Talk:Quoll

If not, then the article should be changed. --Ettrig (talk) 07:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Where should I change the article. Which part is wrong.. Tasmania is off the coast of Australia. So it is like New Guinea. --Savetheoceans (talk) 10:38, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The text under Habitat says the quolls were found all over the two land masses. According to your answer this excludes Tasmania. But quolls both were and are on Tasmania. Also: This text lacks references. --Ettrig (talk) 12:57, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I put that info up before i was finished with my research.... I fixed it. Thanks for pointing out mistakes, even though I am bad at accepting criticism I am definitely learning that criticism is a good thing, and only makes articles better. Thanks!:) --Savetheoceans (talk) 13:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Tasmania is not a separate country...it is part of Australia, and part of the Australian Continent (as an island). 58.6.103.74 (talk) 14:21, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Cheer up! This is going fine. Take one problem at a time.

• Of all the places where the name is not used, why is only Sydney mentioned? I guess this should be explained or this mentioning should be removed.

Because Sydney was where Cook had landed and was where the specimen was believed to have been collected. Hence the interest in the name having come from north Queensland aborogines (5000 km away!). I'll see what I can add. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:43, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

• Maybe clarify that the length of the tail should be added to the other length specified. Or shouldn't it?

• distinct areas is used after a list of habitats. There is a need to clarify that these are distinct geographical areas. Maybe also sort the statements so that range statements come together and habitat statements together.

agree with adding adjective. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• After "Trans Fly ecoregion", "southern part of of New Guinea" is redundant

• I feel that the reasoning as the bronze and western quolls share 98 per cent of their DNA is incomplete. Of course it was stranded, in the sense that after this, it cannot migrate or spread to mainland Australia. 98% rhymes well with the fact that the difference between human and chimpanzee is about the same. We parted about 6 Mya and this article says that all the extant quoll species diverged more than 4 Mya and bronze and western are the most geographically separated so it is natural to think that they diverged substantially more than 4 Mya. But again, how does this relate to a geographical separation that occurred 8 thousand years ago? That is practically yesterday, in this evolutionary perspective.

• mesic zone is too difficult for me.

linked Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:48, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

• The quoll is a solitary creature, with contact with ... in social activities What? It is solitary except in social activities? I think this requires elaboration.

• There is some tension between the four sentences about what the quoll eats. The two first specify per species group. The third seems to be about all species. Is it applicable to both species groups? The same question about the fourth statement.

--Ettrig (talk) 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I fixed what I could but I do have a few questions:

• Is my rewording for the "solitary creatures.." ok?
• I cannot see a different way to specify their diet, though I am open to any suggestions

Think again! To start with, choose whether the rabbit is a small or a medium sized mammal. I hope you agree that it cannot be both in the same context. --Ettrig (talk) 13:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

• I thought that the 98% DNA match was interesting, and I threw it in as more of a fun fact. If you don't think it is necessary you can delete it if you want. I just thought it was unique.

Sorry it took me so long to reply back, I was on vacation. :) Savetheoceans (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I liked the 98% line, I think leaving it in might whet the appetite of the reader....Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

I like it too! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The article currently says: A 2007 study conducted by the University of New South Wales suggests that the bronze quoll may then have become "stranded" in New Guinea, as the bronze and western quolls share 98 percent of their DNA. My interpretation of this is that it means that the observed difference of 2% is caused by the normal divergence that has occured since the populations were separated 8000 years ago. This is not a correct interpretation of the facts. It takes much much more than 8000 years for a difference of 2% to arise. So, is the articel wrong, or am I wrong? Is there another interpretation of the article? My criticism is that the article is misleading here. Inlight of this, the fact that you like the statement is not a good argument for keeping it. --Ettrig (talk) 13:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Good points. I'll have a read as well - it's getting late here and I need to sleep...Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Let me save you the trip. Here is a large chunk of the article "Scientists say that New Guinea's bronze quoll might be an immigrant Australian that was isolated from the mainland by rising sea levels caused by climate change.

