Talk:Kangaroo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 Archive 2


Origin of the name

The following which was contained in this article is a myth, albeit a very popular one:

The name kangaroo originates from the native Australian for "I don't understand".


Also, there's no such thing as "native Australian". There are over 200 distinct Australian aboriginal languages. -- SJK

But now it doesn't make sense: if there is a belief that kangaroo MEANS 'I don't have a clue' then that is what it does mean, at least to the believers. It needs to be rewritten.

Here's a page that states the myth as fact if you want to replace that "Citation Needed": 03:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying the reference, which has now replaced the previous "Citation Needed" comment. Figaro 11:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

=== The myth has now been replaced by an authoritative looking reference to Captain Cook - recorded (allegedly) 4 August 1770

The webpage it references, however, gets it information from .... Wikipedia! Circular Referencing? If we try and verify by looking at the Endeavor Journals for 4-Aug-1770 we find that the ship was at SEA then .. nowhere near anyone who could identify kangaroos!

See here for an excerpt of the Endeavour Journals for that date:

I suspect this is another myth - certainly the reference quoted appears to be!

Mac 10:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I added a citation to a 1974 article by linguist John Haviland confirming that the word kangaroo does derive from the word for an animal, rather than from a phrase meaning "I don't know". See also the etymology in the OED, reproduced here or here or here. --Mathew5000 (talk) 10:18, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


They are mentioned as bipeds in that acticle, but is that fair? Do they walk, or just hop? and how much is the tail involved in keeping them from tipping over, i.e., do the go thru the balancing act that other bipeds do when standing or moving? --Jerzy 21:55, 2004 Feb 20 (UTC)

They have two distinct gaits. The first is hopping - this they use when they're at speed. Both feet hit the ground simultaneously and they bounce forward a few metres, bringing their feet forward while they're in the air for the next bounce. There's a kind of walk I've seen wallabies do, alternating between forefeet and tail and hindlegs for propulsion.

Useful References

Some useful references dealing with the conflict between humans and kangaroos including farming and car accidents. I would still like to see these areas covered in more depth in the article. Martyman 22:07, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • [1]
  • [2]

Feral cats posing a threat to kangaroos? I'd really want to see some evidence for this. Indeed, I'm also inclined to doubt that foxes are a threat — a fox is a lot smaller than a roo, after all. Tannin 09:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Boxing for exercise is a fact?

Hi, ZayZayEM, I see you have put back, in the name of restoring facts, the reference to kangaroos boxing "for exercise". I had removed it because I thought it a weird claim that would distract readers' attention away from the good and interesting information in the paragraph. If you say the boxing is exercise, and is good for them, I've no reason to doubt it, but "for exercise" imputes a very humanlike motive — a motive only a couple of centuries old in humans — to an animal. Also, if they had that motive, how could we ever know it? I removed it on general epistemological principles and because it was humanizing an animal, not because I know about kangaroos. If they sometimes box for no obvious reason of defence or dominance, perhaps "in play" would be appropriate?--Bishonen 11:55, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess "play" would be acceptable for me. The point is that they seem to just do it, like other animals (bears, tigers, jackals etc.) wrastle with one another in a non-malicious manner.
Fighting is a way of life 
For the big male, however, combat is regular exercise, and a means of maintaining social order. In roaming mobs, sometimes numbering scores, the "old man" enforces his domination by cuffing the others with his forepaws. In a manner much like boxing younger males spar playfully among themselves – and fight fiercely when the time comes to win mates
The above is from my Underhill reference (a Reader's Digest book on Dangerous Australian animals).--ZayZayEM 01:29, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Please see what you think of the sentence now, change back if you don't like it. (Not sure I like it.) I wasn't too happy with the chicken metaphor of "pecking order", either, it sounds a little unexpected used about a non-bird animal (as opposed to the normal metaphorical use about humans).--Bishonen 02:07, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Disneyworld pics

Are those creatures pictured at Disneyland actually kangaroos? They look very small. Tannin 14:00, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

They could very well be infantile. →Raul654 17:09, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
They may be Western Greys (according to the article smallest), and likely young and/or female; but then again they may be wallabies. I'll try and get a knowledgable friend to take a squizz. Raul, was it Calif. or Flor. park?--ZayZayEM 01:32, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Disneyworld (Florida). →Raul654 02:05, Feb 5, 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the caption read "Disneyworld" then?--ZayZayEM 13:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Roos and people

I have elaborated a bit on the politics of the roo meat industry. I think this article needs some reference to the Skippy series, which did a lot to foster anthropomorphic fondness for roos and reluctance to eat them. Adam 10:48, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


Kangaroo article links to pouch, which is a redirect to Ileo-anal pouch. Is this intentional? --romanm (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

pouch has been changed to be a disambiguation page. Schutz 14:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Simple Kangaroo

Does anyone know why someone posted simple:Kangaroo this into the main article on 1st of January 2006?

eminent domain addition

I initially reverted and then re-added the recent addition of the eminent domain info. Does anyone know of this at all? I am not sure if it is BS or not, google doesn't seem to help. --Martyman-(talk) 02:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The same addition was made to eminent domain. I am leaning twords removing it unless someone knows something about it. Are there such things as "kangaroo reserves" in Australia? --Martyman-(talk) 02:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I decided to revert it, please feel free to re-add it if anyone thinks it is actually real. --Martyman-(talk) 02:29, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

missing Picture

Theres alot of nice pictures in the article, but they are all Grey's does anyone have any pictures of Reds That would be suitable. If we can get some maybe consideration should be given to culling some of the Grey Pictures from the article Gnangarra 00:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroo meat in Germany

"Kangaroo meat has been quite successful on the European market, particularly in Germany." I am a bit surprised to read this as I am German and have never seen any Kangaroo meat in Germany, neither in the supermarket nor in the restaurant.

I once had a Kangaroo burger at the music festival "Rock in den Ruinen" in Dortmund. And we have an Australian pub here in Dortmund which sells at least one meal including Kangaroo meat. But I never noticed any popularity of Kangaroo meat. --Pohli 14:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I live in Germany and it exists as in other European countries - i.e. novelty in Australian-themed restaurants and not much else. -- (talk) 07:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo Culling

This sentence is giving me problems:

This is the reason why wildlife activists claim that kangaroos are not as well protected a species as they should be.

I can't work out from the text what reason the sentence is referring to. Is it that it is protected by state & territory authories (as opposed to federal)? Or that some high-number species are not protected? Or something else?

Additionally, surely not all wildlife activists have this as the reason. Regards, Ashmoo 01:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"All species of macropod are protected from hunting by state and territory legislation, except for a small number of the large-sized species which exist in high numbers and for which commercial harvesting is permitted under approved management programs."
The statement from an Australian gov't web site clearly indicates large-sized species that exist in greater numbers such as the Kangaroo are not protected from hunting. Sorry for the confusion. I am not a wildlife activist. When I stumbled upon this website "Save the Kangaroo" and saw how lucrative the business of selling kangaroo meat has become, I went looking for a reliable source of data and I think I found it. Personally, I'd rather go moose hunting in Finland. ,,,,,Ariele 15:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Why? Is that because the moose isn't cute, furry and hops around the bush? Also, I think you'll find that the meat trade is hardly as damaging to populations as climatic fluctuations. Having lived and worked in the bush a lot, I've seen drought years where there are so many starving kangaroos eating off your lawn that they starve to death in front of your eyes and you have to shoot them from pity. And I've seen wet years where you can't fnd a trace of them and your lawn grows two feet high...until the rain ends and they come in t die on your lawn by the bucketload again. Rolinator 07:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Forrester Kangaroos and Prehistoric Kangaroos

Why Forrester kangaroos? I don't know if these kangaroos are indeed Eastern Greys. Can a roo expert please explain? Are these a sub-specie of the Eastern Grey? According to the Australian gov't, there were once 53 species [of Macropods ... ooops], six of which have now become extinct.

