Talk:Tasmanian devil/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Capitalisation of Devil

Is "Devil" capitalised? At present, it is written as both "Devil" and "devil". I would have thought that since Tasmanian Devil is capitalised, so would be "Devil". That is my prefence anyways. A style needs to be chosen for consistency.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 14:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I've been using Devil where ever Tasmanian is there, you're right it shoudl all be capitalised.--nixie 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I cleaned up most of the numerous grammatical & sentence errors. I assumed it was not capitalized because it is an animal name (e.g. Bengal tiger, not Bengal Tiger). Make sure you are right before you change it all back. alteripse 01:04, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Blue Whale consistently uses all caps. Since there are no capitalisation standards, then as long as it is internally consistent I don't think it matters. There is a recent and long discussion on ToL, and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) suggests caps for common names. --nixie 13:39, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Just remember in normal writing (eg: on paper), it's "Tasmanian devil". Dora Nichov 01:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation revisited

Right. It's now 2010, and this basic issue has still not been resolved. I counted 13 uses of "Devil" (apart from words at the start of sentences), but no less than 101 (!) uses of "devil". However, the Thylacine is the "Tasmanian Tiger", not the "Tasmanian tiger", so it seems we should be saying "Devil" throughout, not "devil". After all, we're not suggesting they are actual devils, are we? All the "devils" need to become "Devils". -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the article title is Devil, not devil. Changes now done. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 06:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I just changed these to "devil" because animals are not capitalized in English unless their name is derived from a proper name. In this case, Tasmanian is derived from Tasmania, so it's capital, but devil is not. The title should also be changed. Wakablogger2 (talk) 10:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

What about Rainbow Lorikeet and hundreds of other articles about creatures whose names are NOT derived from a proper name. That one is referenced throughout its article as "Rainbow Lorikeet", not as "Rainbow lorikeet", "rainbow lorikeet" or anything else. That's because "Rainbow Lorikeet" is the name of the bird.

In the Tassy Devil case, it wasn't as if people said "Oh, look, there's a devil. This is Tasmania, so let's call it 'Tasmanian devil' to distinguish it from the Victorian devil and the New South Wales devil and the London devil".

No, what people said was: "Oh, look at that weird creature. It's fierce and aggressive, and this is Tasmania, so let's call it "Tasmanian Devil". It takes caps on both words. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In the case of birds there are clear guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Birds#Bird_names_and_article_titles. Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna)#Capitalisation_of_common_names_of_species suggests this is resolved at wikiproject level. William Avery (talk) 00:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the birds follow a reference book. It seems a disservice because such capitals are used only in technical writing, not professional or regular writing, but that is how the birds are decided. I don't understand the argument for taking "caps on both words", however. I cannot understand the logic or even the intention. "Tasmanian devil" is not a proper noun and I cannot think of any example that follows this. Is there any other such example? Also, are there citations showing that newspapers and books today use such capitals? Wakablogger2 (talk) 06:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see any use of a capital in the entries for Tasmanian devil in the OED or the Concise Australian National Dictionary. Nor David W. Macdonald's New Encyclopedia of Mammals. The 1911 Britannica, if www.1911encyclopedia.org is to be believed, has 'devil' in the article 'Tasmania' and 'Devil' in the article 'Dasyure'. William Avery (talk) 17:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both they Sydney Morning Herald and the Daily Telegraph have a mixture, though the Telegraph seems to have a higher percent of non-cap in one sample I glanced through. In an article where the heading has "devil" but the text has "Devil" [[1]], the word "joey" is used to refer to baby Tasmanian devils, a word not mentioned for Tasmanian devils in the Wiki article. Wakablogger2 (talk) 09:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems I was taking the avian examples and assuming - quite justifiably imo - that that style applied to all living creatures. Apparently not so. I can't understand why birds are given special treatment, but there you have it. Tasmanian devil it is. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Conservation status

