Talk:Sugar glider

Archive 1: 04:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1 created: ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

To do (Additions to list are welcome)

Done — Socialization

Add Social subheading to Biology and behavior section Move appropriate items Expand  Doing... ... coming soon -- (eventually) Assistance welcomed! ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Potential sources: Behavior of Exotic Pets; (ed.) Valarie V. Tynes; John Wiley & Sons, Sep 7, 2010 - 248 pages; ISBN 0813800781, 9780813800783 ~ See: pp. 183-184 Wildlife Queensland[1] Quote: "Sugar gliders live in large groups during winter to conserve energy and these large groups disband during the summer months." Helium article; (www.helium.com) item: 1354261-animal-facts-sugar-glider ~ An excellent article for "background" - but not citable. I am having 2nd thoughts about this source. I suspect the author watched 'Meerkat Manor' and extrapolated. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC) Physiology & Behavior. 1994 Jun;55(6):1131-4. Behavioral and endocrinological correlates of social status in the male sugar glider (Petaurus breviceps Marsupialia: Petauridae).[2] - Mallick J, Stoddart DM, Jones I, Bradley AJ. Source: Department of Zoology, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia. Abstract: "Socially dominant male sugar gliders are heavier than socially subordinate males, have higher plasma testosterone and lower cortisol concentrations, win more social encounters, scan the arena more, scent-mark more, and are more active and move more quickly, even though they spend more time in the colony nesting box. When they are transferred into a foreign stable colony there is an impressive reversal of behavioral measures and a concomitant decrease in concentration of plasma testosterone and rise in cortisol that is apparent over the first 3 weeks of observation." ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Smith, M. "Peraurus Breviceps," Mammalian Species, no. 30, pp. 1-5, The American Society of Mammalogists, June 13, 1973 Schultze-Westrum, T.G.; "Social communication by chemical signals in flying phalangers (Petaurus breviceps papuanus)"; Pp. 269-277, in Olfaction and taste (C. Pfaffman, ed.) Rockefeller University Press, New York; 1969 Jackson, Stephen M.; “Habitat relationships of the mahogany glider, Petaurus gracilis, and the sugar glider, Petaurus breviceps;” Wildlife Research 27, 39–48; 2000. Wilson, E.O.; Sociobiology, The New Synthesis, p. 205, 206, Harvard University Press, ISBN 0-674-00089-7, (c) 1975 Efficacy Of Scent Masking ... [pdf] - "Sugar Gliders are susceptible to a variety of stress related maladies." ~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC) OberonNightSeer (talk) 08:38, 7 October 2012 (UTC) Good suggestion, working on it.

Misc:

• Several refs are simply weblinks and need to be formatted.
• Photo(s) should be found showing S-glider within native setting, and/or while gliding.
• The range/distribution is slightly inconsistent between the lead [Brit: lede] and the article.

The lead should be slightly less specific, i.e.: ...and various associated islands.

The article should be more specific regarding islands, etc. -- Btw, I'm having a hard time verifying Indonesia based on available data. ~E 74.60.29.141 ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)   ~E

