Talk:Red Fox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Dogs
Dogs Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dogs, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it needs.
Vietnam Portal

This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Red Fox as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Norwegian or Ukrainian language Wikipedias.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Introduced to North America?

From Fox hunting an editor has deleted "It has also been suggested that he imported 24 red foxes from England[1] because the red fox was not indigenous to North America. The "he" in question is Robert Brooke, Sr. The editor claims the suggestion is not true. Can anyone here shed light on this? --Una Smith (talk) 19:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Introduction and Range Expansion of Nonnative Red Foxes (Vulpes vulpes) in California; Jeffrey C. Lewis, Kevin L. Sallee, Richard T. Golightly, Jr.; American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 142, No. 2 (Oct., 1999), pp. 372-381 has some interesting cites. MikeHobday (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That would make at least 2 introductions of European foxes to North America, but does not address the question is the red fox native to North America? It is not an either/or question. --Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Correction, nonnative does not mean introduced from Europe; per maps, it is a range expansion from fox populations to the north. Someone who has the Am Mid Nat article in hand please add details. --Una Smith (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Per this, European red foxes established in SE US were introduced from the SE US to California. So, as far as known, one introduction to the US. --Una Smith (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed from the article because specious reasoning:

Evidence of at least one high-altitude adapted population of red foxes in the Rocky Mountains, it is suggested, may at least support claims of its nativity.[2]

--Una Smith (talk) 02:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Most red foxes in America now are hybrids of native populations and European imports. Dark hyena (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What would have been the position prior to 1650? Were there (many) red foxes prior to English fox hunters coming to America? MikeHobday (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Per this article, red fox fur was a very valuable commodity among native American tribes in Colonial times. Also, conservation ecology sources note its preferred habitat is the edge zone between woods and meadows. Before introduction of European farming to North America, such edge zones were scarce. So, for both reasons, during the early Colonial period in eastern North America the red fox would have been scarce. --Una Smith (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Most red foxes in America now are hybrids of native populations and European imports." Citation? --Una Smith (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

What interested me about [1] was the front page citing Presnall (1958) and Churcher (1959) about introductions to the Eastern seaboard. The Presnall article is at [2] and says:
"Red foxes were introduced numerous times from Enmgland between 1650 and 1750 and may have become naturalized or crossed with our native red foxes. The survey did not contirbute any new information on the debateable question of whether present fox populations .. are entirely native, a mixture of native and introduced animals, or entirely from introduced animals as deduced by Gilmore (1946)."
Churcher is at [3] and says that there are records of European red foxes into New York, Maryland and Virginia in colonial times.MikeHobday (talk) 15:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Paleo history

For the fossil record of the red fox in North America before humans, see this book on Google Books. --Una Smith (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Falkland Islands

This website states red fox introduced to Falkland Islands, citing:

MacDonald, D., J. Reynolds. 2005. "Red fox (Vulpes vulpes)" (On-line). IUCN Canid Specialist Group. Accessed September 27, 2007 at http://www.canids.org/species/Vulpes_vulpes.htm.

--Una Smith (talk) 15:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] National Fox Welfare Society as a source

The National Fox Welfare Society is a group that advocates for foxes and provides care, and is not a reliable scientific source. If you want to assert exact percentages of the affect of foxes on sheep, then either use a peer reviewed scientific source or government agricultural stats. Don't use a biased website that lobbies for foxes. VanTucky 00:12, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair point, replaced the book review with the book. Pity the detail's been lost, but there you go. MikeHobday (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Conservation problems of feral foxes in Australia

An anon editor repeatedly replaces sourced material with reports of a Tasmanian police report and unattributed statements by "conservationists", most recently attributed to the Tasmanian Parliamentary Hansard. I have removed these edits for the following reasons:

  • Tasmanian Police are not experts in the ecology of foxes, rather in the investigation of crime.
  • Their report is dated 1991, reports of foxes in Tasmania have continued after that date.
  • Unattributed statements by "conservationists" are weasel words, conveying a POV.
  • Hansard is not a reliable source for information. Hansard is a record of what members of Parliament say in Parliament, and can thus be used to quote the opinions of members of Parliament, but nothing else.