The Devil is not officially listed by an agency as engangered, there is a possibility that in the future it may be listed as vunerable by the government of Tasmania. At this point there should be no conservation status listed.--nixie 22:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm no biologist, but I am reasonably sure that the Tasmanian Government has since added the Tasmanian Devil to the Threatened Species List - I may come back with more information later, but anyone who is more experienced in this area (or has more free time :P ) can debate this point or update the conservation status! 129.78.64.106 07:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC) (contact: n_beeton AT hotmail DOT com)

Since we use the IUCN Red List as the basis for our status listing in the taxobox, I've indicated that it is Low Risk (least concern). - UtherSRG (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

There was a television news comment, a few weeks ago, stating that the Tasmanian Devil is now considered to be a Vulnerable species. This was the reason why I updated the conservation status on the taxobox. Figaro 09:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: This is the convervation status section of the talk. Look here for the discussion. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just seen a report on Australian television that the Devil has been reclassified from "Vulnerable" to "Endangered". Needs reconfirmation and the main page updated. I would do this, but I don't know how to change the classification key Jdcounselling (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

And you shouldn't change it without an appropriate citation. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Would this suffice ? http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/29/2104539.htm?section=justin Jdcounselling (talk) 23:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nope. This is the offical status... still vulnerable. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:07, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Then this is not an "official" list ? http://www.dpiw.tas.gov.au/inter.nsf/WebPages/LBUN-796W2S?open Jdcounselling (talk) 04:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah. that's getting better.... but still, the title of that list says it all: "Intended Changes to Threatened Species Schedules". The official list has not, as of yet, changed. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

:-) Actually I think the page indicates the Minister's decision on the recommendations for reclassification... See what you think... ( By the way, this area really isn't my forte but this is fun :-) Jdcounselling (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The changes are no longer merely intended. According to the link above, "The Order was made by the Minister on 14 May 2008 which makes the changes law." TDs are now considered "endangered" by the Aussie gvmt, even if other lists have not kept up. This should be noted in the article. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The problem is the Commonwealth appear to be using IUCN categories, while the Tasmanians appear to be using their own. For consistency we should use IUCN categories, so we can compare how endangered a devil is compared with, say, a tiger. --Michael Johnson (talk) 00:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

My argument is not to abandon the IUCN designation, but instead to INCLUDE the Tasmanian gvmt designation. Seems like a no-brainer. 68.73.84.231 (talk) 09:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica claim

Regarding the extinction on the mainland, Britannica states:

The Tasmanian devil became extinct on the Australian mainland thousands of years ago, possibly following the introduction of the dingo.

In contrast, we write:

The Tasmanian Devil became extinct on the Australian mainland about 400 years prior to European settlement in 1788.

Is this an example of a rather egregious error in Britannica?--Eloquence* 18:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

It's an error in Britannica. To expand on the point there are subfossils from devils in deposits on the mainland in western Victoria, that are about 600 years old, thus extinction on the mainland has been assumed by various researchers to be within the last 600 years --nixie 08:23, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

These subfossils have been rejected in the Palaeontological literature - the 400 year date was based on a single tooth from a cave, and that tooth was dislodged from it's matrix. While it's possible that the tooth was only 400 years old, it is not certain, and the next most recent dates are all 3000-4000 years ago... I've updated the entry to reflect this. (129.78.64.100 (talk) 05:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC))

So is anyone going to edit this article and fix the extinction dates? Is there an expert who can make the call? In the opening papragraph it states: "The Tasmanian devil was extirpated on the Australian mainland at least 3000 years ago" and further down into the body of the article "Tasmanian devils retained a place on the Australian mainland until around 600 years ago (about 400 years before European colonisation)." Which one is it? studio34 (talk) 04:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes

It's a great article indeed, but sorry, I've gone through and made numerous minor edits at the clause level. I hope I haven't offended anyone; guess I'll find out soon enough.