Plus, should someone include something about pre-historic kangaroos too; especially the story about the shrinking kangaroos since prehistoric times. ,,,,,Ariele 15:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The article as it is written is about the Macropods specifically called Kangaroos (as in eastern/western greys and red kangaroos). The article on the family of Macropodidae is seperate and includes all the Walabees etc. I see no harm in mentioning a little on prehistoric kangaroos in this article although the information would probably be best suited to the Macropodidae article as it doesn't relate solely to kanagroos as defined in this article. The only other solution I can see would be to merge this article and Macropodidae and then deal with all other species and the evolution and history of them. --Martyman-(talk) 22:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Who me? You're the Roo expert - not me. I can probably edit a little in the Macropodidae article and then add a sentence about the shrinking kangaroos here in this article if that's okay with you?,,,,,Ariele 01:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I am no Kangaroo expert either. I was just offering an opinion on how this info could be included (very helpful I know ;-) ). I was also trying to clear up the question people keep asking about there being only 3 species, when such and such a reference says there are X species. By no means take my suggestions to be anything but suggestions. Feel free to make any changes you feel would help the article, and I do agree that some info on the kangaroo like megafauna would be great to include. --Martyman-(talk) 01:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Your opinions are helpful. The article megafauna which you introduced here is very informative. This is good.,,,,,Ariele 01:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Life expectancy

At the end to of the Physical Description section it says the he average life span of a kangaroo is around 9 years. A few sentences later it is stated that the life expectancy of a kangaroo is about 18 years. Clearly one of them is wrong.

A quick Google found figures from 7 to 28 years, just to confuse matters. Some of the variation seems to be down to longer lives in captivity than in the wild. Perhaps it also varies between species? Markyour words 17:59, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
To make a start on clearing this up, I've removed the mention from the diet section, and changed the one in the physical description section to:
The average life expectancy of a kangaroo is about 9-18 years, with some living until their about 28.
9 years is a very wide range though, so it could do with refining a bit. If the 28 years is in captivity (which seems likely as most animals live longer in captivity than in the wild) then this should be mentioned. Thryduulf 00:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm having trouble believing that kangaroos have a life expectancy of 9 years. I have an article hear that states that 60% of juveniles won't survive to the end of their second year. That means that those surviving animals must live ~20 years for the species mean life expectancy to be 9 years.

I think someone has confused life expectancy with life span. 9 years seems like a reasonable life span for a roo, but 9 years is an extremely high life expectancy for any wild mammal and an adult lifespan of 20 years is extremely high for a mammal of this size.

Car Accidents

It says that theyll most likely die when hit by a car, although as far as I know it is common for a car to be totalled but a kangaroo to survive and hop away, alive. I've no sources to back this up yet there are no sources to inidicate otherwise.

I'm happy with the current version, I spent 2 years driving trucks Perth - Darwin return , Perth - Adelaide return. In that time I saw a lot of car vs Roo accidents and where the car was undriveable(totalled) the roo didn't survive either. Gnangarra 12:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
In my experience, roos rarely survive. Though it is not universally fatal to them. In most high-clearance 4WDs, it is possible (and its happened to me) that you drive over the top and the roo rattles trough underneath and hops away. But with most direct hits, it is a fatality. As for the cars, it is often damaging, but usually only fatl for the vehicle's operability if the radiator is punched out. Insurance wise, its better to lose the radiator than a headlight. But it depends on the driver whether they centre-punch or clip skip with the lights. Either way its safer just to brake hard and straight and don't swerve. Rolinator 07:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

energy storage

Kangaroos do not have a "unique" ability to store strain, or potential, energy in their tendons. This fancy terminology is just a way to say that tendons work like springs: stretch them out and then they go back - like a pogo stick. All animals with compliant tendons store energy in their tendons. For example, it has been demonstrated that humans store a large percentage of their mechanical energy during gait in the Plantar Facias (the tendon that runs along the sole of the foot) and Achilles tendons. While human physiology has not developed like the Kangaroo's and while we do not store quite the same percentage of our energy in our tendons, we certainly maximize what our tendons can store. In closing, there is no reason to say that other animals do not take advatage of energy storage. Darwin would probably argue that any organism that did not take advantage of an energy returning mechanism built into it's frame would be weeded out quite quickly! Good day. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .

carnivorous kangaroos

Does anyone know anything about the prehistoric carnivorous kangaroos? Bibliomaniac15 23:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Heard of them, but don't know much... Dora Nichov 14:26, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Horrible paragraph

"Another horrifying responsibility of a motorist is to finish off the wounded animal. A broken hind leg, for example, spells prolonged and painful death for the creature (much as it does for a horse). Shooting or a swift smashing of the head by a hammer or a rock is required by the humane custom."

I really don't want to be recommending bashing a kangaroos head in, or even shooting them, to the readers. Seriously, hitting it in the head with a rock would not kill it instantly, it would just cause it more pain. This seems to be in line with hitting Cane Toads with golf clubs. It is not our responsibility to tell people how to humanely deal with animals, the RSPCA do that, and I am sure they would be disgusted with this section. --liquidGhoul 00:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As I felt exactly the same about the paragraph and its 'instructions' as you do, I have now deleted it - and replaced the 'instructions' with a comment that a veterinary surgeon or the RSPCA should be contacted when a kangaroo is injured (including severely injured kangaroos), for information about what to do. I made the comment immediately following the information about caring for joey kangaroos whose mothers have been killed in collisions. Figaro 04:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Amount of pictures

Is it just me or does there seem to be too many kangaroo pics in the article? I mean, there are two of one jumping, plus several more. It's just not necessary to illustrate the point. — JeremyTalk 11:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the images. I used this in motion photo because I like how dramatic it was. You can switch if you want. I also removed the photo of a release into Kakadu. The caption says that is a wallaby, which is not within the scope of this article. We also didn't need two warning signs. This article is a mess, it needs some TLC. --liquidGhoul 12:16, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Facts from QI on BBC

The BBC programme QI has recently stated that:

  • kangaroos cannot turn corners while 'hopping', they actually have to stop and turn around
  • kangaroos cannot exhale gas (fart)

Any citations needed or found? --rjcuk 08:50, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Must have been "bring an imaginary fact to work" day at the BBC! Kangaroos can most certainly turn while moving at speed, as anyone who has seen one change its mind about hopping in front of their car can attest to. Andoka 02:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by a non-registered user

Would it be possible, please, to 'sprotect' this article, following the spate of continuing vandalism to the page.

Otherwise, would it please be possible to block a user who has been deliberably abusing his/her editing rights as a non-registered user, to continually vandalise (presumably by reverting) the "Kangaroo" page (six times so far) with the same moronic message — using four different computers, under the IP numbers of:

  • — Three reverts to "Kangaroo" article - so far. Vandalism, on this IP number, occurred on October 8, 2006.
(vandalism, by this IP number to other Wikipedia articles, included Louis Cyr, John A Macdonald and Charles de Gaulle).
  • — One revert to "Kangaroo" article - so far. Vandalism, on this IP number, occurred on October 8, 2006.
  • — One revert "Kangaroo" article - so far. Vandalism, on this IP number, occurred on October 9, 2006.
  • — One revert "Kangaroo" article - so far. Vandalism, on this IP number, occurred on October 9, 2006.