Eighteen thousand years ago and for 90% of the last 250,000 years, Australia and New Guinea shared a land bridge that allowed animals and people free passage in both directions. But 6,000 to 8,000 years ago, warmer temperatures, glacial melting and rising seas closed the land bridge, effectively "stranding" a colony of Australian western quolls across Torres Strait on the mountainous island of New Guinea. Now, new genetic research by UNSW biologists Karen Firestone and Steve Hamilton reveal that the bronze and western quolls may be the same creature. The two marsupials share 98 per cent of some parts of their DNA in common and are more similar genetically than any of Australia's four quoll species (the western, northern, eastern and spotted-tail)." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Savetheoceans (talk • contribs) 16:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Your article text accurately reflects the statements in the source. To me this is obviously misleading, as explained above. But the way Wikipedia works and with the limits in my knowledge and patience, I will not be able to demonstrate this with sources. --Ettrig (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you think that it should stay in the article or not? Sorry I am just a bit confused.... Savetheoceans (talk) 20:32, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I can fully understand if you think my comments on this are peculiar. The direct answer to yur question is that I want this passage to go away, even with Casliber's improvement. I think the reasoning in the cited article is obviously faulty, from my general understanding of evolution. BUT, on Wikipedia noone has authority (and if people did have authority, mine would be low on this subject). Instead, we are supposed to discuss in a constructive spirit, and all arguments must be based on reliable sources. Your source is generally reliable (a university site) and I think it would take me too much time to find sources that are obviously more reliable and that show that this is untrue. So I give up this cause. I also think these rules for the Wikipedia process are very good in general, although I dislike their effect in this case. I thought of a more concrete comparison for explaining my thought on this problem. Your source says that the separation of New Guinea from Australia about 10 000 years ago caused the divergence between two species. Compare this with the separation of the (so called) native americans (indians) from their ancestors. That also happened about 10 000 years ago. We still consider these people the same species as the rest of humanity. If that separation for 10 000 years did not cause speciation. We need an explanation why the same cause did not have the same effect. My answer is that the separation of New Guinea from Australia 8000 years ago did not cause the 2% divergence between the two quoll species. But again, I am not willing to take on the task of demonstrating this the Wikipedia way. --Ettrig (talk) 09:02, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I am guessing that the 2% comes from samples at either end of the species pair. Pity the chuditch is extirpated from all but the extreme southwest as maybe the more northern ones were alot closer to the bronze quolls. Hence my much more general alteration below. Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

After rereading, I am fine with Caslibers improved formulation. I was hung up on the statement that separation of New Guinea from Australia about 10 000 years ago caused the divergence between two species. This is what I objected to, 10 000 years is too little time for 2% (it is not insufficient for speciation, but neither is it sufficient, as this formulation suggests). But they also say bronze and western quolls may be the same creature. I guess that the study behind that article says that the separation is short (in time) that they might very well be the same species (creature), exactly my point. And then they probably got the percentage wrong. The use of the word creature and grammatical error (share 98 per cent of some parts of their DNA in common), share ... in common, suggest that this article isn't very carefully written. I cannot access it, but get the feeling of a journalist writing after a single interview. Anyway, Caslibers formulation gets rid of my problems. Thanks! --Ettrig (talk) 11:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I kept it simple - tweaked to "A 2007 study conducted by the University of New South Wales suggests that the bronze quoll is closely related to the western quoll, their ancestors diverging with the separation of land masses" Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:59, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks guys! I like it the new way too, and I'm glad we could keep it in the article! :) Savetheoceans (talk) 11:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Regarding its reintroduction onto the mainland last year, as mentioned later in this article and in the Eastern Quoll article, should the parts of this article which describe as being extinct on the mainland be adjusted to note that they were considered extinct on the mainland, past tense? Or something to that effect.Frond Dishlock (talk) 21:14, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

It has been a while since this article was reviewed, so I took a look and noticed lots of uncited statements, including entire paragraphs. Should this article go to WP:GAR? Z1720 (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2026 (UTC)