The upper-case/lower-case inconsistency needs fixing, as others have pointed out. I'd go for 'Tasmanian devil', whatever Brittania uses. That makes lower-case 'devil' less awkward.

Any objections?

203.217.76.113 15:30, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, it logged me out for the comments above.

Tony 15:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Vide archived FAC. Issue of casing has already been resolved there.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:36, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Unsure of what that means. Tony 15:44, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant refer to the archived Featured article candidate nomination (linked above). The issue of capitalisation was raised during that process and resolved (although this was not noted on the talk page here). I'll briefly summarise the resulting consensus. It was decided that, as there is an existing convention on Wikipedia for animal common names to be capitalised (in most instances), so should be "Tasmanian Devil". However, "devil" by itself (without the qualifying "Tasmanian") should be lower-case. Other animals are capitalised according to their respective conventions; for example, Thylacine is capitalised. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:56, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Three little problems.

1. In 'Conservation status': 'a density of about 20 devils per 10–20 km² area'. Why the range of 10 to 20? There's already an 'about'. Can one of the scientists narrow this down?

1. Appears to be fixed already.

(2) In the DFTD section: 'Two 'insurance' populations of disease-free devils'—this is unclear and an unusual use of 'insurance'. I wonder whether 'reserve' is better?

1. Insurance population in the term being used by the Tasmanina Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment and in the Australian media.

(3) Also in that section, there's a sentence that looks just too in-house: 'Captive breeding in mainland zoos is also a possibility'. Can it go?

1. Not sure what you mean by inhouse, rephrased it a bit so it sounds more professional.

Tony 02:51, 6 August 2005 (UTC) --nixie 05:06, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Peta, with respect to (3), it sounds better now, but I'm just concerned about the Wikipedia rule about no original research. Guess it's ok.Tony 04:46, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

It's not original research, its an option listed in the DPIWE recovery plan.--nixie 06:02, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Australian spelling for 'tumor'?

Any reason the spelling shouldn't be 'tumour? Both spellings are plentiful on the net, and the Australian variety should clearly be used in this context. (This also applies to the linked article on the disease.) Tony 02:59, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it came to be spelled that way, and I don't really care one way or the other since both spellings are in common use. Move the artlces and changes the links if you want.--nixie 05:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I have done so since it seems to be the spelling used by the Tasmanian Department of Primary Industries, Water & Environment (and because it's also the AusE form).--Cyberjunkie | Talk 07:17, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Transwikied Content

The following comes from b:Tasmanian Devil!. The sole contributor was IHeartFuzzyCreatures.

---

Tasmanian Devils

When one thinks of marsupials, kangaroos and even sometimes koala bears come to mind. Not many people would think of such crazy creatures as the Tasmanian devil. This interesting animal is usually only thought of in the Warner Bros. Cartoon sense, so few people know about all of the strange behaviors that are associated with this fascinating creature.

Tasmanian devils are nocturnal mammals found only on the island of Tasmania, hence their title. They were discovered by European settlers in the 18th century. These settlers disliked the little devils (they grow to be not much longer than two feet!) and thought of them as nuisances for hunting and eating animals they needed. The devils acquired their scary name from settlers, due to their color (black), ferocious temper, and blood-curdling screeches they let out during feeding.

Tasmanian devils screech and scream to establish dominance while eating in groups. They also make a strange growling noise while scavenging for food. This noise is best explained as beginning as a whistle, but ending as a bark. They are carnivorous mammals that travel long distances through the night (up to 10 miles!) in search of food. Unlike the famous Taz, the devils usually amble around fairly slowly, but can gallop quickly if need be. They have sharp senses of smell and hearing, which help them to track down their prey in the middle of the night. Their prey can consist of a variety of critters. Devils are mainly scavengers, completely consuming any carcass they come across. Due to their strong jaws and teeth, they can eat the bones, fur, and even feet of many animals. They also hunt some small birds and mammals. Because of their ability to consume a great deal of a carcass at once, they are considered the “vacuum cleaners” of the forest. Farmers also have a great appreciation for these animals because they keep the mice population to a minimum.