Although there are four different IP numbers, it is obvious that the same person is responsible for all the vandalism mentioned above — especially as all four IP numbers begin with the same numbers: (68.192), indicating that the computers are all at the same address, and, therefore, that all of the vandalism originated at the same address.

I am aware that it is difficult to block an IP number, because the computers are shared by various people, but this non-register's amusement, at continually vandalising with the same moronic message, is beyond a joke (and it is something which the non-registered user obviously intends to continue ad nauseum). Trying to reverse his rubbish is irksome and time-wasting to users who are trying to make Wikipedia a respected encyclopedia. Figaro 01:37, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

A user block seems best for this - you need to report this at WP:AIV. I could in theory do it, but it looks like a range black might be needed and I don't understand them! Thryduulf 02:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't understand them, either.
I notice that the vandal has struck again - this time under the IP number The vandal also struck the John A Macdonald page again. The edits which the vandal made to the Louis Cyr and John A Macdonald pages included comment on the nonsense which the vandal is attributing to the Kangaroo, as well as links to the Kangaroo article.
As I mentioned before, all the vandalism is originating from the same address, and it is also obvious that the same editor is responsible — also it is obvious that the vandal is of the mistaken opinion that his/her tedious, moronic and unfunny edits are very amusing.
As all of the edits which this particular non-registered user has made to articles is vandalism, it is obvious that he/she is only interested in vandalising Wikipedia articles — not adding information to them. Figaro 10:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I just read the Kangaroo article and I am wondering if what you are talking about here is something that I was concerned with. I'm not sure what it is that you are mentioning, is it the part about the 'Kevan' in the Predators section? 'However it could not even spell it's name...'
I was curious when I saw that to what the poster meant, instead of 'Kevan' and I did a fair bit of research and did not find an animal which could be this 'Kevan' but I did find many interesting predatory animals that the Kangaroo would have faced prehistorically. I would like to edit this section and add what I have found. I'm going to erase the part about 'Kevan', if anyone has any objections, I'd like to know about them, as it was very interesting to me, what I found out. Eddie mars 07:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism comments, which referred to above, can be checked on the history page for the Kangaroo article (in the Kangaroos and humans section) — and then clicking on the date next to the edit concerned). For instance, the vandalism comments on 9 October, 2006, can be read at [[3]] — and vandalism comment which were made on 8 October, 2006, can be read at [[4]].
The same vandalism (about the kangaroo), was also posted (by the same non-registered editor), on pages which were not connected with the kangaroo. I have also mentioned these other articles in my comments above. The comments referred to, can be also read by checking the history pages for the article pages concerned (and again by clicking on the date next to the edit concerned). Hope this helps answer your question. Figaro 16:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it does, and also helps me to understand the site a little bit more too, thanks. Eddie mars 04:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

new vandalism

I'm not a big Wikipedia person (don't know protocols for editing, etc.) but under "Description," the last 2 words of the section are "gay boys." Thought someone with some know-how might want to edit or address. 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Recreational User Dave

Fixed before you were done posting this. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Word origin citation

One place that mentions the word origin myth as untrue is The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. 2000. at --SamuliK 13:45, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Kangaroos and Wallaroos

I must admit, when I was a kid, my mammal books classed the Wallaroo and Antilopine Kangaroo as Kangaroos. Looking at the subgenera on the Macropus page in terms of what is related to what reinforces that it is an artificial distinction. "Antilopine Kangaroo" gets 567 hits on google whereas "Antilopine Wallaroo" gets over 1100, double but not an overwhelming number. Considering the term Wallaroo is nowhere near as well known as Kangaroo or Wallaby, I have to say I would prefer to see all the larger macropods (Kangaroos and Wallaroos) on this page (later on with pages for the individual species as is happening elsewhere with birds, plants, fungi etc.). How do others feel? cheers Cas Liber 06:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

The distinctions via common name were taken directly from MSW3. Groves and others have been most helpful via email when such questions arise. That said, the second sentence in the opening paragraph already covers your concern. To wit, these three species are singled out as kangaroos by some because of their size, while others use the term more loosely to refer to all of the macropods. Also, see the opening paragraph for wallaby. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Aha, umm...forgive my ignorance but what is MSW3? cheers Cas Liber 07:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
My mistake. Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. I've added a ref to the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UtherSRG (talkcontribs) 07:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC).


I guess the first place to start is the 2 paras or 3 everyone, and what should go in it? I made a first attempt - feel free to embellish etc. cheers Cas Liber 07:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

New picture

I've added Image:Kangaroo with suckling joey.jpg, captioned "An older joey, returning to the pouch to suckle." Hope it's useful and if I've made a mistake, someone more knowledgeable about them please correct it. --Legalizeit 11:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


Is Lulu the pet kangaroo really notable enough to have an article? The link is a disambig page which has a bullet for her, but there is no link there to an article. I'm quite certain that she is not the most significant aspect of "The kangaroo's fame", as she is presently listed first in that section (more prominent than Skippy and the Boxing Kangaroo?). --Scott Davis Talk 03:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the information about Lulu to the Interaction with humans section - which is more appropriate. Figaro 08:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


We're getting needlessly pedantic and over-inclusive. This section should ideally provide a cursory overview of the kangaroo in the popular conscience, not be an almanac of every single instance of the animal's use. There's now far too many subheadings as well: simple pop culture and sport bullet-lists, with the miscellanous oddities as text, will suffice.

I can't be shat addressing it now; it's too hot. I'll see what it looks like in the morning. Hide&Reason 10:06, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment I've done away with it altogether.

  • Animal FAs generally have no instance of trivia or '[animal] in the human conscious', eg. Emu, Dingo, Gray Wolf. Exceptions are something like the Lion or the Horse, which has been influencing man for millennia. The Cane toad on the contrary does indeed have an 'In pop culture' subsection, but it actually contains some noteable information besides sports teams, media appearances, etc., such as a cultural reaction to foreign introduction (hitting them with golf clubs); furthermore this subsection is not a formidable list.
  • The current material in the Kangaroo's fame section isn't that interesting
  • Readibility is currently better without it

If anyone can find some more solid info for a section like this then I think you should incorporate it with the rest and rewrite the whole lot as a prose section. Hide&Reason 02:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have set up a separate page for the information, with a link to the new page from the 'See also' section. Figaro 05:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Antilopine wallaroo

Should we include the antilopine wallaroo (Macropus antilopinus) into this article? bibliomaniac15 06:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. MSW3 calls it the Antilopine angaroo. I don't know how I missed it before. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


I don't remember ever seeing a real-life kangaroo. What is the kangaroo's pouch like in real life? I imagine it's not the convenient carry-all pouch movies and comics have made it out to be. Is it even possible to put anything else than a kangaroo youngling (how you say, "joey"?) in it? JIP | Talk 17:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Heh. No, it isn't. It's the joey or nothing. Jeendan 00:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is still confused

This article is still confusing, is it an article about the three large species we call kangaroos (in Australia and elsewhere) or is it a general guide to the macropods? From the taxobox, one would assume the article is just talking about a part of Macropus - which I think is sensible. The inclusion of the fossil genera was odd, they are in a different subfamily (Sthenurinae) and without some context as to why these are even relevant here (kangaoo evolution perhaps, though how Sthenurinae relate to the evolution of modern kangaroos is anyones guess) - they were just confusing the situation. --Peta 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm...perhaps a "Kangaroo evolution" section should be made? bibliomaniac15 02:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
It's really more appropriate to discuss that in the context of the family, i.e. in the Macropod article. Since the article is set up to describe, and for the most part does, the characteristics of the four species in the taxobox. --Peta 02:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Pouches on females only?

