Talk:Rodent

Etymology
Under "Definition", I believe this is incorrect: "This specialisation gives rodents their name from the Latin, rodere, to gnaw and, dentis, of tooth." As far as I can tell, 'dentis' (tooth) does not factor into the etymology (although it's easy to see how this can be mistaken). Rodent- is simply the nominative of rodere.

I'm confused as this is cited as coming from an Oxford Dictionary, yet an online Oxford Dictionary (and every other source I've seen) makes no mention of 'dentis':

Origin: mid 19th century: from Latin rodent- 'gnawing', from the verb rodere http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/rodent

The Online Etymology Dictionary gives a fairly thorough etymology: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=rodentia

And here are various other etymology sources: http://www.memidex.com/rodent#etymology

114.181.142.66 (talk) 06:50, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead sentence no longer true?
Given this recently discovered fact: Paucidentomys vermidax, can we still say that rodents are "characterised by a single pair of continuously growing incisors in each of the upper and lower jaws which must be kept short by gnawing."? Otherwise, by what definition is Paucidentomys vermidax a rodent? Does the discovery of Paucidentomys vermidax change the basic definition of "Rodent", given the fact that it is not so characterized? Chrisrus (talk) 03:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Paucidentomys still has incisors; it's just missing molars. Ucucha (talk) 04:51, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It says "its dental formula is ". That's not "a single pair...in each ...jaw".  That's a single tooth in each jaw.  Also, it says "rather than gnawing incisors, this animal has bicuspid upper incisors, which is also unique among the more than 2,200 species of rodents".  So actually it doesn't have gnawing incisors, just one "bicuspid" incisor in each jaw.  I donno perhaps we could add a caveat word like "generally" or "nearly always", or perhaps a footnote or some such? Chrisrus (talk) 05:46, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I was asking myself similar questions when I read the original article on Paucidentomys vermidax which is why I checked the original source rather than trusting a daily newspaper. I am certainly not a taxonomist, but I have a good friend who is.  Talking with him last night, he says there are plenty of similar examples where there is a single species within an order that through divergent evolution, have become so specialised in their adaptations that they appear to contradict the 'characteristics' of the order.  So, I believe we are OK to call Paucidentomys vermidax a rodent.  In fact, the authors of the scientific paper describing it call it a rodent so this is verifiable in the keeping of Wikipedia articles. However, I would agree that the wording of the article Rodent needs to be looked at and tweaks made regarding dentition.DrChrissy (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have made the necessary tweaks to the dentition section. DrChrissy (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Evolution & history - Porcupines
Article mentions that Africa's collision with Asia allowed rodents to invade Eurasia from Africa. Yet, earlier in the same paragraph, it says that rodents evolved in Laurasia. Surely rodents would already have been present in Eurasia at this time? (Unless, of course, all Eurasian rodents had died out by this time or rodents originated only in the north american part of Laurasia).

The alternate view is that the article is referring to the invasion of Eurasia by Hystricognath rodents, given that this infraorder evolved in Africa. If this is the case, then it should be explicitly stated. (Where the article refers to porcupines, surely it just means old world porcupines?)

Where did the other rodents of the Hystricomorpha suborder originate? If this was also Africa, presumably such animals also took part in the migration?Glevum (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Range map inaccuracy
The range map has Sri Lanka in grey, meaning no rodents are there. But that disagrees with this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mammals_of_Sri_Lanka#Order:_Rodentia_.28rodents.29 Hammerfrog (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Other groups confusable with Rodentia
I've replaced the claims based on a personal website with ones from UCMP Berkeley. It lists fewer groups confusable with rodents - surely mustelids don't confuse many people - so I've stuck to those. If anyone wants to add further beasts-that-look-like-rodents then please find reliable sources for those claims. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Article restructuring
For a potential FAC, I suggest that the article be organized like this:
 * A classification and evolution section.
 * A description section.
 * A distribution and habitat section.
 * A behavior/lifehistory section.
 * A human relations section (already there).