Another amazing fact about Tasmanian devils is the birth of their young. The devils mate around March, and the babies, called joeys, are born in April. Approximately fifty joeys are born into the mother’s pouch, but only up to four of them will be able to survive because the mother only has four teats in which to nourish them. These four are carried in the mother’s pouch for about four months before they can come out on their own. They are weaned after five or six months and the ones that actually make it to their first birthday will have an average life span of seven to eight years.

A few other interesting facts about this little devil are his wide yawn, foul smell, and strong sneeze. Devils have a large mouth, and when opened wide, can look very intimidating. This trait is very misleading because the yawn is produced out of fear rather than aggression. Also, when under stress, the devils tend to emit a strong odor, but not when they are relaxed. Finally, unlike their other strange noises, their angry sneeze usually precedes a fight. This is used to challenge other devils, but is usually just a bluff. As one can see, these critters have many fascinating characteristics that definitely set them apart from any other animal!

I don't think this rambling mess would add much to the existing article.--nixie 06:11, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

A few things might be carefully extracted from this text and used in the article, but as a whole, it would detract from the scientific authority; the nice thing about the article is that, at the same time, it's readily comprehensible by non-scientists. Tony 11:27, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Other peer review?

Didn't this article have a second peer review? I know that the one I participated in was much longer than the one linked to at the top of this talk page. Anyone know where that peer review is archived? Amcaja 01:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I take it back. That was Featured Article Candidates I'm thinking of. Duh. Amcaja 01:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

tumour disease

I have copy-and-pasted the section on Devil face tumour disease to the article on Devil face tumour disease. Someone should modify the section here to reflect that fact, but I'm not going to. mike40033 (not logged in right now)

I have removed most of the section on Devil face tumour disease. Please revert if you don't agree Pilatus 18:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

The tumour picture is fairly gruesome. Do we really need a graphic picture of a disease of this animal as part of the main article on the animal.

I can't think of a valid reason why not. We won't censor images because a few find them perturbing.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 09:56, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean this as a censorship issue and probably stressed the graphic nature a bit. More I wasn't too sure if it throws the balance of the article out. Analogy would be an article on dogs and the 3rd picture you see is of a heartworm infestation - it's not that heartworms or tumours aren't important issues, they just drown out the core article a little. My objection is not a strong one though and perhaps this disease needs all the airplay it can get to help save these little fellas!

PennBradly 10:00, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with the picture; show the world as it is. Tony 11:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• I say keep it--ZeWrestler ^Talk 18:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Anyway, I've protected the poor devil from the vandalstorm for a little while, just while the kids get a little bored. Fortuitously, it's on the version with the picture. Sorry to keep out anybody who wishes to actually edit, but I or some other admin will unprotect pretty soon. Bishonen | talk 18:47, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I took out the picture. I'm sorry, but I can't imagine why the encylcopedia would be helped by a picture that makes one physically ill. --Matt Yeager 01:58, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

In future, please don't remove anything from an article that most other editors support being there. Pursue that end on the talk page.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 16:03, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

If you can't cope with that picture, don't read Wikipedia, stay off the Internet, and lock yourself up in your house. Really ..... Tony 09:49, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