There is an implication, but no explicit statement as to who wears the pouch in this family. Could a more crystalline description of this feature be made of its first mention? DulcetTone 17:26, 23 April 2007 (UTC)


I'm intrigued at this line under Adaptations: "It is well known for being used in a sweet smelling cheese called kindi."

I have never heard of kangaroo milk being used for anything other than the joey. What is the basis for this claim? A quick search of Google yields nothing on the topic except for this article. Lainem499 12:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of the removing the reference to kindi cheese, inserted by on 07:54, 18 June 2007. Based on his other edits and the lack of any other reference to it, I think he's having a lend of the Wikipedia community. I find it hard to imagine the logistics of milking a kangaroo. Lainem499 09:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"Controversy over farming of kangaroos" ?

I tagged this sentence for citation in the lead-in section: "However there is considerable controversy over farming of kangaroos for meat." As well as having no references, there is no mention of this controversy in the article. As kangaroos are generally not farmed, but the wild population is culled, the controversy referred to is probably that of the shooting of wild kangaroos. If so, it needs to be put in the article with references, otherwise the sentence should be deleted from the lead-in. Rexparry sydney 02:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC) haii... love...<3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


I came to see if male kangaroos have pouches and the article doesnt say, please add it. It was a trivia question on TV. Males have nipples and a pouch is what the nipples go in, so they might. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

External links

I removed the link warning, I don't think we need it. Thanks, Mercury 20:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, the phila link is inappropriate for this article. Pehaps a different article could use it? Mercury 21:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Fantastic source

If anyone is interested, there's a fantastic source of information with regards to early European discovery of the kangaroo available here. I'm your average layman, and in the course of my work I found it an easy read and it provided an invaluable wealth of quotes and whatnot. Make of it what you will! Seegoon (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


Aussie gov't now recommends orphaned joeys from vehicular collisions be shot on the spot or head smased, instead of trying to raise them. (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

opening paragraph

because i will forget to do it on the 1st of march, the opening para says "Kangaroos are endemic to the continent of Australia, while the smaller macropods are found in Australia and New Guinea.", the first 'australia' redirects to australia the country, it should redirect to australia the continent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks for the heads up. Alexf42 01:21, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

good work —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Other types

I realise this is not a forum, so if this post falls under that catagory please delete this. I am a recent migrant to Australia and people keep showing me something called a "Potteroo." I see no mention of it here in Wikipedia, but have seen some pictures of them on other Australian animal sites. There is a listing for "Potoroo" but it bears no resemblence to the creature I am seeing. This one looks to me like what I would imagine a Wallaby would look like. Is this a real animal name, or are the locals having me on? Trinen (talk) 09:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

More likely, they don't know what they are talking about. Are these native natives, or European natives? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
You mean a Potoroo? Mfield (talk) 16:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


I was reading the part about diapause, and there wasn't any references. I think there should be, could someone please add some? Jezzamon (talk) 08:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


give adaptive features about kangaroo —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect interwiki link

Could someone who is able to edit this article please change the interwiki link to the German (de) wikipedia? This article ("Kangaroo") is only about a seclect few species of the genus Macropus. The German "de:Kängurus", while sounding similar, means all animals of the Macropodidae family. Therefore a link to "de:Macropus" or "de:Riesenkänguru" (=M. rufus, M. giganteus, M. fuliginosus) would be better. (talk) 12:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

1 acre and 7ft

Much as I consider imperial measurements an irreverent nonsense I struggle further to understand why they are being used on an article which relates primarily to Australia. I could convert these by maths (0.4046863 hectare , 2.1336m) but I'm guessing someone already has nice round metric values for the recommended living space for fully grown Kangaroo. In any case could we assume in the mean time that the values are 0.4 hectare (or 0.004km2) and 2.1 meters? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


I read a book which claims that kangaroos also eat insects and I am not sure how reliable the information is. It is also mentioned in this website. DockuHi 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Kangaroo Region/Conservation

should it be included anywhere in the wiki article, that there are kangaroos in the united states? they may not be nessisarliy native, but check this out —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:30, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservation center, well more like a zoo. I am not sure if it adds weight to the article. DockuHi 12:01, 10 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetnsourpie (talkcontribs) 04:56, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

farting unimportant?

The section ' Absence of digestive methane release' seems highly specialised for this article, especially after only two paragrpahs on digestion. Any expert comment? Earthlyreason (talk) 14:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Biomechanics of hopping

There is an interesting section on the biomechanics of hopping in the book Life of Marsupials, p. 308-311.[5] GregorB (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


There was a {{taxobox}} in this article, 'kangaroo' is a common name that does not refer to a single taxon. cygnis insignis 06:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


I think that maybe this section could be split up into two sections. The first part would be for the babies and the second part would be for the legs. (talk) 15:38, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

kiana loves kangaroos —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Just curious.... My two visits to Australia (near Alice Springs) have been during Summer (or now near Summer). I've seen lots of Kangaroos and night, but not during the day. Is this just a seasonal occurrence (Kangaroo's don't like being out in the heat), or is it a normal aspect of their behavior? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)


I think a sentence on and a sample of kangaroo vocalizations should be added. Why is this page locked? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Kangaroos make a grunting noise when stressed or as a warning. Wildlife carers refer to a mother's call to her joey as a "double click", which when we the carers do it, is produced in the back of the throat. TerrellaWildlife (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Terrella Wildlife.


Unfurred joeys can also be saved but the success rate is lower. Very young joeys, those whose eyes are still closed, benefit greatly from being raised in a humidi-crib. After feeding the joey must be stimulated to urinate and defecate. The weaning age for species vary. Eastern Grey Kangaroos, for example, are weaned at approximately 18 months of age. Joeys that have been hand-reared can be released back in to the wild, the longer they are care the more necessary it is to use a soft release programme. In some states of Australia the law indicates that all wildlife must be returned to the wild. Individual states and territories also have laws pertaining to the legalities and licencing of wildlife carers. TerrellaWildlife (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really sure what you are actually asking/discussing, are you wanting to insert this into the article? ZooPro 06:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


The page on attacks was deleted again even though it was greatly improved from the version nominated for deletion. There are enough stories reported in the media for a separate article. See: User:James4750/Kangaroo attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


Since "kangaroo" is a not taxon. Shouldn't much of the information on this page be tranfered to the Macropod article or to the articles on the individual species? Bobisbob2 (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

No Kangaroos are not the only Macropods, There are Wallabys, Tree-kangaroos and Pademelons, they each have their own article. Its like Big Cat and then the individual articles Tiger, Jaguar, Lion and Leopard, it also has Panthera. ZooPro 23:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
But can't much of the info here be used to describes other Macropods? Also the Big Cat article is much shorter than the feline one. Shouldn't it be the same here? Bobisbob2 (talk) 04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes the info from here can be transfered no problems at all as long as we keep this page intact also. The Big cat article only covers 4 cats, the feline article covers all the cats so i will assume you were refering to Panthera instead, the lengh merely indicates the effort editors have put into the article. WikiProject Mammals will in 2010 be extending the big cat article. ZooPro 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Having had a look at the all those articles they are all about the same size in information.ZooPro 04:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
How do you know? I went there and they are still on choosing the article for April 2009. Bobisbob2 (talk) 02:16, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
I am the Coordinator of the Project, and yes that error is being dealt with. We are having alot of issues as the Project has only just been re-activated in the past few months.ZooPro 02:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Three vaginas