• Predators ~E:(talk) 11:04, 19 October 2012 (UTC)   ~E
• Find Temporal range (Fossil range) for taxobox, e.g.: {{Fossil range|Pleistocene|Recent}}~E74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC) There currently seems to be insufficient sample size for determining 'Temporal range' (3-7 specimens from reliably datable strata) ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:50, 28 October 2012 (UTC) ... but still looking into the matter. ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:56, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Resolved  – Article is up-to-date with current status — "Further research" needs to be monitored. 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Is the complete taxon classification necessary? -- It takes up a lot of room, and there is an external link. I clarified the infobox/map regarding subspecies. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:36, 8 October 2012 (UTC) I'll edit the complete taxon to only include the major divisions. I'm a little concerned about the sub-species information given, and am looking at the issue. OberonNightSeer (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2012 (UTC) Made table for Taxonomy section, edited divisions, small change to P.gracilis, added wiki-links to Other P. species. Table looks a bit wonky, suggestions welcome. Reduces space used for this section. OberonNightSeer (talk) 01:35, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Interesting "issue" regarding P. biacensis (Biak Glider) -- it seems to have been classified as a species in 1940, but most "reliable sources" have it as a P. breviceps subspecies, or at least state that there are 7 subspecies of Sugar glider. But it seems there are only 6 -- but wait... there's more: if... "P. b. tafa (Tate & Archbold, 1935, considered a synonym of P. breviceps)" ...wouldn't that make it 5 subspecies? If this is right, then most of the rest of the world is wrong. What about the map? Should there be an asterisk* or something,[see note 1] with a cited discussion in the article? See also:[3] ~Eric F Preceding forgot to sign, but corrected oversight: 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC) Hey Eric, nice to get a name associated with your edits. It's a jumbled mess for sure as regards classification. I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row before more changes here. P. biacensis (Biak Glider) may get even more controversial, see this info: "Helgen (2007) states that Petaurus biacensis is likely to be conspecific with P. breviceps. P. biacensis appears to differ from the latter mainly by having a higher incidence of melanism (Helgen 2007). We provisionally retain P. biacensis as a separate species pending further taxonomic work, thus following what has become standard treatment (e.g., Flannery 1994, 1995; Groves 2005)."[4] I've read an abstract that may indicate that there are only 3 sub-species of P. breviceps, I don't know if I want to spend the $50 to buy the article yet, maybe my University library has the issue. The map will probably need to be changed eventually, and documented, I say let's wait til a consensus is reached, if that's possible. Asterisks or notes that point out the issues now are probably appropriate. I'll work on these. OberonNightSeer (talk) 10:46, 9 October 2012 (UTC) I've added 2 ref-notes for subspecies in question on the range map -- but this might need more work / clarification / sourcing, etc. ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:48, 18 October 2012 (UTC) My best effort indicates, (current as of November 16, 2005; "The database will be updated when revisions are complete"): There are four [P. b.] subspecies: breviceps - Syn: notatus Peters, 1859 ariel - Syn: arul Gervais, 1869 longicaudatus - Syn: n/a papuanus - Syn: flavidus Tate and Archbold, 1935; tafa Tate and Archbold, 1935 Note: flavidus = papaunus - needs ref-note + cite. Database:[5] Wilson & Reeder's Mammal Species of the World : 3rd Edition : National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution  : Online Taxon browser (id: 554) ←See comments.  Done: I did some annotation that should adequately describe the current ambiguous situation. 74.60.29.141 (talk) 09:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC) - But still need to clarify: flavidus = papaunus. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2012 (UTC) Taxonomic history table Would the following be useful, misleading, or trivial? ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC) Year Taxonomic history [6] Name / synonym Author 1839 P. (Belideus) breviceps Waterhouse 1859 P. (Belideus) notatus Peters 1945 P. kohlsi Troughton 1973 P. breviceps Smith That's what "| synonyms = " in the taxobox at the top is for. Just list them in the taxobox, and if you have sources, you can talk about the taxonomic history in detail... if you're up for it. – Maky « talk » 21:18, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Domesticated vs. Wild

Per the recent edit war with 74.60.29.141, we need to discuss the following statement made in the article:

"Around the world, the sugar glider is popular as a domesticated exotic pet..."