What's with the personal attack? I for one find the picture more disturbing than any of those I've seen on Wikipedia that show human casualties of war, and many of those are linked to with a warning of graphic content. Would it be ok if this picture was linked to in the same way? Sasabune 12:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you have any exapmles? Wikipedia does not censor, and warning is a form of censoring. People need to know about this disease. Public awareness leads to action. --liquidGhoul 14:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The section on the disease is more extensive than the page about the disease. The redundancy has led to at least on instance of conflicting information, and generally it's more work. I'd like to suggest the entire section be eliminated and replaced with a link to the proper article about the disease. Opine. SnappingTurtle 00:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you even read it. This page takns about the conservation efforts to deal with the disease. All the disease info is in the disease article.--Peta 00:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I read it enough to see the problems in the first sentences. :-) Anyway, I didn't say the articles contain identical information. It would be less of a problem if they did. The problem is that they are redundant topics, a situation which inevitably leads to poorer quality copy. Anyway, I don't know why you're being so unpleasant about this. I'll wash my hands of the whole mess. Do what you want. SnappingTurtle 13:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If you call one article saying 1990s and the other an exact date a gross inconsistency then wokring on Wikipedia will make you insane. The section and the article are not redundant, discussing conservation measures in this article is totally relvant and does not duplicate anything that is in the other article which mostly discusses the pathology of the disease (as it should).--Peta 23:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Cannibalism

An anon added "those that do not procure a nipple are typically eaten by the mother", without a source, to the reproduction section. Is this fact vandalism, or is it true? Should it be removed? Dave (talk) 19:33, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

I never read anything about the mother eating the other embryos, and I've read most of the published literature, so I took it out.--nixie 07:24, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

my understanding is that the pouch is open to the rear, so the mother would have trouble to access it to eat embryos... Toitoine 11:38, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I have heard this during a guided tour of a Tasmanian national park, where the devils were the main attraction. According to the tour guide, the mother does not eat while in gestation, so she needs some nourishment after giving birth to the young. The mother therefore eats those devils who do not procure a nipple. I also remember the guide saying new-born devils only give the mother *just* enough nourishment to survive. I couldn't find an academic source for that, but it's hard to find a suitable search term with google. Graham 09:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Some carnivorous animal like dogs and cats behave as the tour guide said. They eat the afterbirth such as placenta.

According to the documentary, The Devil's Playground, the mother licked around her birth canal to cleanup when she finished childbirth and recovered, which means she can eat embryos accidentally. If the intentional cannibalism sounds too sensational, I guess including both possibilities could be better (or more nutral); she takes nourishment or just grooming. --Izumik 12:50, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Live

Does anyone have a map of where they live?

Mike15 20:53, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

• They live in Tasmania.--nixie 22:29, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I guess this map may answer your question - however they don't live everywhere in Tasmania, so to put it on the article page may not be a good idea yet. -- Chuq 23:15, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I reckon some organisation should (re)introduce devils to Victoria. It has heaps of Devil habbitat and certinly plenty of carcasses to go around. Also they would only introduce disease free devils. Meaning Victorian Devils woud be DFTD free and healthy. They did introduce the the lyrebird from Victoria to Tasmania after all. Why cant we have some of tassies fauna. I reckon devils would make a great contribution to the victorian ecosystem. Also note that Victoria is now largely dingo-free. <<<<<Just an Idea, what do you guys think? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.60.129 (talk • contribs) .

What we think is not relevant. article talk pages are for discussing the article, not the subject of the article. Your coment will be removed in 3 days. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Well how was I to know that. This page is after all titled Talk:Tasmanian Devil. Someone should clarify this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.238.60.129 (talk • contribs) .

I just did. It's also in the Help:Contents help pages, which you should read. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:06, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Devil facial tumour disease article

As well as this article, there's also a Devil facial tumour disease article. Chunks of information were duplicated across both that article and this main article. That's no good, as some editors will edit one copy of the information at the main article and other editors will edit the same information differently at the sub-article. I copied all the info relating to the disease across to the sub-article, but another editor reverted this and resurrected a situation where the same paragraphs of info were duplicated across two articles, citing "rv, disease stuff entirely relevant to this page! probably shouldn't have the fork article".

