Talk:Brown Rat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mammals
Mammals Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Mammal-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Body weight

"Adult body weight averages 320 g in males and about 200 g in females, but a very large individual can reach 500 g"? What's the source of this? In my experience it's more like 300 g for does and 500 g for bucks. // Liftarn

Could that be a difference between wild-living and domesticated rats? - MPF 23:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
Yes, read the article on fancy rats it describes them as 300 to 500 so it is that domesticated rats are heavier.

[edit] Questioned statements about city rats

"Rats live wherever people live. It is often said that there are as many rats in cities as people, but that is an untrue urban legend. It is probable that New York City, for instance, has only 250,000 rats, not eight-million."

"Rats in cities are not wanderers. They stay within 65 feet (20 meters) of their nest, and take the same trails to their food source every time they go out. They will cross an alley, but not a street."

These two statements taken out as they are unfounded, and far from true, particularly the latter - MPF 23:51, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read the above information in an article in the New York Times Magazine. I consider that to be an accurate resource. User:Dinopup

Robert Sullivan, in his recent Rats : Observations on the History and Habitat of the City's Most Unwanted Inhabitants apparently roundly debunks the # of rats = # of people urban myth. Probably has other useful rat facts in it as well. Amazon quotes these: "if you are in New York... you are within close proximity to one or more rats having sex" and "26% of all electric cable breaks and 18% of all phone cable disruptions are caused by rats, 25% of all fires of unknown origin are rat-caused, and rats destroy an estimated 1/3 of the world's food supply each year.".- Nunh-huh 00:14, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I would be very cautious about using anything from the Sullivan book. Sullivan is not a scientist. His "facts" are introduced like this.. "By one estimate...", "According to one study...", "One rat expert theorizes..." but none of these sources are actually identified. There are no notes that would identify any of the sources for this information. tom
More to the, point he doesn't even make sense: "25% of all fires of unknown origin are rat-caused". Does not compute. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
The UK official National Rodent Survey found a 2003 UK population of 60 million Brown Rats, about equal to the UK human population. Whether that Acording topopulation density applies elsewhere may well vary. But the second para above is definitely inaccurate; rats most certainly cross streets, I've seen them do so on several occasions, and even more often found dead rats run over in the process of doing so. And any rat that used the same trail every time would very quickly fall prey to a predator; unpredictability of movements is a key to survival for any wild animal. - MPF 14:17, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
The only "National Rodent Survey" I can find is published by the National Pest Technichians Association, and while I can't find the 2003 edition anywhere, the 2005 edition doesn't have any estimated total population figures, nor would its methods be likely to give one. --bjh21 16:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
The "UK National Rodent Survey" is not an ideal source since it is a subset of the English Houses Condirion survey report. This deals with rat infestations within the demense of individual properties and the numbers of a sample survey found to be infested.I presume it is this one: Meyer, A.N., Shankster, A., Langton, S.D., Jukes, G. (1995). National commensal rodent survey 1993. Environmental Health, 103: 127-133

A more accurate assessment of UK population numbers is found in: Harris S., Morris P., Wray S., Yalden D. (1995) A review of British Mammals: Population estimates and Conservation status of British Mammals other than Cetaceans. Joint Nature Conservation Committee. ISBN 1 873701 68 3 This gives a total UK population of 6.75 Million (pre-breeding population)

Rats in cities have very few natural predators. tom
The 60 Million number is being used by the Keep Britain tidy group. It originally comes from an estimate made by Boulter a century previously where he equated 1 rat to each cultivated acre. UK now has a population of 60M hence 60M rats. See: Channon, D, Murfitt E. 2005. UK Rat myths explored International Pest Control, vol 47, 4 July/Aug 2005 192-4

Acording to http://www.tenant.net/tengroup/Metcounc/Dec00/rats.html rats outnumber people in NY 12 to 1. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Acording to http://www.snopes.com/critters/wild/rats.asp people outnumber rats in NY 36 to 1. 122.105.218.141 (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Picture not appropriate

The picture is of a fancy rat. Although fancy rats are biologically Rattus norvegicus, it feels like putting a picture of a dog to an article about wolves. Though I have never seen a wild brown rat, I doubt they ever look as "good" as the picture shows, bathed, fur shining and groomed etc. --Farside 15:19, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cannibalism

Cannibalism is described as a major cause of death in brown rats. This is a myth.

[edit] Pet-related material

The source of the pet's litter should be carefully monitored, as wild animals make poor pets.

This doesn't seem to make sense. Has it been mis-edited? Loris 16:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Name

According to the entry on rats in Los Angeles A to Z: An Encyclopedia of the City and County, Leonard and Dale Pitt, UC Press, 1997, "The Swedish naturalist Carolus Linnaeus named them [Norway rats] as an ethnic joke." Thought it was an interesting allegation. jengod 07:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

The second sentence in the introductory paragraph says that no one knows why they are called Norway Rats, but then the last sentence answers that question: "at that time it was still thought to have originated in Norway." Even if it's not techically redundant, it still is rather clumsy phrasing. CFLeon 00:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I read somewhere that pet rats comes from a line that was domesticated from London 200 years ago and named 'wild city Norways'. Carl Linnaeus published his first work of classification in 1758. So I think the name originates during that era.

hydkat 08:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cheap pets

unfortunately rats aren't cheap pets.. small, yes.. cheap no! they require a well balanced diet, litter/ bedding that is not going to cause them respiratory problems, toys to keep them challenged and entertained. and lots of love! Also, rats aren't hardy. All carry (whether resistant or not) mycoplasma, a respiratory disease. This, if active, is not curable and can cost a lot in vets bills. Females are also prone to mammary tumours. They should ALWAYS be kept in same sex groups; unless neutered or spayed. It isn't responsible to even think about keeping them together. I bought my latest pair as a pair of males. But one was a female and already pregnant. I know have lots of babies, many of them with myco.

[edit] Brown rats in science, citation needed

It will be tough to find a specific citation that says that when molecular biologists refer to rats it is usually R. norvegicus. It would be easy to list a host of citations where brown rats are used extensively. Perhaps the simplest way to support this statement is to point out the amount of genome information listed for R. norvegicus compared to R. rattus. --Aranae 23:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed merges

I think there's room here for the one paragraph on Sprague Dawley rat and one paragraph from Wistar rat to be here instead. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

agreed, and since the Sprague Dawley is just a strain of the Wister we can keep them in one section. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 23:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

David T. Bath 02:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC) : Wister rats are a special beast, so I'm not in favor of merging wister with r.norv. At some stage, the stub will be expanded to include a lot of details about their differences (relevant to experimental biol) to other rats, and even similarities/differences to humans. And goodness nows how much detail will come in when their DNA sequences are analyzed fully.

i agree with you that there is definitely room for expansion, but in it's present state these two articles could easily be fit within the main article, once their sections are expanded enough then split them off into their own articles. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 20:11, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
i agree on the merge, with redirects from new or existing Sprague Dawley, Sprague Dawley rat, Wistar rat, Sprague-Dawley and Sprague-Dawley rat. There are advantages with either strategy above (grow then split, or leave a stub to grow). However, the paragraphs under brown rats in science and the Wistar rat and Sprague Dawley rat pages are already quite redundant, and this redundancy will discourage attracting a group of people to diligently edit and expand any of them (the section or the pages). If the three are not merged, then the 'brown rats in science' section needs to be streamlined to not include information from the Wistar or Dawley pages. Further, the overall quality of the Brown Rat page is not completely up to gold standards yet (unsourced statements) and there doesn't appear to be people lining up to edit any of these three pages, so any voluntary editing efforts could be concentrated here to produce a gold-standard article, including wistar and sprague dawley sections, rather than diluted over three pages. As we now sit in April (8 weeks of polling), with the votes at 3:1 for merger, I recommend that, unless there are other rationales to be presented, we give the vote over to whomever next arrives and has the initiative to merge Wistar rat and Sprague Dawley rat articles in. Jethero 16:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I think that Lab rats should be a separate entry. There is a vast amount of scientific research which is based upon the results achieved using one or another of these strains. Condensing all together for the sake of "Wiki-neatness" would do all of these strains and the works referencing them an injustice. What is the point in having an article so condensed that it is technically useless? --anon.
I could see merging Sprague Dawley into Wistar though, per Jethero's concerns, but it/they will just have to be split off later from the brown rat article if merged into here, and I don't see any compelling rationale for the merge. There's nothing wrong with having a subspecies/strain article about something derived from a more encompassing species, even if the new article begins as a stub (on the other hand, a second under-stub for a commercial sub-sub-type seems to be a bit much.) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 05:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I oppose the merge, and seeing that there is no consensus here-- though somehow they were merged anyway-- I am "unmerging" them. --Jcbutler (talk) 18:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

A year later? Please get a new consensus. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually going by the old lack of consensus, but the floor is certainly open. Currently, the "vote" stands at 4 in favor and 4 opposed. I actually like the idea of consolidating all these strains under Laboratory rat, but in the meantime, there is certainly enough detail on these breeds to warrant separate articles. I really don't think we want the brown rat entry loaded with lab stats. --Jcbutler (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
That seems like a reasonable split off location. But even so, start a new dialogue on it, especially since this is the focus of a collaboration, and there should be enough folks here to take an interest in the dialogue. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Status

Who keeps putting these rats under least concern? There is no way these rats should be anywhere near the threatened category.

The IUCN. Least concern is the category for the most common species. --Aranae 16:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alberta

This article states that Alberta is rat-free, then later says that there is still a low number of rat infestations reported there. I am not knowledgeable enough of the situation to clarify this contradiction, can someone help? --Cam 15:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Corrected my comment --Cam 15:43, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Attached is the Government URL to the Alberta Rat Control Web Site http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/$department/deptdocs.nsf/all/agdex3441

The occasional rat strays across the border into Alberta and is then terminated with extreme prejudice, as the CIA is fond of saying. Fortunately, due to the invention of extremely selective poisons such as warfarin and brodifacoum, extreme measures such as shotguns, high explosives, and arsenic trioxide are seldom used any more. This makes it a lot safer for liberals and other people who don't think of themselves as rats. There are, however, large numbers of packrats, which are actually bushy-tailed tailed wood rats. They are native and rather cute, so we don't kill them even though they do steal things. However, anybody who is not native and not cute should watch their step. RockyMtnGuy 19:01, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy?

'but (unlike the related Black rat Rattus rattus) are poor climbers.'


They don't appear to be poor climbers.


NantucketNoon 11:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Relaively speaking, brown rats are poorer climbers than black rats and spend much more time on the ground. --Aranae 16:18, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the map have a hole in Alberta? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.87.196 (talk) 02:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

It really should have an Alberta-shaped hole on it to reflect the fact that no unlicensed rats get more than a few miles into Alberta. On the CD for the Disney Movie Ratatouille they actually did something like that. If you look in the Extras, they show a map of worldwide rat distribution with a big hole in it for Alberta. Of course, then they launch into a dance routine involving a red-coated Royal Canadian Mounted Policeman fending off rats with a hockey stick, which has absolutely no real-world relationship to the Alberta rat control program, but at least the concept is there. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 15:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Secure

The Brown Rat is secure, not Least Concern, it is very widespread, and there are much more than billions of Brown Rats. The Winged Yoshi

Read the reference, Yoshi. the IUCN lists it as LR/lc. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Plague

"Contrary to popular belief, brown rats are less likely to harbor the fleas that spread bubonic plague, than other rodents like ground squirrels and wood rats."

The source cited (Merck) for this does not appear to actually support this claim. A better link is perhaps http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/dvbid/plague/info.htm ? Even so, the CDC only makes claims about incidence in the US. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.135.211 (talk) 00:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Brown Rat (5 votes)

Nominated 2008-02-01;

Support:

  1. .Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  2. Second choice. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  3. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  4. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  5. Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Pros: topical and important animal....Cons: a more ambitious project definitely...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm terrified of rodents. --JayHenry (t) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Rodents also scare the #$%@ out of me (I have rat dreams). But they are the single largest order of mammal and we should consider topic balance. Capybara is another one to consider. Marskell (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay. Bobisbob (talk) 17:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • My first pick. Distribued globally, and needs more work than most of the articles listed. VanTucky 04:40, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • A widely known and economically important animal (in its own way). This one would be my second pick.Anaxial (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Laboratory rats

It has been suggested that we create a separate page for laboratory rats and include information on the various lab strains, such as Wistar, Sprague Dawley, etc. (see merger discussion above). Given that there is a section on Fancy rats, I think this would be an appropriate article. Then this page could concentrate on wild rats, the fancy rat page could concentrate on pet rats, and the laboratory page could concentrate on rats in scientific research. We could then potentially merge the separate lab breed articles into that single laboratory rat page. Comments? --Jcbutler (talk) 17:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Plague

Several academics (KF Helleiner, LF Hirst, Andrew Appleby, etc.) have varying opinions that point to the brown rat replacing the black rat in Europe as the, or one of the, causes for the disappearance of the bubonic plague from Europe (at least on an epidemic scale). Since the plague started to disappear from areas before the brown rat arrived or really took hold, this is acknowledged to be a not-so-good theory. However, I think it warrants mention without pushing this incorrect viewpoint. How should we go about this? TeamZissou (talk) 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, never heard that one. Interesting. I think it could be pretty much succinctly summarised in about 3-4 sentences - who proposed it and on what basis and then why it is unlikely - similar to what is wirtten here above. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] To Do List

OK folks (sorry, shoulda done this before now...) - please add everything you think is missing from this article below so comprehensiveness can be addressed. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • needs referencing (duh)
  • Needs taxonomy section - what is it related to, and subspecies (there are apparently 211 named (??!!)) -we have to think of a way to discuss this without an enormous list.
  • Expand Reproduction and life cycle - eg young are born naked and hairless etc.
I added and expanded communication, but only covered ultrasonic sounds. I expanded the etymology, distribution and diseases sections. TeamZissou (talk) 06:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Issue

In the section Physical characteristics, it reads:

Brown rats have acute hearing, are sensitive to ultrasound, and possess a very highly developed olfactory sense. Their average heart rate is 300 to 400 beats per minute, with a respiratory rate of around 100 per minute. Their vision is poor, around 20/600 for normal rats. They are dichromates who perceive colours rather like a human with red-green colorblindness, and their colour saturation may be quite faint.[9]

The point on eyesight is vague and confusing. "What are normal rats, then?" What does the "colour satuation" being quite faint mean? TeamZissou (talk) 11:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

It means that the normal/average rat has vision of 20/600, and that they don't see very vividly bright colors. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)