Resolved

Per the source for this statement, it starts by saying: "The practice of importing and exporting wild animals as pets has been happening for decades..." Domestication is a process that species undergo by being bred in captivity for long periods of times (arguably hundreds or even thousands of years). Exotic pets are animals that are *wild* species not typically kept as pets. Therefore "domesticated exotic pet" is an oxymoron. And as I said, the statement disagrees with the source, which goes at length to make the case that these are not domestic animals—they are wild animals with special needs that cannot be provided in a domestic setting: "...so life in a domestic environment isn't going to satisfy their natural desires." For this reason, I have removed the word "domesticated" from the statement. – Maky « talk » 02:18, 12 October 2012 (UTC) My only consideration here is "domesticated" vs. "domestication". While my argument is largely semantic, to say "domesticated ... exotic" is "oxymoronic" is false logic. A domesticated exotic animal is differentiated from an exotic animal in the sense that it is : any of various animals (as the horse or sheep) domesticated so as to live and breed in a tame condition[7] : (of an animal, especially a pet) Tame, naturalized.[8] : tame, broken (in), trained, pet, tamed, house-trained (Brit.), house-broken (U.S.) our domesticated animals and plants[9] : et cetera. However, you could make an argument that "domesticated ... pet" is redundant. Note: domesticated is not to be confused with domestication. Note also that "wild" is not synonymous with "exotic". Also, I did not add that word, just changed from "domestic" for the sake of grammar. By the way, this is not a hill on which I choose to die on; if a separate citation is required, that's fine -- or remove with cause is fine. If you want to get etymological, "domesticated" would be something like "made suitable for a home". ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Frankly, expanding a bit about ..special needs that cannot be provided in a domestic setting: "...so life in a domestic environment isn't going to satisfy their natural desires." - sounds like a good idea. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC) And the only reason I changed "domestic" to "domesticated" was to allow a link to exotic pet which has much information of the sort that you (and I, for that matter) feel is important regarding such things as illegal pet trade, drawbacks of exotic pet ownership, etc. But, now that I've reviewed exotic pet... it does not contain as much information as it probably should -- but that page is where this subject should be expanded. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Don't worry, I don't have the power to "kill", so you can't "die" over this. Anyway, I'm glad to see that we agree on this issue. Exotic pet and animal rights articles can become hotly contested. They are worth fighting over, but I will only do it when I have a collaboration team to back me up for complete re-writes, which is more my style of editing anyway. I should also note that I'm not familiar with the content of the article, but I do monitor it for vandalism and slanted edits. Taken at a glance, I misunderstood your intentions. I do see what you're saying. The semantics of this argument are definitely finer than I was considering. Thank you for explaining. Calling them "domestic exotic pets" still makes me very wary. It can be interpreted wrong, as I just demonstrated. (I will also note that although, by definition, "wild" and "exotic" are not synonymous, critics of the exotic pet trade often interpreted them that way.) I guess explain to me why "domesticated" is needed in that sentence. Couldn't "household" work as an adjective? I think it would be obvious that they would live in the house if they were a pet. Whether this species can be completely tamed or house-broken is another matter. I also realize now that an image caption reads: "Mealworms are a favorite food for some domestic gliders." I guess if it's used sparingly, I'm fine with it. – Maky « talk » 04:59, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Just another nit-picky fine point: "domestic" is different from "domesticated" the former implies an inherent condition, whereas the latter implies a prior change of condition. They are not inherently "suitable for the household" but have been changed to be that way. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:14, 12 October 2012 (UTC) Is the average reader going to understand these fine distinctions, especially when people can be so sharply divided over this issue? Normally, I'm all for challenging and expanding the reader's vocabulary. But in this case, things can be misconstrued, and when critical misunderstandings are possible, I tend to opt for clearer language. But that's just me. You're welcome to read how we discussed the exotic pet trade on Slow loris, Conservation of slow lorises, and the various species articles. Words like "domesticated" or "domestic" were not on our radar at all. (We did refer to "domestic trade", however.) Word choice can be very important—in fact, I just wrote an entire article (Strepsirrhini) in order to address the mass confusion on terms that can be found even in the academic literature. No one is immune to the misuse and misunderstanding of terms. Anyway, I'll let you do as you like here since I trust your intentions, but I just want to urge some caution. – Maky « talk » 05:21, 12 October 2012 (UTC)  Done ~Eric the Read 74.60.29.141 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

As a pet

This topic is likely to resurface; rather than starting from scratch, I will attempt to summarize the discussion thus-far:

Judging from the archived entries and 'Viewer feedback', readers would like to see more information relating to them as pets. The consensus among editors seems to be that more specific information on the subject would be inappropriate for this article. It has been suggested that a separate article be created for sugar gliders as pets. If created, this article would require careful scrutiny to avoid it becoming a pet care guide or advice column. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with discussing them as pets, as long as it makes mention of conservation issues, if they are collected or bred in captivity (or both), the special nature of their diet and what happens when they are fed improperly, what typically happens when they are abandoned, and the behavioral issues they might have (e.g. they are nocturnal, so their sleep cycle conflicts with most pet owners). It should also be noted that they are a very popular exotic pet, and if statistics are available, that would be great. What a lot of people want from the "Viewer feedback" is a how-to guide for caring for one, or information on where to buy one, even if they don't state it explicitly. However, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual, so if they are looking for that, then they need to go elsewhere. So unless there is a mountain of information out there regarding the kinds of points I just listed, all of it can go into this article. At this point, I would strongly oppose the creation of a new article. Otherwise I strongly encourage you to thoroughly research the pet topic and write up something comprehensive. 21:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Information from reliable sources needs to be added, before too many editors with good intentions put up a lot of [other stuff]. Perhaps there could be a non-live auxiliary page for compiling information to be added? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:32, 2 November 2012 (UTC) Talk:Sugar glider/Pet ←Page created - See handy-dandy button (section title, above) 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Please feel free to edit that workpage at will, and/or leave comments, suggestions, etc. here. ~Thanks, ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 02:52, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't want to discourage the addition of cited material for this section - please do! However, for information to be sourced later (perhaps), please use the workpage link (above), ~thanks, ~Eric F Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC) Note: workpage has been tagged for "speedy deletion". Comments here: Talk:Sugar_glider/Pet#Contested deletion Resolved. 74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:23, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

New image

I've added a new image, but am not thrilled with it. Sugar glider nest, in eucalyptus tree hollow John Gould, 1861 in 'Conservation' section. At least it shows gliders in natural setting. Opinions? ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 10:27, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Teeth

Does anybody know how to make a dentition chart (Dental Formula)?

"Sugar gliders have an extremely unique dentition. 2(I 2 or 3/1 or 3 C 1/0 P 1 or 3/1 or 3 M 3 or 4/3 or 4). Their incisors are specialized for gouging the bark of trees, and are closed rooted."[10]

~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 05:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

See the template I made: {{DentalFormula}} – Maky ^« talk » 11:52, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

For

“2(I 2 or 3/1 or 3 C 1/0 P 1 or 3/1 or 3 M 3 or 4/3 or 4)”,
assuming x/y is upper/lower and X is x/x:

2.1.1.32.0.1.3 × 2 = 26 -or- 3.1.3.41.0.1.3 × 2 = 32 -or- 3.1.3.43.0.3.4 × 2 = 42
Somewhat confusing, but is this on the right track? - and what do you make of "-or-"? I have a feeling this is another area where "further study is needed." ~E:74.60.29.141 (talk) 00:20, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look closely at your example, but yes, it is very confusing. You are correct in that x/y is upper/lower. It's not uncommon for incisors and canines to be confused, and the same can be said for the premolars and molars. I'm not an expert on teeth, though I think there are 9 (x2) in the upper and 7 (x2) in the lower, giving a total of 32. I think the possible upper configurations are 2.1.3.3 or 3.1.1.4. The possible lower configurations would be 1.0.3.3 or 3.0.1.3. With at least 4 possible combinations, it may be best to avoid using a formula and just note in the text that the dental formula is debated. – Maky ^« talk » 05:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, indeed they have "extremely unique dentition"→[11]

A related infobit that should be included somewhere in the article: "...the Sugar Glider does not incise the tree to obtain sap, rather it chews the bark and visits incisions made by the Yellow-bellied Glider."[12] ~Eric F ^{» write «} Modified:74.60.29.141 (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I live in Richmond Va an i have 2 nest of SUGAR GLIDERS

iS IT COMMON TO HAVE SUGAR GLIDERS IN rICHMOND? I HAVE 2 HUGE NEST OF THEM LIVING IN A TREE IN MY BACK YARD RIGHT ABOVE MY FINCH FEEDER AND EVERY NITE THEY CRAWL DOWN ON IT AND TEAR HOLES IN THE MESH SOCKS THT FOOD IS IN. HOW DO YOU GET RID OF THEM? THEY JST SHOWED UP BOUT 2 NITE AGO...
Erniemac1213 (talk) 21:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

[blanks removed for readability]

Those are flying squirrels, (probably these). How do you get rid of them? -- If they're Virginia Northern flying squirrels [G. s. fuscus] then you don't, because they're endangered.

~E 71.20.250.51 (talk) 05:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sugar glider. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://veterinarycalendar.dvm360.com/avhc/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=638213&sk=&date=&%0A%09%09%09&pageID=5

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

legality as pets in NYC

My cited edit updating the legality of sugar gliders as pets in NYC was undone. I believe this was a mistake. The cited source states "No person shall sell or give to another person, possess, harbor, keep, or yard wild or other animals identified in this section." The list of illegal animal includes "(17)All marsupials, including, but not limited to... sugar and greater glider." I believe this is unambiguous to the legality of sugar gliders in NYC. Dbsseven (talk) 19:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay -- Sorry, I missed (§161.01; a:17). I undid my undo. --107.15.152.93 (talk) 00:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Endemism

We seem to have a misunderstanding of the meaning of endemism here. It merely means "restricted to a particular region", which allows applicability to any unit you would like - indeed, up to and including "planet Earth". While the latter would of course be pointless, describing an organism as endemic to bioregions, ecozones, or continents is entirely proper usage. In the case of the sugar glider, it is correctly described as endemic to mainland Australia and biogeographically associated islands.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The problems is that "endemic" refers to restricted to one region. You coud say SGs are endemic to the Australasian biogeographic region (albeit this is so broad that the term becomes basically meaningless); however, the expression "endemic to mainland Australia, New Guinea and certain Indonesian islands" makes no sense, nor does "endemic to both Australia and New Guinea" (incidentally, wikilinking the same definition twice is contrary to good wikipedia practices). The only expression that makes sense is "endemic to [one and only one particular region]". Why would we need that expression, anyway? If we remove it, people know nothing less about SGs. If we keep it in, in this context, we're just confusing people about endemism: pretty words are not a goal in themselves and keeping them in just because we can lawyer ourselves into the fact that they are technically correct is no good reason, either. complainer (talk) 10:45, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

the expression "endemic to mainland Australia, New Guinea and certain Indonesian islands" makes no sense, nor does "endemic to both Australia and New Guinea" - well yes, it does make sense. "Endemic to Matawi Tepui and Autana Tepui" would be perfectly acceptable and informative, even though there is no single collective name for just these two mountains among the local group of tepuis. To stay with bioregions, consider the fynbos, which is disjunct over various non-connected areas in South Africa. There are plenty of specialists that occur in all of these areas, in which case it is of course easy to say "endemic to fynbos"; but there are also plenty of species that occur in only a few of them, in which case a correct phrasing is "endemic to Table Mountain and the Hottentots Holland Mountains". In the same manner, a species occurring only in parts of the Australasian bioregion can be described as "endemic to Australia, New Guinea and some associated islands". - Your understanding of the usage is not representative, and I wouldn't ascribe the same misunderstanding to prospective readers.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Natural range map inaccurate

The natural range map is inaccurate, as it includes Tasmania as the natural range of P. brev.Ordinary Person (talk) 02:59, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, those are introduced (e.g. [13]). Hence I've removed "natural" from the range map descriptor. I think this may be preferable to having a map that excludes Tasmania, as the population is established. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:08, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Suga Glida — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.29.71.109 (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Photo Incorrect

The “sugar glider” in the top photo has a white tail tip, which would make it actually a photo of a Kreffts glider (see the section on distribution in the article on P. Notatus), and the misidentified photo should be replaced. 108.250.162.158 (talk) 23:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done I've restored the previous main image. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)