Any thoughts? LittleJerry (talk) 15:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Something of that sort is needed. I wonder if classification is the ideal place to start, as there is a long list of families. We might make that less dry with pictures and brief descriptions (a big table), but that'll make the section even longer. So, it should probably go at the end. That would put Description at the start, which is quite inviting to the reader. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can look to Primate for inspiration. LittleJerry (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It's a well-written article. But we don't have the advantage of having humans inside our group, which gives spice, i.e. a lead-in to the article via the argument over classification - the very argument that made Origin of Species so controversial. In our case, classification feels a dry matter of taxonomic logic-chopping. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I'll work on "Description" either later this week or next week. Maybe you can expand more on the humans relations. I'll work on behaviors when I get my books sometime the following week. LittleJerry (talk) 00:15, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll see what I can rustle up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I've been away (Dolomites) but am back and would like to work on the Behavior section using this source on rodent societies. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Welcome back. I've added a short article on the giant dormouse genus Leithia to remove a glaring redlink. Would be (very) nice to get an image of it. Have reworked and found refs for the whole of the discussion of evolution and history (but not the table, etc); it was definitely a challenge, but worth it as the field has changed considerably since the article was drafted. Would have helped if they'd cited their work from the start, of course. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to work on reproduction and parenting. I also think burrowing/dams ect should be discussed somewhere, maybe in distribution and habitat. LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started on the Behavior section and intend to work on Feeding behavior next. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We now (after some social group editing) have a number of small subsections under the Behavior section. This may be a good thing, or may be tending towards too much given that behavior is just one topic among quite a few. I'd suggest that if it seems necessary and not WP:UNDUE to make the subsections a bit longer, then they may remain; otherwise it may be better to merge some or all of them. Certainly it would be tricky to get short sections through review. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will work on Distribution and habitat this week and on reproduction next week when I get my book in. Can anybody else work on feeding? Don't forget to discuss the common rodent habit of caching food. LittleJerry (talk) 21:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have started on feeding. If we find there is too much on various aspects of behavior, we will have to pare it down. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:51, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Both may be quite substantial topics. I was just concerned about the fragmentation into one-sentence subsections. I'll work on some fossil referencing today (much of the old material was uncited); will have little time for more for a while after that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi. I recently made edits including sub-headings which some may feel are fragmentation of the article.  This is fine.  It is partly my own editing style because behaviour is such a huge subject.  It helps me to move relevant information together, and sometimes reveals that unrelated information has just been lumped together and needs sorting.  I am aware that several editors are making major edits and I thought that making sub-headings might help us focus on these.  Please consider the sub-headings as a "work in progress", a skeleton to build on - perhaps to be deleted or merged at some later stage.  Having said this, with the diversity of rodent behaviour, ecology, etc, I doubt there would be many single-sentence sections.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:52, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another editor already revised the section further. Clearly the work in progress view is right, we should wait and see how that section should be structured. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I just got my book, I'll start working on reproduction/parenting either tomorrow or Wednesday. LittleJerry (talk) 00:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. LittleJerry (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good. What else needs doing? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Chap left this message for me.
 * "Hi, I guess it's fairly clear that the phylogeny section needs more refs; I'm fairly happy with the rewritten prose at the top, and the new table which is now fully cited. The material on 'classification' is implicitly cited which might be ok for GA but not for FA. Basically the section needs a few new refs which discuss the issues of the classification of the group as a whole. Finally, the discussion of caviomorph phylogeny (yes, they are rodents after all) is pretty much ok and properly cited. I will basically not be available for some weeks now, which is why I'm letting you know all this. All the best".
 * I would also add that I think their needs to be info on who classified Rodentia and when. LittleJerry (talk) 21:21, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the lead paragraphs should be rewritten or expanded to better summarize the article. LittleJerry (talk) 21:10, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Spare refs
There were 3 journal citations as 'further reading', not sure why - could be spam or something. Here they are in case they're useful for something: Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2014 (UTC)