I just heard on QI (Quite Interesting) that the kangaroo genitalia are quite intersting indeed ; apparently the female has three vaginas, one of which serves no apparent purpose, and the male has a sort of split penis. I'm very surprised not to find information about this sort of thing on wikipedia ;-) (talk) 21:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thats cause its rubbish. Females have 1 vagina in the cloaca and the males have 1 penis in the cloaca. ZooPro 00:42, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Close. Yes, its true the male has a single, not split penis (its the Thylacine that has a split penis). However, the female has two vagina's. It doesn't give birth through either of them as a seperate birth canal develops when the female gives birth. Granted, it is not a vagina, however, the female does have two vagina's, both of which enter into the cloaca. This is an ancient system that can also be seen in reptiles today (evidently the kangaroo was to lazy to evolve out of it). Hitthat (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 8 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I belive that in this sentence "Larger kangaroos have adapted much better to changes wrought to the Australian landscape by humans and though many of their smaller cousins are endangered, they are plentiful." there is a spelling mistake - the word "wrought" should be changed to "brought" (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. I think the original author may have meant 'wrought' but 'brought' certainly gets the idea across equally well and is less archaic. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)


An interesting story, or really headline "In 2003, Lulu, an Eastern Grey, saved a farmer's life. She received the RSPCA National Animal Valor Award on May 19 of the next year.". But two of the three sources expired, and one does not load(Or takes an inane amount of time to load). Unless there is some hard evidence, preferably permanent, this isn't any more than a fanciful children's story.

I'm not saying it isn't possible but some real evidence would be appropriate.Aryeonos (talk) 18:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

As an Australian, I still have vivid memories of all the media attention this story garnered at the time. It's definitely more than a fanciful children's story. I have updated the links to go to unexpired sources. Hope that helps. Lainem499 (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
All links to articles about this are currently working. I have also now added a further reference regarding this.

Please change "falling" to "fallen" [tree branch]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, 'falling' is the correct word to use in this case (the branch was 'in motion in mid air' when it hit the farmer), and should not be changed. It is a 'point of grammar'. Figaro (talk) 14:27, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from, 1 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2010 (UTC) A kangaroo is a small fish that is indigenous to South Africa

Not done: That should be covered at Kangaroo (disambiguation), via it's own article. Also, you do not have any reliable sources. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)


This article needs a taxobox added like most of the other organism articles. Andrew Colvin • Talk 05:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Ancient History of the Kangaroo

After doing a little bit of research and have found out some information about kangaroo ancestors. The following is a quote from this Howstuffworks article from their website-

"Fossil evidence dating back 25 million years has revealed that kangaroo ancestors did not hop [source: The Daily Telegraph]. At that time, rainforests covered most of Australia, and the predecessors most likely fed from fruits and leaves and could climb trees [source: The Daily Telegraph]. One existing species, the tree kangaroo, still inhabits parts of the rainforests in Papua New Guinea. As the continent's climate heated up, the rainforests gave way to dry, grassy plains, guiding the roos to their current terrestrial existence."

I think this information should be added into the article. Thanks. Motorturnaroo (talk) 04:59, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Italian hyperlink

In the list of articles in other languages on the left, could someone competent add the link to Italian, which is missing. Thanks a millionCampolongo (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Patwoods, 18 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

Under 'Behaviour', delete: 'Because of its long feet, it cannot walk correctly.'

Comment: The kangaroo walks correctly for a kangaroo. The sentence is redundant, incorrect, and unscientific; its deletion leaves the sense of the paragraph more sensible but otherwise unchanged.

Patwoods (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done, Kind regards ZooPro 06:17, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


Macropus giganteus tasmaniensis (Forester Kangaroo)is recognised as the Tasmanian subspecies of the Eastern Grey Kangaroo. [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:02, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

The italian version of this article is here.

Main article is semi protected, so I don't edit it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanieleMinciaroni (talkcontribs) 15:25, 30 December 2008 (UTC) yep —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim Flannery (2007): Chasing Kangaroos

Should Tim Flannery (2007): Chasing Kangaroos: A Continent, a Scientist, and a Search for the World's Most Extraordinary Creature. (ISBN 978-0802118523) be included in the refs.? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Kangaroo life expectancy

The page lists kangaroo life expectancy to be 6 years, citing a .com source with no educational background.

The page lists Red Kangaroos having a life expectancy of 22 years.

The page lists Grey Kangaroos having a life expectancy of 18 years.

I propose a life expectancy table or reference be made to several kangaroos: Red, Grey and smaller kangaroo species. Insane Kangaroo (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: spelling

{{edit semi-protected}}

  1. Biology and behaviour --> Social and sexual behavior: Pick a spelling for "behaviour", either with or without the -u, then stick with it.
  2. Biology and behaviour --> Social and sexual behavior --> para 2, line 4: "He stiffs her urine...". That should read "He sniffs her urine...". (talk) 15:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Spelling has been fixed. Bidgee (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Should be Australian English behaviour for per MOS:ENGVAR. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs)

Correction on Kangaroo's - Not all Marsupials have a Pouch

The wiki page says: "Like all marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch called a marsupium in which joeys complete postnatal development." Not all marsupials have a pouch. Marsupial is an animals that gives premature birth. We see many marsupials not have a pouch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ks18 (talkcontribs) 00:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Description: last paragraph, last sentence: "Like all marsupials, female kangaroos have a pouch..."
I have to agree that not all marsupials have a pouch. Dasyuridae says, "Similarly, many species lack a full marsupial pouch, instead having a simple fold of skin...". Britannica Online says, "Although prominent in many species, it is not a universal feature...". Could this article be rewritten to, "Like the majority of marsupials,..."? (talk) 22:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
Done I've changed it to the simpler "Like most marsupials,..." Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit request: Four Nipples

I have found several sources, both in print and online, that say female kangaroos have four nipples. I would suggests changing the "Reproduction and life cycle" section to reflect this fact. User:lzbthpwrs 1:23, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. The cited source said four nipples. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 11:24, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection back up

Per a request at RFPP a while ago, I tried dropping the semi-protection on this article; since basically every non-confirmed edit since then has been vandalism, and there's been a fair amount of it, I've re-added indefinite semi-protection. Qwyrxian (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Section on side-effects of harvesting unreferenced - reference does not link to cited document.