For the reasons stated above, we can't have the same info in two articles, and I put a clear "see article" tag in the Tasmanian Devil article to point to the Devil facial tumour disease article. If you don't think we should have the Devil facial tumour disease article here, nominate it for deletion with a "delete and merge" vote, or reinsert all the information in the main article and change Devil facial tumour disease to a redirect to this page. But please don't leave the Devil facial tumour disease in place AND put these details in the main article as well! CLW 09:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The disease article is perfectly viable as a separate article from the information that is contained in this article, there is info in the disease ariticle that isn't in this article. The disease management options which are directly relvant to this article should be here. Ideally the diease article (which I was never thrilled about) will discuss more about disease pathology when there is acutally some published information about the disease, until then I see no problem with the breakdown as is. Please stop removing chunks of text relevant to this article. If you have an issue with the diease article nominate it for deletion or restore the details that are in that article to this one and make a redirect.--nixie 10:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

My objection to the removal of text is that it was poorly done. If you don't wish to see duplication of information, then it is upon you to rectify that situation. However, simply chopping off a section from this article is an entirely inappropriate remedy, especially as it is featured. At the very least, some text should've been retained (whether rewritten or not). On the other hand, all that was there (as nixie stated) was pertinent to this article. --cj | talk 14:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There is reference in this section to the illegal introduction of Red foxes into Tasmania in 2001. The alleged illegal introductions where alleged to have taken place in October 1998 and 1999. Vehicle ferries where the alleged means of smuggling the Red fox cubs. On the 20th of June 2001 a Police Task force was set up to investigate the alleged introductions. No evidence was found to corroborate these allegations. This was confirmed in a Tasmania Police letter written by the Commander of the Police Task Force to the Deputy Commisioner of Police on the 17th JULY 2001.
I do agree the establishment of Red foxes in Tasmania would hinder the recovery of the Tasmanian Devil. The Tasmanian Devil would predate fox cubs if the vixen was not in attendance at the den site. Diplodwatcher (talk) 23:34, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references

Fair enough Ginger beer is trivial but some of the other things such as "mutant mice" are rather trivial too.--203.214.52.170 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Extirpated

It is probably very accurate but does anybody know what it means before looking it up? It isn't exactly "laymans" terms. --203.214.52.170 10:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mainland Devils and Threatened status

The nomination for listing as a threatened species (http://tas.greens.org.au/publications/other/TAS_DEVIL_THREAT_SPECIES_LISTING-STATE.pdf) states (under "Natural in situ population", page 11) that "there have been reports of devils existing in the wild in Victoria. Sightings, footprints and five carcasses, all road casualties, have been found. The latest road kill carcass reported was in 1991 in south eastern Victoria. What is not known is whether or not the mainland population represents a sub-species of if they were deliberately or accidentally released sometime in the past".

Interestingly, the author of the nomination form cites One World Wildlife (http://www.oneworldwildlife.org/australia.html) which has a distribution map of Victorian devil collections (1903, 1912, 1971, 1974, 1991, 1991) this information itself being uncited (as far as I can tell).

However, Robert Paddle, in "The Last Tasmanian Tiger" (2000, pp24-25) cites Cambrian (1808) as reporting the devil in New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia and the Adelaide Observer (1896) as reporting devils around Lake Albert (South Australia).

These are in addition to the specimens mentioned by One World Wildlife.

Paddle does, however, move on to the issue of devils in Victoria in the 1900s, but contrasts One World Wildlife in saying the 1912 specimen was actually a live capture (citing Kershaw 1912). Paddle goes on to say "since then the bodies of four more Victorian specimens of devil have been submitted to, preserved and catalogued by, the Mammology Department of the Museum of Melbourne" (Uncited, but presumably verifiable with the museum; from private correspondence with others interested in this topic, Paddle is generally accepted as being accurate in reporting these museum specimens). Incidentally, Paddle reports the 1991 specimens as being acquired 150km apart (90-100 miles).

I would argue there is a case to state the devil continues to exist on the mainland - there is certainly enough to say that some authors contend this view. Whether the nomination for threatened species status helps with the question of the species current status - I'm not sure.

May I leave it to those with more experience to update this article as appropriate?

youcantryreachingme 14:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC) Chris.