Better image of "town"
I feel that the previous image of a praire dog town was better (more informative and interesting). I would like to replace the more recent one.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:01, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Seconded. Let's put it back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Taxobox images
At least 2 of the images in the taxobox are not really up to what they should be - at least when viewed in the taxobox version. How are these changed? e.g. image = American Beaver.jpg is so much better.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I was actually thinking of replacing just the beaver image in the collage. Because this is a multiple species article, I think we should go back to the collage format, rather than just a single species image.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that'd be better. There's no magic, just download the old collage, edit the image and upload the new version. Presumably the new beaver needs to be resized to fit in the area occupied by the old beaver. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the current beaver image? Also, the collage was made here. I would recommend recreating it only with the new beaver image. LittleJerry (talk) 17:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The present taxobox image has a caption that does not match the five images. Click on it and you find the collage that is meant to be on view. This seems weird. Perhaps two sets of images have been given identical .png names. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems it was a cache problem related to my computer. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor on my talk page asked me to remove the borders in the taxobox images. I will do this a.s.a.p. but it requires a good internet connection speed which I not have just at the moment.__DrChrissy (talk) 16:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

1904 reference
Is the Charters, Jessie Blount Allen reference really 110 years old? Does this make its robustness rather doubtful?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I moved this line up from the "Uses" subsection. I'm guessing Chiswick Chap wrote it and found the source. LittleJerry (talk) 01:05, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The information that it is referencing is not controversial and we could probably easily find another suitable source if this one is challenged. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions - very poor editing
Why oh Why oh Why? Yesterday, I spent a lot of time researching gliding rodents to correct the sentence that this form of locomotion is unique to sugar gliders. Today when I log in to the article, I see that an editor has not only deleted the new material, but completely removed any mention of rodents gliding! This is surely one of the most interesting aspects of rodent biology! This editor has been warned many, many times about making unjustified deletions, yet continues to do this.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I removed it to make the section more general and definitional in response to the FA talk page. Please stop with the drama and referring to me as "this editor". LittleJerry (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly we need to reach some sensible agreement on the amount of detail and the choice of subtopics in the article - we can't do everything, but we have to aim to be 'comprehensive' within the space available. I'd suggest we must at least briefly mention the ability to glide as something quite distinctive within the group. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comments such as "stop with the drama" clearly shows the extent of this editor's lack of respect for others. I am raising a perfectly valid concern about the unjustified deletion of content from an article which is being assessed for FA.  Given that it is considered inappropriate to name editors on talk pages, how would you like me to refer to you?  I can think of plenty of names, but I will defer to your choice.  Gliding should be mentioned in the article: Outside of the birds and bats, it is a relatively rare form of locomotion and it is of interest that it has evolved totally seperately on two occasions in the rodents.  Furthermore, the flying squirrels are considered to be the "best" gliders (over 200m).  I am not suggesting all this information needs to be included, I am simply giving the case for why gliding should not have been deleted.  The section prior to deletion was succinct (2 sentences I think) and had good references.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the sentence about gliding rodents because it is quite brief but makes the article more comprehensive. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you - much appreciated.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Extinct rodents
I removed this table from the article as being somewhat arbitrary

Characteristics vs Description
I recently made an edit which differentiated between Characteristics and Description. This has been reverted. I thought that Characteristics were those features of an animal that distinguished it from others. The teeth of rodents are their distinguishing feature, whereas having 4 legs, a tail, running, etc do not distinguish them from other animals. Would anyone like to comment?__DrChrissy (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no such distinctions between "characteristics" and "description". 155.138.253.13 (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an opinion. It is clearly possible to have (1) a section listing features that distinguish A from B, and (2) another section to list features that A possesses but that do not distinguish it from B, C, or D. Whether an article requires a type (1) section is another matter; and since type (2) features could also be described as characteristics or attributes, the name "Characteristics" is perhaps not ideal. "Distinguishing features" or "Distinguishing characteristics" would make the point but are more verbose. Perhaps the IP is right enough, only one section is needed, though perhaps it should have a subsection on rodent teeth that begins "The distinguishing feature of rodents is ...". I doubt there's a perfect answer. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't feel too strongly about this, it's just that when there is such a notable "characteristic" of an animal that it was named after the characteristic, I feel it deserves it's own section.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:00, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it then. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I got rid of the subsection because of the FA review. Leading with the body types (which are diverse) and such made it less definitional so I added the more defining incisors to the beginning. If we had a section on only the distinguishing feature would have to include only the incisors, the other teeth aren't as unique. We should not separate. LittleJerry (talk) 02:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * DrChrissy's actually correct, in philosophy there is a difference between qualities (big, red) and properties (speaking, laughing, reasoning, bipedal) which are characteristic of a cetain subset. Describing rodents as having four limbs, teats, scaly tails, and so forth, is rather unhelpful.  The properties of rodents--basically the endlessly growing pairs of incisors and the jaw structures should go in the lead.

Metacognition
The section on metacognition in rats stating that this is the first time this cognitive capacity has been recognised in a non-primate species, is what partly makes this finding noteable. However, this has been deleted by a respected editor. I appreciate that a GA reviewer may have disliked this, but s/he admitted they were not a specialist in this area. Due to its notability, I really feel it should be reinstated.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Perhaps the key point here, which I'm afraid I missed in the discussion earlier, is that (A) rodents are the first group found to have this capacity: that is of far more interest than the fact (B) that a given study was the first to detect it. I'll reinstate fact (A) in the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks__DrChrissy (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Rats expecting morphine
I just removed a "why?" tag that was added asking how rats could possibly know they were about to receive morphine. Expectation in animal behaviour experiments is usually done by association -- the morphine would always be given in a distinctive room, or after a certain sequence of events. I don't think it's appropriate to explain this inline, though; explaining every result of this kind would take the article too far afield. I don't have access to the underlying citation, but I'm willing to assume that it explains this, which is how a reader of Wikipedia could expect to get this question answered. Perhaps one of the primary authors of this article could clarify that the source does indeed answer this question. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:26, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted my removal of the tag. I won't revert; let's see what other editors think.  I would argue that your approach is not how WP:V is meant to work; it's not necessary for absolutely all information necessary to understand something to be in the article; it can be in the cited sources.  The requirement is that an interested reader can verify it.  Neither you nor I have done so.  I think it would be OK to suggest on the talk page that this be clarified, and then it's an editorial judgement on the part of the editors who discuss it.  Tagging it seems to me to be more than is required; we surely don't want editors tagging everything that might be supported by a given reference without checking that reference.  What do others think? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * . Firstly, I did not request a source, I requested clarification, therefore it has nothing to do with WP:V. Secondly, I find it extremely odd that an editor would say that "I'm willing to assume that [the reference] explains this, which is how a reader of Wikipedia could expect to get this question answered." Are you serious? Then why don't we limit ourselses a couple of headings, point the readers to the sources and let them "expect to get their questions answered"? Concern for length of articles is valid, but not at the expense of comprehensibility. To get back to the tag, any information that causes the reader to feel that something is amiss can be tagged with a clarification needed and needs to then be reviewed by one or more editors in a position to resolve the issue. Merely removing the tag does not help. A discussion on the talk page, neither, as the reader is not expected to have to consult the discussion to be able to understand the article. The article is supposed to be self-contained. One of the reasons why the article causes a double take is that nowhere does it say that these animals have been exposed to morphine before, which makes it odd to say that they look forward to it. I have since — based on the information that you provided — amended the text to allude to something that happens on a routine basis. I am sure it can still be tweaked to sound better. Thanks for the information. Regards, Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I think your edit is an improvement; thanks for that. I don't think we quite see eye to eye on the discussion above, but no need to go there since we've resolved the article issue.  Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:50, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys. Interesting discussion.  As a scientist who works on learning in animals, I think it is perfectly acceptable to see "anticipating morphine" published in the Abstract of a scientific paper.  I would expect to see a much fuller description of why the rat was anticipating in the Methods section. However, I accept WP is not a science article.  At the moment, the word "routine" is possibly inaccurate.  If a bell was sounded just before the morphine, the rat would quickly learn to anticipate morphine when it heard the bell.  It does not matter whether the morphine is given routinely or not, so long as the pairing of the bell and the morphine is consistent, the rat will anticipate receiving  morphine when it hears the bell. When we talk about animals ambush-hunting prey (like a domestic cat sitting next to a trail where it regulalrly sees mice), they are clearly anticipating encountering prey, however, we do not go to great lengths to explain the genetics and learning involved in this behaviour.  I have not edited the article because it is being considered for GA status and I would not want to distract from this.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, — especially about conditioning that is not routine. How would you and :: feel about something with the word cue in it, like "when a cue triggers (the) anticipation of (a shot of) morphine"? I am sure one of you more familiar with the terrain can tweak it further. Thanks, you two. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You would be entirely correct to use the word "cue", however, there is a possibility some WP editors would see this as scientific jargon. How about "when a trained rat expects to receive morphine..."__DrChrissy (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Best way to get rid of house mice
this is a copy of the section "Best way to get rid of house mice" in Talk:House mouse in the article house mouse (risking to violate 1,2 or 3 WP rules here...)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_mouse#Best_way_to_get_rid_of_house_mice