--Michael Johnson (talk) 01:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Tasmania Police investigation into the alleged introduction into Tasmania of fox cubs in 1998 and 1999 actually began on the 20th June 2001,not 1991. No evidence of the alleged introductions was found to corroborate these allegations. A letter confirming this was sent to the Deputy Commisioner of Police on the 17th of July 2001.
  • Hansard is a true and precise record of the spoken word in the Parliament under the Westminster system. It is a serious offence to answer questions asked in the Parliament untruthfully.
  • According to the Hansard of the the Tasmanian Legislative Council dated the 30th October 2007,the question asked was what animals have been photographed at Tasmanian fox bait sites. The answer given by the leader of the house was; animals photographed at 1080 fox bait sites have been,Tasmanian Devil,Quoll,feral cat,echidnas,wombats and brushtail possums.

Diplodwatcher (talk) 03:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Diplodwatcher (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] admin here?

If there is an admin here, could they contact me re a legal threat against me by another editor on ths page. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:56, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

If someone's made legal threats, you need to take it to the appropriate talk space (which isn't this one, WP:AN is a good place to start). VanTucky 01:10, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It looks like the anon may be a BigPond user as 124.180.x.x (which is within the range 124.176.0.0 - 124.191.255.255) is owned by Telestra, which operates BigPond, one of the larger ISPs in Australia. If you point them to the history of Red Fox, they may be able to determine who it was and deal with them, though you should contact them quickly in case they don't keep their logs for very long. This person's actions are likely against the BigPond Terms of Use (specifically the section titled "What you must not do"). See here and here for whois info on the IPs this guy has used. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:58, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Eating habits Red Fox

I just watched a young red fox eat my neighbors bird seed wreath that had fallen to the ground. I would include seeds to the diet. Especially in the spring, it's one of the few things available at the moment. I live in the city next to a tiny wooded area in Augusta GA.

G fracasg@yahoo.com Fracasg (talk) 01:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Red Fox vs red fox

I have updated the article in line with the Manual of Style guidelines on naming. This was reverted on the basis of 'current consensus', but i have changed it back as I can't find any evidence of this past a few comments in the archive talk for this page, which would be overruled by the MOS.

In either case Red Fox and red fox were used interchangeably in the article, and that isn't acceptable - you have to choose one or the other, and the MOS style is for lowercase. That said, any comments are welcome. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 17:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I've been in nearly all the discussions, and althought MOS is currently worded as it is, more recent dicussions have said "if we can't come to a consensus on upper or lower, then we shouldn't change the case at all". there is a proposal in the works in the greater scientific community to move to official comomn names, and for those names to be capitalized. Wikipedia should catch this wave and ride it and be pro-capitalization. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
One of the recent discussions (and this one I *wasn't* involved in) is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Capitalisation_of_Common_Names_-_Komodo_Dragon_vs._Komodo_dragon, which includes a link to the scientific proposal. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Owain, UtherSRG is right about the trend (but i also think he has a 'revert first and explain later' policy of his own that he needs to revise).... anyway yes: per discussion at WP Mammals) -- and wikiprojects prevail over MOS on topics under their umbrella -- we stick with the direction the entry was already going, which, when i look back, does seem to be caps. - Metanoid (talk, email) 18:50, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I have been involved in several of these discussions on caps, and firmly believe that it is a major distraction to the flow of the text, and detrimental to article quality. I'll look at the debate above, but it has already been had numerous times in various forums, usually with a no caps outcome. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 21:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Migrated to Japan?

This article asserts that the Japanese red fox migrated to Japan... um, how? They couldn't possibly have swam the distance from the Asian mainland to Japan. Obvious explanation is that they arrived there on human ships, either intentionally introduced, or like rats, accidentally introduced if they stowed away on ships. Either way, "migration" suggests a completely natural occurence which it couldn't possibly have been... should this be corrected or at least stated more clearly to give a more accurate impression of the species' movements?

Other remote possibility, was there some sort of land and/or ice brisge that could have possibly connected the Asian mainland to Sakhalin Island, to Japan? Seems a stretch... but it's the only way I can see foxes getting from the Asian mainland to Japan without human help...

67.165.206.55 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC) your mom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.237.227 (talk) 23:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Size (length)

There are many mentions of measurements of parts of the fox but no direct measurement for its length AQ 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Good point. Added. --Michael Johnson (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Ok good information to have AQ 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)