Talk:Sugar glider

src: i.ytimg.com

Video 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)

Maps Talk:Sugar glider

To do (Additions to list are welcome)

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)

src: ksr-ugc.imgix.net

Taxonomy

src: www.hoobly.com

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..."

src: www.hotstream.org

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)

src: 7gigzxopz0uiqxo1-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com

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)

src: sugarglidershop.co.uk

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)

src: petsugarglider.com

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)

src: i.ytimg.com

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}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.--^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

src: bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com

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)

src: www.hoobly.com

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)

Source of the article : Wikipedia