The section 4.1 on side-effects of harvesting has a footnote, but it appears to be a made-up document. The website it links to does not contain or link to the cited document. I am a researcher in this area and have never come across any evidence for these effects - indeed, a lot of studies have concluded there is unlikely to be any genetic impact of kangaroo harvesting, given the level at which it is carried out and the fact that there are harvest refuges across the landscape. I suspect this paragraph is mischievous, and it certainly should be removed if whoever wrote it cannot supply a genuine reference to support these claims.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phasmobranch (talkcontribs)

I checked the reference, and agree that it makes none of the claims that were in that paragraph. I have removed the entire paragraph from the article. Thank you for catching that. Should someone find a reliable source that actually makes those claims, then we could consider re-adding it. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Pronunciation needs corrected

Please correct the pronunciation in the first sentence from the wrong {{IPAc-en|k|eɪ|ŋg|ə|r|uː}} (with a long a and no stress) to {{IPAc-en|ˌ|k|æ|ŋg|ə|ˈ|r|uː}} (with a short a and stress). Thanks — (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

 Done, and well spotted, don't know what the original one was all about, haha --andy4789 · (talk? contribs?) 23:57, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Could someone pls add something about kangaroos (& related) having a syndactyl foot? Thanks (talk) 02:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: group nouns

Mob and troop are legitimate group nouns for kangaroos (easily referenced), but there is no obvious truth to the notion that "court" is used as a group noun for kangaroos. This is simply a slightly clever play on the term Kangaroo_court which has quite a different meaning. (talk) 23:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd agree about court, but I also have my doubts about troop. Never come across either in 60+ years in Australia. We only have the one source - - for that claim. Is there another genuinely Australian source for it? (I don't count as really Australian.) HiLo48 (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
As an Australian "mob" is the only name I have ever heard or used. ZooPro 12:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
I've done a bit of searching, and it seems there's a handful of non_Australian websites telling us that troop is a collective noun for kangaroos, and maybe it is, for non-Australians. Are there any non-Australians out there who can comment? HiLo48 (talk) 07:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Collective nouns are archaic. No-one uses them seriously any more. Mob is the clearly accepted term, and should be used exclusively.--Dmol (talk) 08:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
And what is "mob" if not a collective noun? -- ♬ Jack of Oz[your turn] 19:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Ah yes, good point. But what I am referring to is those silly lists of collective nouns that appear occasionally, such as murder of crows etc, that claim to be the "correct" term to use. They're not used in real life.--Dmol (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: Dead Link

The "Courtship and mating" in External links is a 404 page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request: add Dutch article link

There's a Dutch (Nederlands) article about this, but it's hard to find because the title is in plural: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added it. Thanks! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed POV section.

I have reverted a recent edit, which is copied below, due to its failure to adhere to a neutral point of view.

It was titled, Mass culling of kangaroos since European settlement.

(Start quote) In rural Australia, kangaroos are often viewed as a pest and killed en masse: ‘Given the widespread culture of shooting across rural and remote Australia, and the very strong sense of entitlement that accompanies it, it seems likely that the number of kangaroos killed without authorization is high.’ [1]
Each year 3,000,000 kangaroos are ‘harvested’ for commercial use, plus around 1,100,000 young are killed or left to die ‘as collateral of the commercial industry’, to which 200,000 kangaroos and wallabies are killed for non-commercial reasons each year, not counting the number of kangaroos. Governing the Killing of Kangaroos", Report for THINKK, the Kangaroo Think Tank, University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, 2010</ref>. (End quote)

My reasoning is as follows.

  • The title is POV. Yes, I could (and did) tone it down, but as I was going to have to trim the entire section, it was pointless.
  • "In rural Australia, kangaroos are often viewed as a pest". True, but not in all cases.
  • "and killed en masse". Not supported by any reference. Highly dubious.
  • "Given the widespread culture of shooting across rural and remote Australia, and the very strong sense of entitlement that accompanies it". Subjective opinion, original research, and not supported by impartial refs.
  • "seems likely that the number of kangaroos killed without authorization is high". Again, not supported by impartial references. The same quote continues - "The very significant toll from road accidents also has to be factored into the kill figure" but this sentence was not included in recent edits.

As the entire section was based on a highly biased essay, I have removed all of it. If anyone wants to re-enter information with reliable fact-based refs, then please do so, listing the ref with each piece of info.--Dmol (talk) 03:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those problem areas for Wikipedia. You're right to ask for good sources, but their absence does not disprove the words you have removed. I've lived and worked in rural Australia, and have masses of anecdotal evidence in my head to back up what was added to the article. I suspect it's largely true, but those who told me the anecdotes about great nights out in the bush "huntin' and shootin' roos" are not ever likely to write down their stories. I can't argue with your action, according to Wikipedia rules, but those rules do get in the way of the truth at times. I don't have a solution. Sorry. HiLo48 (talk) 03:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 March 2013

"The hydrogen byproduct of fermentation is instead converted into acetate, which is then used to provide further energy."

Should be edited as follows: "The hydrogen byproduct of fermentation is instead converted into acetate, which is then used to provide additional energy."

Jcp22305 (talk) 06:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Why? HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 8 March 2013 (UTC)
Please give a specific reason in why you want it changed, as I see nothing wrong with the sentence already in the article. - Camyoung54 talk 15:06, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 10th May 13

Hi, please can the final sentence in the paragraph on Terminology ("Living in mobs provides protection for some of the weaker members of the group.") and the associated reference please be moved to the section on Social and sexual behaviour? It seems out of place in a discussion of kangaroo group terms and more in place where the behaviour of kangaroos in groups is actually covered. Thanks. (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Done - I actually moved two sentences instead of one. Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 21:34, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Parasites and pests

Is anyone able to add a section about the parasites and pests that live in and on kangaroos? Captainbeefart (talk) 14:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

It is quite common for kangaroos to have worms or other parasites and they need to be inspected carefully before consumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hunting/Killing Kangaroos

In most parts of Australia, kangaroos are afforded some form of protection (as are all native animals) and can only be killed in certain circumstances. Generally, they can only be killed by property owners, with an appropriate permit; and/or licensed Kangaroo Field Processors. In some cases, a property owner may transfer their right to kill kangaroos on their property to visiting hunters. It is illegal to remove kangaroo products (meat, pelt, etc). from a property unless the shooter is a Field Processor, or the hunter has obtained a numbered "yellow tag" from the property owner.

Large kangaroos (reds and greys) can only be killed with a rifle (wallabies and such can be taken with a shotgun). The Code recommends an expanding projectile with a minimum weight of 50 gr and a minimum muzzle energy of 1137 ft-lbs (.222 Remington or larger (most hunters/processors use .223 these days due to its relative low cost and easy availability)). As kangaroos have a relatively small brain, mounted high in their heads, the only approved shot placement is towards the upper back of the head and both the shooter and the kangaroo need to be stationary at the time of the shot. The code also recommends that the rifle be zeroed daily before hunting kangaroos. The hunter must ensure that the kangaroo is dead before shooting at another kangaroo. If the kangaroo is a female, the hunter must inspect the pouch for joeys. If a joey is present, it is to be shot or bludgeoned.

While many see the hunting of kangaroos as barbaric, it should be noted that they are a fast-growing species and due to modern farming practices (which open up fields for grazing and the easy access to dams and other water), kangaroo populations can expand rapidly and reach plague proportions.

Meat Generally, only the upper legs or tail are taken for meat, due to the relatively low meat content of the rest of the kangaroo. On rural properties, this is often used to feed dogs. In some areas, kangaroos are prone to intestinal worms and should be inspected prior to consumption.

References Code of Practice for Humane Shooting of Kangaroos, The (Australian National Parks & Wildlife Service, Canberra, 1990). A Guide to Hunting & Shooting in Australia (Geoff Smith, 1999) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Road Danger

Unlike most animals, which tend to show some caution around roads, kangaroos appear to have little understanding or regard for the danger presented by them. Kangaroos are a significant hazard on rural roads in Australia (although they have been known to make their way into inner suburbs as well on occasion). They are particularly hazardous at dusk or dawn (when they are most active) and especially during times of drought, where they tend to travel large distances in search of water. During one particular drought, I personally observed a dead kangaroos on the side of the highway (Barrier Highway), no less than 5 meters apart over a 585 km journey (Dubbo to Broken Hill (Easter long weekend)). The eagles were all very well fed that year. Sometimes while traveling down country roads with fences on either side, kangaroos will zig-zag down the road in front of the car. They will often match speed with the vehicle, staying 20 meters or so ahead and will make little effort to cross the fence. They may suddenly double back or behave erratically at this point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:05, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the grey kangaroo the most common known one?