Postscript - the nomination form mentions a population on Badger Island in the Furneaux (Flinders) group - which is, of course, a part of Tasmania, but it's offshore. A tumour-like injury was observed in one specimen (but cause unconfirmed) at this location according to the nomination. youcantryreachingme 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Devils only found in Tasmania? Not true.

While only wild ones are found in Tasmania, Tasmanian Devils exist outside of that state. I have personally seen one at a Zoo in Queensland, Australia, and I am willing to bet there are others in other zoos around the country. Although the article is correct if you only take wild animals into consideration. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 220.244.236.150 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

We MEAN wild ones. Dora Nichov 11:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of devils sent to Denmark

The article reads: "However, the Tasmanian Government has sent a pair of devils to the Copenhagen Zoo" but my understanding (from talking to staff at Trowunna Wildlife Park, where the devils originated) is that four devils were sent. youcantryreachingme 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I have seen Tazmanian Devils at a zoo in Indiana, USA. They most certainly exist elsewhere in the world, not just Tazmania and Denmark. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.238.49.178 (talk • contribs).

Could you please clarify which zoo so that this information can be confirmed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.179.3.42 (talk) 11:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Mainland breeding

Under DFTD it mentions that captive breeding on the mainland may be a possibility...

A couple of days ago there was a shipment of devils to the mainland (from Trowunna) destined for breeding programs (http://www.smh.com.au/news/science/noahs-ark-rescue-for-devastated-tassie-devils/2006/11/30/1164777721169.html)

The Australia Zoo (Queensland) website has information about sponsoring devils there to assist in DFTD research also, but I am not sure if they are part of an active breeding program or not.

Taronga Zoo (NSW) has at least 1 devil also.

youcantryreachingme 00:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Further, a Queensland sanctuary reported just a couple of days ago, that a female devil there is with young: http://www.wherelightmeetsdark.com/index.php?module=newswatch&NW_user_op=view&NW_id=233 youcantryreachingme 05:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Threatened status

Although Wikipedia articles usually preference using the IUCN Red List, as it's generally regarded as the most authoritative and impartial source for the conservation status... for this article I've changed it to use EPBC Act's rating (vulnerable), as IUCN's is out of date (the assessment is over 10 years old, and does not consider DFTD), while the EPBC's is from May 2006. —Pengo 15:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Bite

"An analysis of mammalian bite force, corrected for body size, shows that the devil has the strongest bite of any living mammal." - the study corrected for body mass, not size. I changed it accordingly.

To the anon I keep reverting

I've reverted your unsourced edit, again. Please cite verifiable and reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

There is incorrect information refering to the illegal introduction of foxes into Tasmania; firstly the original allegations of importations and release were alleged to have taken place in 1998 and 1999. These allegations were investigated by Tasmania Police in 2001 and were found to be baseless.Secondly there is no evidence of illegal introduction and release in the last decade in Tasmania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.131.224 (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please cite verifiable and reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The alleged fox introductions into Tasmania were investigated by a seven person team of detectives in 2001. No evidence of illegal introductions was uncovered. There is reference to illegal introductions in the Devil Facial Tumour section of this article. The alleged introductions were supposed to have taken place in 1998 and 1999 not 2001.
There is a very complete discussion of these matters in the Tasmanian Legislative Council Hansard dated the 17th April 2007. This was also reported on in the The Mercury newspaper on the 19th April 2007 <http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21582109-921,00.html/>

Diplodwatcher (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

The size of a small dog, but stocky and muscular, the Tasmanian Devil is now the largest carnivorous marsupial in the world after the extinction of the Thylacine in 1936. It is characterised by its black fur, offensive odor when stressed, extremely loud and disturbing screech, and viciousness when feeding. It is known to both hunt prey and scavenge carrion and although it is usually solitary, it sometimes eats with other devils.

The Tasmanian Devil became extirpated on the Australian mainland about 400 years before European settlement in 1788. Because they were seen as a threat to livestock in Tasmania, devils were hunted until 1941, when they became officially protected. Since the late 1990s devil facial tumour disease has reduced the devil population significantly and now threatens the survival of the species, which may soon be listed as endangered. Programs are currently being undertaken by the Tasmanian government to reduce the impact of the disease. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.180.78.172 (talk) 01:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Endangered species listing

Just read about this today: "Australia's Tasmanian devil will be listed as an endangered species this week as a result of a deadly and disfiguring cancer outbreak, the state government said Monday... A spokeswoman for Tasmania's Primary Industries Minister David Llewellyn said the small, black-haired animal would be listed as an endangered species by state officials on Wednesday." This contrasts to what is currently stated in the article, which is grossly out of date: "when this species was last evaluated for the IUCN in 1996, it was listed as lower risk/least concern." That's twelve years ago! things have obviously changed. The news article also says that the disease "has cut the island's devil population in the wild by as much as 60 percent." Updates, please? María (habla conmigo) 13:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tumours 'alter devils' sex lives'

BBC News.

Do they attack or threaten humans?

They look scary. Are they more dangerous than a doberman or a wolf or a wild-dog? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.112.207.80 (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

No. --Michael Johnson (talk) 07:31, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe if you tried to touch the animal it would. Experiment experiment, but safety first Enlil Ninlil (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

This is what one source says. "Question: Are Tasmanian devils dangerous to people? Answer: No, Tasmanian devils are not dangerous. They do not attack people although they will defend themselves if attacked or trapped. Tasmanian devils, for all their appearance, are very timid, quiet animals that would much rather run away than fight. However, Tasmanian devils are very powerful, and any bite could cause serious injury. Tasmanian devils are wild animals and therefore should not be trusted with small children, just as you would not trust a large wombat or a large kangaroo with a small child." The source is: Tasmanian Devil - Frequently Asked Questions. Thanks. (64.252.115.254 (talk) 20:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

Origin of the name?

Probably one of the biggest un-answered questions in this article is, "What is the origin and purpose of the name, 'Tasmanian Devil'" ?? I came to this article looking for an answer, but found none. 209.203.104.177 (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Most sources (including [2], the epitome of officialness) say that it's "probably" because of the noise they make, but don't go into any more detail. We could add a statement to that effect if necessary. 87.194.239.235 (talk) 19:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with User 209 above. I came to this article to see why exactly the animal is called a "devil", and this article said nothing about that topic. I suspect that many other readers will have the same question. I think that something should be added into this article about that topic, as per User 87's suggestion. Thanks. (64.252.115.254 (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

This is what the above-referenced source says. "Question: How do they get their name? Answer: Imagine how European settlers first encountered the Tasmanian devil... Unearthly screams, coughs and growls come from the bush near a settler's hut. The settler comes to investigate with an old kerosene lamp and sees dog-like black and white animals with red ears, wide jaws and big sharp teeth. The settler gets a fright and falls over, the lamp goes out, and they are left very scared and disoriented, thinking they’ve glimpsed the hounds of hell! Aboriginal people had several names for them, one of which was 'purinina'." The source is: Tasmanian Devil - Frequently Asked Questions. Thanks. (64.252.115.254 (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC))

If your looking for the origins of the TD's name...try reading (or looking at that section) Owen and Pemberton's book "Tasmanian devil: a unique and threatened animal" I am fairly certain they give a good account of this origin...if not, it's a really good book anyways! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.73.134 (talk) 03:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

23rd Citation

A picture of a Tasmanian Devil with the caption "The devil's ears turn bright red when aroused[23]." The 23rd citation, however, simply states that it is a personal observation. This doesn't seem like a valid source. Rapidflash (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Fast-Killing Cancer Threatens to Wipe Out Tasmanian Devils

This site: [Fox] talks about the possible solution for the menace of extintion of this animal.Agre22 (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)agre22