit of a shallow point ;). It's just I'd prefer to keep "megadiverse".--Cyberjunkie | Talk 13:24, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I really don't like 'megadiverse' at the opening. It was better as it was, attributed to Caldicott, but as an bald item in the opening sentence, it jars. I'm wary of applying 'mega-' liberally, and we could be criticised for 'hyping' at the start. Better to use a more conventional amplifier ('significantly' doesn't quite do it here—any suggestions?). Tony 04:23, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If this word has to be retained at the opening, better as: 'and has been described as megadiverse [Caldicott ref]'. Tony 04:33, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm ok with: The fauna of Australia is comprised of a huge variety of (exotic?) animals, some 83% of mammals, 89% of reptiles, 90% of fish and insects and 93% of amphibians are only found in Australia. The high level of endemism in the present day fauna can be attributed to...

This gets rid of the megadiverse bit from the lead, but I'll add it to the conservation section since it is important. Also I have been considering merging the human impact and conservation sections, but can't decided one way or the other, any opinions?--nixie 04:52, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The merger sounds like a good idea, Peta. Btw, my dictionary says 'endemicity', not endemicism. You're the expert in this field, so is the latter a standard item? Tony 05:01, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

The OED online is great: The former is more widely used in literature.--nixie 05:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Endemism, the character or quality of being endemic; spec. of a plant or animal species, the state or condition of being indigenous only in a specified area.
 * Endemicity, the quality or fact of being endemic.


 * I don't see a problem with merging "Human Impact" and "Conservation" under the latter's heading. But I'm not fussed either way.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I had no idea the the OED was onlin (gratis, I presume). What's the address? Tony 05:12, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
 * ANU has a subscription, I dread to think how much it would cost an individual user, but you should be able to access the details from here --nixie 05:14, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a subscription thing, but. Thankfully, I have my very own OED ;-).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 05:16, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Cj, I like your new opening. Tony 05:31, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Pelicans
Yes, they even occur in Tasmanian, in the inland of Australia when there is water and always around the coast.--nixie 01:52, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Emblem
I saw this in the news Monday, Australia apparently has no offical faunal emblem (the red kangaroo and emu are just heraldic animals). It seems like it's worth a mention in this article, but I don't know where to put it, I don't want to start section on Australian Fauna in popular culture. --nixie 05:37, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

opening
Why is nutrient-poor soil associated with endemicism? Tony 02:38, 8 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Soil fertility limits the flora, which in turn limits the vaiety of fanua (to some extent) - since the connection is not immediately obvious it could probably be removed from the lead. --nixie 02:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the sentence to be more clear (hopefully)--nixie 03:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

another run-through
Opening sentence—I've been worried about the use of 'animals'. Are fish and birds that? 'Comprise' might be nicer than 'compromises', to throw the emphasis on the many parts rather than the whole, here. 'Continent' excludes today's Tasmania.

Existing: 'The fauna of Australia comprises a huge variety of unique animals; some 83% of mammals, 89% of reptiles, 90% of fish and insects and 93% of amphibians that inhabit the continent are found nowhere else.'

What about: 'The fauna of Australia comprise a huge and unique variety; some 83% of its mammals, 89% of reptiles, 90% of fish and insects and 93% of amphibians are found nowhere else.' Not sure ... Tony 00:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Animal describes anything that isn't a plant or one of the other weird primitive things like protists, fungi and so on- it also covers birds and fish which otherwise aren't exclusively mentioned. --nixie 00:30, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, that's good. Sorry to be fussy, but why has climate change contributed to the endemicism? Tony 00:37, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Climate change probably had the biggest effect on the environent generally including the flora, which had a indirect effect on the fauna - the types of habitat, food, and so on that were available whould have effected the type of fauna that could exist in a particular location, which may have led to local extinstions or radiations of various fauna.--nixie 00:43, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I understand that, but why has climate change heightened the endemicism (the uniqueness, is it?) of the fauna? Doesn't seem logical. Tony 01:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * You'll have to trust me cause the texts are at home so I can't give direct quotes, but it is one of the factors cited in most introductory chapters on the fauna of Australia. There was almost no climate change from the Mezozoic til 15 million years ago- thats why there are so many wacky species left over from Gondwana (that don't occur elsewhere) - then a good chunk of Australia got arid so there was speciation here that didn't happen elsewhere to deal with that.--nixie 01:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I trust u, of course :-), but I'm concerned that this currently begs questions. I wonder whether there's a way of succinctly explaining the assertion ('climate change that was unique to Australia', or something like that); just citing 'climate change' sounds very global, hence the logical problem.


 * Now I see what you're getting at, I'll tinker with it.--nixie 02:24, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

suggestion for a diagram
Peta, it's a geologically involved account, and readers may lose track of when each period was, even though you specify the years on first occurrence. I wonder whether there's a diagrammatic representation of the geological periods on Wikicommons, or in another related article, that could be used towards the top of the article. Tony 08:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I considered adding the template, but its too huge, the easiest way to deal with the dates beyond just having them as blue links would be to add the time span at each mention of the dates.--nixie 10:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Besides it seems a little off-topic; we're discussing fauna extensively, not epochs. By the way nixie, that was Skyring who just popped by - . --Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Carp and turbidity
Why is the bit on Carp raising turbidity constantly removed? The Carp's very serious impacts in lowland Murray-Darling waterways are two-fold: 1) destruction of submergent macrophytes ("water weed") 2) permanently elevated levels of turbidity (yes, lowland Murray-Darling waterways regularly had periods of great clarity in summer/autumn before the advent of Carp). I know what I am talking about here, SO PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE THE MENTION OF TURBIDITY AGAIN. Thanks. Codman 10:05, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Codman, please refrain from using capitals to express your wishes. It is considered extremely offensive: the online equivalent to yelling. Also, place new comments in chronological order; that is, post new comments at the bottom of a talk page.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 12:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)