The article states that the Grey Kangaroo is not well known outside of Australia. This is not sourced, and not true. I just realized there was a species called Red Kangaroo, and knew the grey varieties existed. Tinynanorobots (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Is Macroprodidae, should be Macropodidae In chapter Kangoroos vs. Wallabies

In chapter Kangoroos vs. Wallabies Is Macroprodidae Should be Macropodidae (talk) 16:24, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 18:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: add links to kazakh and russian pages

There are articles in kazakh ( and russian ( languages.--DefaultLocale (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added them. Thank you! Qwyrxian (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

lol,kazakhs? Isn't it Borat related country? (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


when a kangaroo has been castrated , does it affect how tall or large he will get??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Common myth?

Kangaroos or kangaroo are one of the rare few that keep their baby's for more than 2 years. Is there a reason for this section to be so prominent, or exist at all? There is no reference for this myth, nor that it is common. The writing also seems more like a parable than an encyclopedia. I think that the article would be stronger without this paragraph.Bob98133 (talk) 04:33, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about the 'kangaroo'-'I don't understand' myth? Ashmoo (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if it wasn't clear. It's this section in Terminology that seems odd:
A common myth about the kangaroo's English name is that it came from the Aboriginal words for "I don't understand you." According to this legend, Captain James Cook and naturalist Sir Joseph Banks were exploring Australia when they happened upon the animal. They asked a nearby local what the creatures were called. The local responded "Kangaroo", meaning "I don't understand you", which Cook took to be the name of the creature. In 1892, the "Kangaroo" story was connected to the 1808 poem Mounseer Nongtongpaw, where the character John Bull refusal to learn French led him to believe that the French "Monsieur, je vous n'entends pas" ("Monsieur, I don't understand you") was pronounced "Mounseer Nongtongpaw" and that Mounseer Nongtongpaw was a mysterious beautiful woman.[9] The Kangaroo myth was debunked in the 1970s by linguist John B. Haviland.[10]
I think the article would be better without it. Bob98133 (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Well I have heard the story told many times and a quick google of 'Kangaroo' and 'I don't understand' will bring up many pages that repeat the myth as fact (as well as debunking sites). However, you are correct that the story as it stands in the article in not well sourced. Ashmoo (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Ashmoo - your rewrite is much more concise. Bob98133 (talk) 01:29, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

So, hang on, granted it doesn’t mean ‘I don’t understand you’ … But what does the word ‘kangaroo’ mean … ?Cuddy2977 (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
See Terminology. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 21:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Kangaroo's Diet

I found a footage of a kangaroo eating dead bird's meat, dating from November 22, 2013. The text here on kangaroo's diet states that they are 'strict herbivores', but this questions this fact. Could someone please add a new sentence or rephrase the current one so that, in reference to this video (use this video as a reference), this article states that very rare cases are known where kangaroos have eaten meat? I'm not very good at phrasing formal sentences, so it'd be good if someone with more experience did it. Thanks! The link: since it's on YouTube, and Wikipedia doesn't allow YouTube links, paste this after's URL: /watch?v=nMVvm8sDGXM

Bye! Boky (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you posted on my Talk page asking me to come here, I shall. You seem to misunderstand the issue of YouTube references being unacceptable as sources. The point is that if YouTube is the only source, not only is that source unacceptable, we also cannot include the content. Hence my removal of it. If the claim you apparently saw in the video is true, I'm sure some more scientific journal or even mainstream traditional media should have covered it by now. Try Google. HiLo48 (talk) 08:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I understand that it is WP policy not to allow YouTube postings, however, I believe this is not an absolute "ban". Most of my edits are related to animal behaviour and sometimes a video example is the best way of informing readers. For example, on the Tool use (animals) article I posted a YouTube video of a corvid repeatedly sliding down a snow covered roof on a tray! I have been unable to find a reputable source mentioning this behaviour, other than the video. However, unless the video has been manipulated in some way, it shows exactly that. I think the problem arises when people try to interpret animal behaviour from the videos. I have not seen the video of the kangaroo eating, but can we be sure it is meat that it is eating and that the kangaroo actually ingests it?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:40, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I have viewed the video now. It does appear that the kangaroo is orally manipulating a bird-like object, however, it does not show that the kangaroo is eating (i.e. swallowing) the bird or its parts. In addition, it does not show that the kangaroo is actually eating meat - it could be selecting and eating partly digested plant material previously eaten by the bird.__DrChrissy (talk) 11:55, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Unecessary Clarifications

In "Social and sexual behaviour" we see:

  • Oestrous females roam widely and attract the attention of males with {conspicuous signals}[clarify].[35]
  • ...the male will continue by licking, pawing, and scratching her, and copulation will follow.[clarification needed][19]
  • Consort pairing may take several days and the {copulation is also long}[clarify].

Please forgive me, but what, exactly, is unclear in these three statements? I'm only 66yo, but my youthful inexperience still permits me to join the dots without adult help—surely other readers have the same educational standard? Or is this a Kindergarten class? (talk) 13:47, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Well after a hard day of finger-painting at Kindergarten, I might want it clarified to know what are the conspicuous signals and how long is copulation in this animal.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. What does a "conspicuous signal" consist of in a kangaroo? Does she leap high into the air and turn somersaults? That would be a conspicuous signal. It's hard to imagine what other conspicuous signal a kangaroo could make. And what does a long copulation mean? Do these animals go at it for hours on end? And what does it mean by "also long"? A pairing of days isn't particularly long for mammals, where some species pair for life and many pair for the entire breeding season. So what does " "also long" even refer to? Does it suggest that the animals copulate for days on end? Or that copulation is as long compared to the pairing period as it is for mammals that pair for months at a time, so lasts just a few seconds? None of this seems very clear to me. But then, I'm a country boy and never went to kindergarten.Mark Marathon (talk) 22:25, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps the length of copulation could use specification. But surely the "conspicuous signals" are abundantly clear. They are the "licking, pawing, scratching," etc. that are enumerated. How much more clearly does this need to be spelled out? Zenomax (talk) 22:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
I suggest you read the article again more carefully. The "conspicuous signals" term relates to roaming females whereas the licking, pawing and scratching relates to the male. Clarification is still needed.__DrChrissy (talk) 09:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 April 2015

Kangaroos are not strict herbivores as this video clearly indicates I think they should be given the status of "opportunistic omnivores" rather than as strict herbivores. Thus the change should be from " although all are strict herbivores" to "although kangaroos are considered to be herbivorous, opportunistic scavenging of animal carcasses have been noted" with a relevant link to the video. PoetDog (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion however a youtube clip is not scientific evidence and as the animals digestive and behavioral systems are that of a strict herbivore the actions of one individual should not be used to judge or classify an entire species/genus. Regards ZooPro 12:30, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Geographic or political locale

Should the sentence "Kangaroos are endemic to the continent of Australia, while the smaller macropods are found in Australia and New Guinea." be corrected to something like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent including the island of New Guinea." (talk) 22:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It currently reads "Kangaroos are endemic to the country of Australia. The smaller macropods are found in Australia and New Guinea." This is unclear wording. After my removal of "the country of", and a reversion, I had to do some research to figure out what relevant distinction there was to draw between country vs. continent. The current phrasing isn't working - "the country of" dangles like a loose thread instead of just telling you what it wants to say. "Country of Australia" is technically correct, but fails to inform the reader. How about "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia and Tasmania"? (Should Australia there link to country or continent?) I think the IP's suggestion is good too. -- stillnotelf is invisible 17:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