Ok, understood, WP is not a "how to do"... But please help me a little. Yes indeed, I'm here to defend the house mouse a little because the words mouse and mice in general are far too often confused with the house mouse, mus musculus. Under pig there is a section about (serious) health issues for humans. Nothing is mentioned about "applying laws and regulations" or "comply with the law" for pest control or extermination of the pig by "using pathogens or predators, as well as poisoning and trapping" like the section "As pests and disease vectors" under rodent does mention explicitly. One refers to the pest management manual of the US CDC: http://www.cdc.gov/nceh/ehs/docs/ipm_manual.pdf and to the UK's HGCA's "Rodent control in agriculture guide" (http://www.hgca.com/media/177133/g56_rodent_control_in_agriculture_-_an_hgca_guide.pdf).

On it's own webpage about diseases directly transmitted by rodents in general, at http://www.cdc.gov/rodents/diseases/direct.html, the CDC explicitly mentions the house mouse only as a minor threath to public health, mainly because of LCM being a minor threath to pregnant women. LCM can also be transmitted by other animals and pets.

The Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board is a so called QUANGO and "under consideration" (see http://www.channel4.com/news/bonfire-of-the-quangos-promised and http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20101125071349/http://download.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ndpb/public-bodies-list.pdf), a quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation, as such being criticised for many years. HGCA is a division of the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board (AHDB), a statutory levy board, funded by farmers, growers and others in the supply chain and managed independently of both commercial industry and of Government (http://www.hgca.com/corporate.aspx). So not really independent or governmental enough to decide about extermination of the house mouse and to "comply with the law". HGCA's main objective is to promote agriculture and their own products and services, not public health, and preventing crops and storage being damaged by rodents.

'''So can I delete the alinea starting with "Because rodents are a nuisance and endanger public health, human societies often attempt to control them." under the section "As pests and disease vectors" at the rodent article? Since WP is not a "how to do" and the references are questionable?'''

For people trying to specifically get rid of house mice, here is what I find useful to tell them: If one wants to rule out any chance of the house mouse spreading any diseases, the only practical working solution (for me) is to prevent the house mouse from entering the house. Try to find all holes larger than 1 cm and use metal materials like aluminium foil or steel whool. If you can prevent a mouse from getting it's daily 3 grams of food (as an average) by keeping your house clean and storing food in a safe place, you won't have a mouse problem almost by definition. Well, if your neighbour is not that clean you can hear them walking around... Keeping it clean is a non harmful way for the mouse as well as people. Especially using poison, because what's bad for the mouse will probably also be bad for humans or their pets, as one's cat might eat the poisoned mouse. While leaving food around any other method is pointless since any dead mouse, by poison or trap, is replaced quickly by another brother or sister. There will be as many mice as there is food.

Oh yeah, please read this section about research on the house mouse and the hygiene hypothesis...

According to recent research on the hygiene hypothesis the house mouse is so close to us that it’s absence might even proof bad for people’s overall health. Children that are exposed at a young age to specific allergens, feces, dander and bacteria from (among others) cockroach, mouse, and cat are less likely to develop asthma and allergies later in life. Best off are children growing up on farms. And of those children the ones who grow up on an older, more rustic (like Amish) farm are even better off regarding asthma and allergies Floris5 (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Rodent --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Combined range of all rodents image
I believe the image should be updated with Sri Lanka and New Zealand included. Possibly Antarctica too with McMuRdo Station although research needs to be done if rodents exist there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rockerdudeman (talk • contribs) 09:42, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Introduction- reaching Australia
In the introduction it is stated that rodents "...were the only terrestrial placental mammals to reach and colonize Australia." What about the dingo (wild dog)? 180.149.192.133 (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Dingos were probably brought across by humans, so they didn't colonise Australia by themselves. Anaxial (talk) 01:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Standard Classification lacks tree squirrels
In the Standard Classification cladistic tree, the sciuromorphs somehow don't include tree squirrels (though flying squirrels are present). This seems odd to me. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:52, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I can see why that might look odd, and perhaps we can make the phrasing clearer, but it is correct. The cladogram shows the findings of the study described and linked in the immediately preceding sentence (Wu et al. 2012), and that study did not, for whatever reason, include tree squirrels, so they aren't shown. There are approximately 470 other genera that are also not shown, for the same reason (including, for instance, dormice). For what's it worth, they'd probably be in the same branch as the flying squirrels. Anaxial (talk) 17:43, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, it is certainly correct. I didn't realize the diagram was taken entirely from the source without edits, and I must wonder why a cosmopolitan and important group like squirrels is left out while flying squirrels were included, is all.

IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Rodents the only placental mammals to colonise Australia
I thought I should point out that this isn't really correct at all. Australian Aboriginals, as placental mammals, also colonised Australia, assuming we ignore mass colonisation by Europeans later on. Am I missing something or should this sentence be fixed/removed? 220.253.155.72 (talk) 08:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The article says "...the only terrestrial placental mammals that have colonized Australia and New Guinea without human intervention" (Distribution and Habitat, second sentence). That statement would appear to be correct. Anaxial (talk) 08:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Capybara maximum weight: 3 different answers
The text of the article says, "While the largest species, the capybara, can weigh as much as 66 kg (146 lb) ..." A table lists the "Adult Weight" as 55kg (55,000 g). Presumably this is an average or typical weight but it is not so designated. The actual Capybara article says the heaviest capybara observed weighed 91 kg, and that 66 kg is the top of the typical range of weights, not the maximum weight.

Unless I see an objection here fairly soon I'll edit this article to reflect the information from the Capybara article. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:47, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Image of Incisor
I have added an image I took from my dissection project of the lower incisor of a Rattus rattus showing the full length of the incisor. I intend to add another image but of the upper incisor once I have acquired it. Dizzle32 (talk) 03:31, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodent. 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/20140826120701/http://jacobs.berkeley.edu/test/publications/Jacobs_AB92%281%29.PDF to http://jacobs.berkeley.edu/test/publications/Jacobs_AB92%281%29.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140716075336/http://science.org.ge/moambe/4-3/Vekua.pdf to http://science.org.ge/moambe/4-3/Vekua.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Rodent. 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/20130927194128/http://publikationen.stub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/15165 to http://publikationen.stub.uni-frankfurt.de/frontdoor/index/index/docId/15165
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140718213213/http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/Baskin_Thomas2007--South_Texas_and_the_Great_American_Interchange.pdf to http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/PHOTOS/Deer-Research_Program/Class_files/Baskin_Thomas2007--South_Texas_and_the_Great_American_Interchange.pdf
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160523144605/http://photos.archeozoo.org/index/category/84-rongeurs_lagomorphes_insectivores_langen_rodents_lagomorphs_insectivores_lang_langes_roedores_lagomorfos_insectivoros_lang_ to http://photos.archeozoo.org/index/category/84-rongeurs_lagomorphes_insectivores_langen_rodents_lagomorphs_insectivores_lang_langes_roedores_lagomorfos_insectivoros_lang_

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Rodent. 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/20140714153204/https://younglab.yerkes.emory.edu/Getz/1993%20Winslow%20N.pdf to https://younglab.yerkes.emory.edu/Getz/1993%20Winslow%20N.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Rodent. 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/20141006081739/http://awionline.org/pubs/cq02/Cq-mice.html to http://awionline.org/pubs/cq02/Cq-mice.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006101516/http://cwh.ucsc.edu/feinstein/The%20process%20of%20felting%20a%20Beaver%20Hat.html to http://cwh.ucsc.edu/feinstein/The%20process%20of%20felting%20a%20Beaver%20Hat.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715032652/http://www.cuzcoeats.com/2012/03/hornos-fogones/ to http://www.cuzcoeats.com/2012/03/hornos-fogones/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104143709/http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/09/remote-control-animals to https://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-09/09/remote-control-animals

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Deleted subsection
I noticed in this edit from 2014, a subsection was deleted since it was "redundant", although there were papers referenced there that might be worth having in a section about historical views on taxonomy. Umimmak (talk) 13:52, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rodent. 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/20140714161423/http://www.cuzcoeats.com/2011/07/eat-guinea-pig/ to http://www.cuzcoeats.com/2011/07/eat-guinea-pig/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903085849/http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/climate_change/health_effects/pages/rodent_borne_diseases.aspx to http://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/healthtopics/climate_change/health_effects/pages/rodent_borne_diseases.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Go By This, Please
Will you please go by this: There are two types of rodents. Herbivore and omnivore, but NEVER CARNIVORE! :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.68.4.132 (talk) 10:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Family incertae sedis Diatomyidae
In the classification, there is a confusing line that says, Family incertae sedis Diatomyidae: Laotian rock rat Incertae sedis means that the classification is unknown, or that taxonomists are unsure of where to put it, so Family incertae cedis would mean that taxonomists do not know the family of the organisms inside. However, the family is stated as Diatomyidae. If the family used to be incertae cedis, but taxonomists found a name for it, then the incertae sedis needs to be removed, and if it's the infraorder that's unclear, that needs to be stated by saying Infraorder incertae sedis Family Diatomyidae: Laotian rock rat Simiiforme8 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Basic inconsistencies...
I had a simple question, 'how closely related are squirrels and rats?'

So I look up rats, and find that they are rodents, genus rattus. Fine. I look at the rodent page here, and find no mention of the genus rattus.

My point is, the pages should work together. All the animal classification pages should work together. This is just one example. All the way up and down the hierarchies, every animal, it should all work together. Wikipedia has been around for twenty years, why hasn't this already been done? 2601:181:4600:A8C0:0:0:0:9192 (talk) 18:21, 12 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "Rattus" is mentioned four times in this article. The Evolutionary history section contains a tree diagram showing the position of rats within Rodentia, and has a link to the List of rodents article which contains a more detailed tree containing over 2000 species. Can you be more specific about exactly what you think needs to be changed? CodeTalker (talk) 18:30, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Under characteristics
I think that it could be useful to add more information about the claws that rodents have For instace: Claws have been adapted for defense mechanism like scratching, as well as clutching, digging, or climbing too survive in their habitat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jazzmk2000 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Gliridae absence in Sciuromorpha
Why isn't Gliridae included Sciuromorpha? 176.32.25.238 (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It is, in both the cladogram and the list of families. Perhaps you missed it? Anaxial (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Characteristics Section Proposed Edits
Media Contributions: Planning to add a picture of labeled facial muscles of a dissected rat that are involved in mastication including the temporalis and masseter muscles. I will be adding this media to the beginning of the 2nd paragraph in the Characteristics section.

Content Edits of 2nd Paragraph in Characteristics Section: Changing 7th sentence about facial muscles of Myomorpha to include masseter muscles. "The Myomorpha, such as the brown rat, have enlarged temporalis and masseter muscles, making them able to chew powerfully with their molars." Source 1

Adding a new sentence following the 7th sentence to explain the event of eye-boggling in rodents "In rodents, masseter muscles insert behind the eyes and contribute to eye-boggling that occurs during gnawing where the quick contraction and relaxation of the muscle causes the eyeballs to move up and down." Source 1

Adding a new sentence following 3rd sentence to explain the importance of the masseter muscle in rodents "Among rodents, the masseter muscles play a key role in chewing, making up 60% - 80% of the total muscle mass among masticatory muscles and reflects rodents herbivorous diet." Source 2

Add another new sentence following the 4th sentence to differentiate gnawing and chewing actions among rodents. "Rodents have two methods of feeding including gnawing that uses incisors and chewing that uses molars, however, due to the cranial anatomy of rodents these feeding methods cannot be used at the same time and are considered to be mutually exclusive. Source 3

BenChance (talk) 17:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

No rodents in New Zealand?
Check the map in the article.

SpicyMemes123 (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Arvicolinae
Why is this group not included in the taxonomic chart? Walkersam (talk) 21:39, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Because the current version of the chart only lists the families, not the subfamilies. Indeed, IMO, it would get overly large if it did.Anaxial (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2023 (UTC)