""The term "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia and Tasmania" is considered erroneous and it would only be a matter of time before someone corrected it. I like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent including the island of New Guinea" as it confirms that both the mainland and Tasmania have them, and allows the subsequent sentence to show that there is a difference in the types of kangaroo in the three locations - mainland, Tasmania, and New Guinea. However, it should be changed at the end to read "as well as" the island of New Guinea, rather than "including". So my suggestion is - Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania, while smaller macropods are found across the Australian continent as well as the island of New Guinea.--Dmol (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Saying "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian mainland and island of Tasmania" has the obvious flaw that they also exist on other islands, most obviously Kangaroo Island, but also many others. HiLo48 (talk) 03:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have just deleted the latter part of the sentence in question. In hindsight, I might have been a bit quick to do this, however, I reiterate that this is not discussed in the article so possibly should remain deleted. Are there kangaroos on New Guinea - I am thinking of tree kangaroos, but these are not mentioned in the article. Please reveert deltion if you wish, but I think it needs to be expanded upon in the article.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This was a year ago and may have changed since but here's the current situation. "Kangaroos are endemic to Australia, and one genus, the tree-kangaroo, is also found in Papua New Guinea.". The links have been removed but the two relevant to this discussion go to the articles on the states (the Australian Commonwealth and PNG). So, the issue raised here is still not solved. The states which lay claim to the territory in question is not what's relevant here. Kangaroos are endemic to the continent of Australia (the mainland, Tassy, New Guinea & other islands). This is what's relevant. I'd suggest something more like "Kangaroos are endemic to the Australian continent, though only one genus, the tree-kangaroo, found in New Guinea.". Jimp 11:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, the tree-kangaroo doesn't fit the definition of "kangaroo" given in the article (specifically that they are the large macropods). So, the tree-kangaroo is therefore just an aside: it's related and has "kangaroo" in its name but isn't a kangaroo (just like a starfish isn't a fish, a dwarf planet isn't a planet, a dragonfly isn't a fly and a creation scientist isn't a scientist). We need not go into the specifics of which islands they are found on. We can simply say "Australia" and link to the continent. Jimp 13:35, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Tree kangaroos

Why are tree kangaroos not mentioned in this article? Is there perhaps a taxonomic reason why they are not considered to be kangaroos?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The term "kangaroo" hasn't got any taxonomic basis. It's just based on size. The tree-kangaroo isn't an actual kangaroo but is still worth a mention. This is a year later but it does have a mention now. Jimp 13:18, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. If the term "kangaroo" hasn't got any taxonomic basis and it's just based on size, I think this really needs to be made clearer in the article.DrChrissy (talk) 13:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I think you're right. Jimp 00:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
To add to this discussion, an orphaned tree-kangaroo joey was transferred to the pouch of a surrogate yellow-foot rock-wallaby, at Adelaide Zoo, when his mother was killed by a falling branch in November last year. The joey survived, having been successfully reared by the surrogate mother wallaby.[7]. Figaro (talk) 08:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
This is interesting but I don't see what it's supposed to add to the discussion. Jimp 12:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
It illustrates that tree-kangaroos belong to the same group of marsupials as kangaroos and wallabies - which I thought was being discussed here. Figaro (talk) 05:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought the original question was based on a different assumption: not just that tree-kangaroos and kangaroos are of the same family but that tree-kangaroos are kangaroos. Kangaroos, wallaroos, wallabies, tree-kangaroos, etc. are all macropods but what makes tree-kangaroos worthy of a special mention on this page is that they have "kangaroo" in their name. Note, though, that they also have a hyphen: "tree-kangaroo" vs "red kangaroo" and "grey kangaroo". Compare this to the distinction often made with true flies vs other "flies" e.g. "crane fly", "robber fly", "bee fly", "moth fly", "fruit fly", etc. vs "butterfly", "stonefly", "dragonfly", "scorpionfly", "sawfly", "caddisfly", "whitefly", etc. Just as a butterfly isn't actually a fly, a tree-kangaroo isn't actually a kangaroo, but just as butterflies get a mention on the Fly page, tree-kangaroos are worth a special mention here. Jimp 05:00, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Butterflies get a mention in the context of "they are not flies, they just have 'fly' in their name", and I think that is the tack we need to use here. If we include tree kangaroos because they have "kangaroo" in their name, then we will need to include rat kangaroos as well. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be about what the average person wants to read when searching on a term. I doubt that many people searching for kangaroos want information on tree kangaroos and bettongs. This is a common problem in Wikipedia articles about poorly defined subjects. Someone always wants to include "underground trees" in the tree article or "prairie dogs" in the dog article. What we need to do is find a reliable source that defines what a bog-standard kangaroo is and use that definition. We can then follow the fly article and include a simple sentence to the effect that "While a variety of animals such as kangaroo rats, tree kangaroos and rat kangaroos have the word 'kangaroo' in their name they are not kangaroos". Mark Marathon (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
A single sentence like that sounds about right. Jimp 06:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm glad you guys are seeing the point here. I would agree with the single sentence, but perhaps emphasise the tree-kangaroo by moving this to the first example. I'm afraid the distinction is also not made clear at Tree-kangaroo where it states in the lead - "Tree-kangaroos are the only true arboreal members of the kangaroo family". Maybe it is me, but I find this highly misleading.DrChrissy (talk) 11:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2015

The kangaroo is not actually of 'least concern', as this wikipedia page states, but is a 'vulnerable species', according to the world animal foundation and numerous other sites. Source: (talk) 02:51, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Wikipedia uses the IUCN Red List, which lists all 4 species commonly known as kangaroos as "least concern" Cannolis (talk) 12:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Kangaroo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to
  • Added archive to

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Evidence of predation

Their ears rotate, so they have a history of predation. has anyone written about what preyed on them, the goanna or the marsupial lion? their current behaviors show they are still reacting to threats of predation, from their evolutionary history.2602:304:CFD0:6350:8C97:25D:ED22:D176 (talk) 03:24, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Left handed, are they? RippleSax (talk) 23:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

clearer answer to visitors coming here with "what does kangaroo mean" question

Currently, the article says "The word "kangaroo" derives from the Guugu Yimithirr word gangurru, referring to grey kangaroos."

This is actually quite tricky for a non-native englishspeaker. It means "the Guugu Yimithirr call the animal 'gangurru', and this has become kangaroo in English".

But what does it actually MEAN? The article doesn't say. And you need a fairly high level of reading comprehension to conclude gangurru is a proper noun. We should probably state outright we don't have any information on how the Guugu Yimithirr came to invent this word.

Compare to the fictitious entry: the Guugu Yimithirr call the animal gangurru because that's the sound you make when it punches you with its strong hind legs.

Here we have an immediately obvious answer to the question, that doesn't hide behind non-simple language constructs.

TL;DR: I propose we make it clear 1) the word comes from what the Guugu Yimithirr call the animal and 2) no, we don't know what that means, if indeed it means something*.

CapnZapp (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ "The Anguish Of Wildlife Ethics" in "New Formations" (Doi:10.3898/NewF.76.08.2012) 2012, Freya Mathews [8]
Retrieved from ""
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia :
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:Kangaroo/Archive 1"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA