This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

The range map for this article does not highlight Japan, but the article specifically mentions the Japanese subspecies and has a photograph of it. Could someone rectify this?

Kitsune, an ex featured article about mythology based on the Japanese red fox also links here. This map needs rectifying ASAP, unfortunately I am not sure how to do this. - Kez 02:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I spotted the same thing the above user mentioned this map doesn't show Japan also I noticed Red Fox is featured article in another language ( see here) Russian I think but i can't tell. The map in this article ( see map here) differs showing red fox range covering Japan, Ireland, a few Canadian islands, Mediterranean islands and part of the Russian islands Novaya Zemlya which don't even appear on the current map here at all. Can we use this map? I like design of it better myself and it appears more correct; I can't tell it's status, I'm presuming it's public domain - but I don't know.

Here too article and map also show Japan, Ireland and Canadian and Mediterranean islands covered; but Novaya Zemlya islands are absent from this map too.

Carlwev 17:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The image used is the Blank World Map from Wikimedia commons, as per wikipedia species convention. That map includes Novaya Zemlya; unfortunately a lot of maps edited to show distribution seem to cut it, I'm not sure why. - Kez 02:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Could somebody answer a few questions on the Red Fox.

1) Does foxes wag their tails when pleased, the way domestic dogs do? 2) Do Foxes like tummy rubs?

Yes, these are serious questions: if the answer is no, please forgive my ignorance. I used to have a Red Fox as a pet when I was a Kid and can not remember if he liked or did that stuff.

Thanks

Corky Fox

• Did you really have a pet fox? How did you get it? User:George cowie

The answer to the first question is yes, like most canines they do. The second question answer varies from animal to animal, in the same way each person likes certain things, some foxes like tummy rubs and some don't.

Mikal

phhht- the answer to the first question is no, they don't 'wag their tails'. -- Electrically Powered Fox 22:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you, but Foxes do wag their tails at each other, that's how they talk to each other, and to tell who's the top Fox and when She's ready for mating and let go hunting.

As the for actually coming up to you and at the same time wagging it's tail not likely - I should know, I raised a orphan Red fox Kit back in the 70s early 80s on my grandfathers farm. His name was CORKY!

The Real Corky Fox! S/E Wisconsin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.30.132.218 ( talk • contribs) 02:03, January 1, 2006 (UTC)

(Aw man, don't make me mark articles as unsigned for a few hours, I have to convert the hour, month, day, *and* year from my local time zone! :p :p ) -- AySz88^ - ^ 03:30, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I know Silver foxes Wag.-- 70.165.71.229 21:54, 22 January 2007 (

Well, I would know. That's a yes to both questions. Now on question 2, that's also a yes, but it depends on the fox and the way you do it. You see, foxes can get startled easily, but don't hold their anger very long. If you want to give a fox a tummy-rub, do it gradually. After two times, the fox will get used to it. After four times, the fox will really enjoy it. She or he will start to like it very much, but be careful. They like it a lot. Bye! That was embarrassing. ANNAfoxlover 01:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

On an equally absurd note, [1] says that Turkey renamed the Vulpes vulpes kurdistanica to Vulpes vulpes in March 2005. It might be a good idea to mention that in the article. -- Wmahan . 19:32, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I was wondering what that "kurdistanica" bit was about, since it's unlikely that it comes from Linnaeus, and if it can be called "vulpes vulpes", like the common European red fox, what species or subspecies would deserve the additional "kurdistanica" qualification, or why a supposedly European taxonomist would have so called a species so common away from Turkey. -- Svartalf 16:19, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

"kurdistaica" probably because the type animal for the sub-species was probably obtained from that area. The taxonomist does not have to be European, in any case most species are not originally named by taxonomists but rather by the field scientists who discover them. The taxonomists just come along later and try and sort out relationships and whether variations are actually significant enough to be considered subspecies or not. -- Michael Johnson 23:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The article is a bit of nonsense. Turkey "can't" rename animals, the scientific nomenclature is set by international agreement based on historical precedent and taxonomy. Besides with the subspecies V. vulpes kurdistanica is a subspecies (or if you like a subset) of V. vulpes. So this is not a renaming, just ignoring the fact that the red fox in Turkey is a separate subspecies. Their attempt to rename the wild sheep species name is even more silly. -- Michael Johnson 22:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

nonsense or not... the story is there, and it has been reported by serious enough media that I'm not inclined to dismiss it as a hoax or joke, especially not given the panturanian leanings of recent Turkish governments. I don't know if they really expect the scientific community to follow suit on that kind of bullying, but ridicule is a little enough price to pay for trying.-- Svartalf 17:46, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree the item is not a joke or a hoax, but the Turkish or any other government does not determine scientific names. In any case dropping the sub-species name does not actually change anything, presumably it is the only sub-species in Turkey. Calling it V.vulpes is quite correct in that context. As I said the renaming of the sheep is much more likely to create confusion. I think the story is more about the Turkish government than red foxes. -- Michael Johnson 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've heard it is called "Vules Fulva".Is this an old way?-- 70.165.71.229 01:48, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Vulpes fulva is an alternative, but not commonly accepted, scientific name. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the article. -- Michael Johnson 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You know, I don't see where it's been suggested to merge the two articles together, but frankly, after reading the article on Cross Foxes, it might be a fairly good idea, y'know? Cernen 09:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It appears to have been done. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the name of this article be Red fox, with a lowercase F? -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 01:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), the answer is no. However, I think that maybe this should be decided on a case by case basis. "Red fox" is probably more common than "Red Fox", and I haven't ever heard anyone say "red fox" meaning foxes that are red.

I can also understand the need for conventions, so that people know, when reading Wikipedia, whether a reference to an animal is a description or a particular species.

Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley _{talk contrib} 17:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Going by the convention that only things used as proper names in everyday speech are to be capitalized, it wouldn't be, though I wasn't aware of the naming conventions for fauna page. That page doesn't seem to have been kept up though, since some of the examples it cites countradict what the example is supposed to illustrate (i.e. what not to redirect). -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 01:00, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

At first I thought it should be Red fox no capital F, but there are conflicting rules. Most animals on wikipedia have second capitals especially in the title. Some such as Arctic fox do not. Should Arctic fox have a capital F like all the others. Also should it be the same throughout the articles all capitals or all not, I know it depends on whether your talking abot the species or an individual or small group but sometimes it is not clear.

Carlwev ( talk) 15:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Article states that the only thing that Foxes are liked for by Humans is their fur...

"Red Foxes have both positive and negative standing with humans; while they are vectors of disease and a bane of poultry farmers, these foxes are also important to the fur industry."

Although it may be true that they are killed for fur, I think that the General public likes them for many very different reasons. I mean speaking from personal experience people like Foxes and enjoy seeing them, it's only Farmers and some other country people who hate them.(at least that's what I've seen in my country, maybe it's different elsewhere?) I can think of at least one positive thing they do, they hunt rodents-- Hibernian 03:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Foxes surely provide more important things than fur. It's usually a matter of opinion, unless you're talking to a farmer. I'm in the US, and it's either farmers or people who just don't like them. Thunderlord 13:21, 13 March 2006.

I think people mainly like foxes because they look nice, similar to dogs. User:George cowie

I agree that the sentence should be changed, but I'm not sure what it can be changed to. -- AySz88 ^ - ^ 01:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a shot at it. Any better? Coyoty 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes it's alot better now.-- Hibernian 06:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

thank you so much. this site has help me so much with me project on the red fox. I got my whole project done by just using your page!! It was great!!! It made it a lot easier and faster. Thank you!!! I got a a on the project!!! Happy thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.242.136.161 ( talk • contribs)

Referring to the Turkish situation above, and looking at the article, this article does need the disribution section expanded, and a full list of subspecies added. Anyone up to the task? I mostly know about Aussie animals, and don't have access to any suitable texts. -- Michael Johnson 01:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• If you are going to expand the list, may I suggest creating a separate page for that purpose? This is getting rather unwieldy... I suggest List of Red Fox Subpecies. vlad§inger ^tlk 15:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've done a bit of reorganising here:

• a whole lot of rather miscellaneous and anthropocentric stuff had got into the opening paragraph. I have shoved most of it down the end in a new section called "Foxes and humans"
• I've added some remarks in that new section about foxes in folklore. This could become a rich section if anyone would like to add to it.
• I've put a prominent remark about the Tame Silver Fox in the opening para, which seems to be enough a link to justify taking the merge proposal off.
• The earliest versions of this page seem to have used British spelling and vocabulary, so I have reverted some recent changes to US forms. Since the Red Fox is found in both continents, there is no particular case for either convention so it should go by priority.

There is still stuff that needs doing. The section on behaviour (particularly mating systems) is a mess, which is unnecessary considering how well this species has been researched. However it needs someone to read the primary literature and summarise its main trends - there are some contradictory findings out there (probably because of the adaptability of this species) and it needs a bit of work to sort out what are typical findings and what are less usual variations. seglea 20:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the article to give some more emphasis to the problems of foxes in Australia, which is a far more serious problem than most editors here seem to be aware of. -- Michael Johnson 22:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's nice work, Michael - this article needs to improve. But I question putting the Australian range in the Introduction - it is already there in the Distribution section just under, which would be the usual place for it. I have moved to a more prominent place in the Distribution bit. By the way, do you happen to know if they were taken to New Zealand as well? seglea 17:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

There are no foxes in New Zealand today, however I don't know if an introduction was attempted. If it was, thank goodness it failed! -- Michael Johnson 00:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Repetition of a misrepresentation:

. . where fox hunting with dogs was a traditional sport, until this was made illegal on February 18 2005. . .

. . A prominent cultural impact is that on fox hunting which became illegal in Scotland in August 2002 and in England and Wales in February 2005.

The latter does not appear to be related to the first sentence of the last paragraph, so the section could end

Greater visibility in nature documentaries and sympathetic portrayals in fiction have improved the Red Fox's reputation and appeal in recent years.

(though I don't condone this conclusion).

The hunting of foxes throughout the UK is still legal, the only difference is the number of hounds and method of killing; flushing to guns with no more than two dogs.

The hunting of fox scent from the remains by a foxhound pack, (trail hunting) is still legal in the UK.

There is mention at February_18, but not 2005 so the latter wiki is unrequired. Hence let's just start this section

The Red Fox has both positive and negative standing with humans, often being loved or hated. This has been most visible in the United Kingdom where the traditional method of fox hunting became illegal in Scotland in August 2002 and in England and Wales on February 18 2005.

and new paragraph for

The fox features in much folklore, . .

This may be a suitable section to mention impact of the Urban Fox in the UK. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sanft ( talk • contribs) .

Is the Red Fox cold or warm blooded? The article doesn't seem to have this information....-- Fissionfox 02:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• Well, being a mammal, one could safely assume it is warm blooded. I don't think all the articles about mammals contain information of that nature and in my opinion it isn't really necessary- K37 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok thanks, just making sure-- Fissionfox 10:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

How does a red fox regulate their water balance? What are some internal responses to an external environment? How does the red fox use the circulatory and respiratory system to adjust internal conditions? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.168.15.196 ( talk • contribs).

"Sometimes young foxes disperse promptly on maturity (approx. 8-10 months); sometimes they remain in their natal territory and assist in raising the next year's offspring"

Is this true? This is typical pack-animal behavior, and foxes are solitary. -- I80and 01:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I've not found any information supporting the "pack" fox information, but according to OzFoxes FoxWeb, it wouldn't happen. So I'm going to remove it. -- I80and 20:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There is an image in this article that shows "a Red Fox standing over a freshly killed animal" and is inapropriate in my opinion. It gives people a bad first impression of red foxes. Sure, we'll kill animals every now and then, but we do it to survive! No human will give us any food, except if we're in a cage! I think this image is inapropriate for this article, and I hope someone will remove it from the article soon, because I am offended by it. And one more question: Who added that image, and, more importantly, THE CAPTION??? ANNAfoxlover 23:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! The animal is a carnivore. They kill and eat other animals. Get over it. The image is attached to a section on the diet. Highly appropiate. -- Michael Johnson 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of carnivores, Michael Johnson... ANNAfoxlover 19:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hu? So what is your point? -- Michael Johnson 01:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

HuH? Don't you know anything? ANNAfoxlover 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about humans being carnivores also, which they are. See KFC, Burger King, Big Mac, Arby's, Thanksgiving dinner, Taco Bell, Wendy's, fried chicken, and all those other things. I'm sure foxes and humans are carnivores. You've cinvinced me that foxes are an invasive species, even though I don't like it. But now I must convince YOU that HUMANS are an invasive species. Ask some questions, okay? Thank you. ANNAfoxlover 16:06, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Well humans are actually Omnivores, and often eat too much meat. And yes in many contexts they are an invasive species. However this article is about red foxes. -- Michael Johnson 02:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

By the picture on your user page, it sure looks like you are human. Nothing wrong with that, really, but what are your favorite foods? Or at least most humans' favorite foods? By the way, the picture on the top of the omnivore page looks like what humans do naturally. A•N•N•Afoxlove r PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 02:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

While I accept that the image is appropriate, is there evidence that this prey is freshly killed? Or is that artistic licence? MikeHobday 08:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The picture is a US Fisheries & Wildlife official photo, and comes with the caption "Red fox with prey", so we can take it as legitimate. Freshly killed? most probably. Foxes tend to eat and run. Prey, certainly. -- Michael Johnson 09:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

US Fisheries & Wildlife have confirmed that the animal has not been freshly killed. The animal was placed there so most people would think that it had been recently killed by the fox. A•N•N•Afoxlove r PLEASE SIGN HERE, ANYONE! 00:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

User:UtherSRG removed a large (and I thought moderately useful) subsection I wrote today. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Red_Fox&oldid=144425115. I would have thought there would be some reason given on the Talk page, or my talk page, or even in the Edit summary. I'm curious what the problem was. : T L Miles 21:22, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Foo in pop culture" sections, and various permutations, are generally unencyclopedic. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I should note that the edit wasn't about pokemon. The Red Fox as cultural icon, conotations of 'sly', etc is quite encyclopedic. There seems to be a sense of ownership here (see WP:OWN). Because your interest lies in taxonomy does not make it the sole focus of the article, and other sides of the topic are quite valid. Further the mass removal without even an edit description suggests you might slow down a bit. : T L Miles 13:53, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In general, "foo in pop culture" sections are trivia. In this case, I was wrong to remove it and I have restored it. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In the section on preadition the word "ossular" is used. I do not know what it means and it does not seem to be defined elsewhere in wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.161.224.10 ( talk) 12:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ossular means bone. Dark hyena 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

In the reproduction catagory, it says december to january. That means it doesn't reproduce at all. Doesn't that sound a bit silly. Shouldn't it say January to December. If i am wrong Sorry!!

Tobymsaunders 10:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No... December to January means just that - the last month of the year and the first month of the year. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tobymsaunders 20:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I have been bold and changed the map hope no one has problems with the change. It was a cut and paste job with of the map in featured articles of other languages. Additional areas not in last map are Canadian islands and some of Japan like the article says. Ireland which I'm certain has Red Fox. Other Mediterranean islands and half of Novaya Zemyla which I am hoping in good faith on the original author. I don't know if it's 100% correct but I think its more correct than the last. With regards to addition of Japan and Ireland.

Carlwev ( talk) 17:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed first image on the left as it seems redundant and misplaced. The text is enough to describe available colours and four images of separate foxes already exists there. There is no point in having so many images, as I doubt anyone can list another similar page showing ten animals as examples in one section. The other images are also more appropriate, as they simply show the animals normally with ample variety.

Either add the image to a new page about taxidermy or the exhibit instead (both too unrelated for this article). Right now it makes for an inappropriate, cluttered mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.58.224 ( talk) 13:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

thus i do not know much of my fox history, but i believe they are very trustful due to my recent encounters with the animal. red foxes are and want to be nice to humans. My explanation for this is that they only ask for food cuz there is not much food around human population that they can hunt down. Thus if the fox attemps to attack, it has been thretended or scared by something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.3.67 ( talk) 04:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Is that picture of the run over fox necessary? I find it completely offensive. Please someone remove it and put up a more tasteful picture! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.173.58 ( talk) 17:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

It is necessary because it shows the whole animal, which is specified in the picture description to be from an area where the subspecies in question originates. Mariomassone ( talk) 17:13, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

With millions of pictures at one's fingertips, through the internet, I'm pretty sure one can find a picture of the entire animal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.241.163.33 ( talk) 21:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these millions of pictures specifically depicting the subspecies V. v. vulpes? The Scandinavian, middle Russian form of the species? Do the ones available show the animal in its entirety? Mariomassone ( talk) 22:36, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

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). Van Tucky 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)

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)

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)

Page name

We now have the frankly ridiculous situation where the article is entirely written in the lower case usage (red fox), but a user has decided to move the article title back to the upper case (Red Fox). Unless someone can some up with a compelling argument, i will move it back at some point soon. OwainDavies ^{( about)}_{( talk)} edited at 07:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

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)

This sentence is wrong in one way or another, & I've tagged it. Most likely they colonised naturally, but I can't see why they'd have gone via India, or how we'd know if they had. If they'd been introduced by humans they'd not be a separate subspecies yet. I suspect this is misunderstanding or just nonsense. Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The fox eyes are described as being catlike with vertical slitformed pupils. Is this really true???? I've never seen that. Csblach —Preceding unsigned comment added by Csblach ( talk • contribs) 10:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is – it's just that you don't often get a close enough look, and the pupils need to be well constricted to see it clearly. Just about visible here. Other species of fox too. Incidentally, actually not all cats – the big cats have round pupils like wolves and dogs. Richard New Forest ( talk) 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Took some photos while on a farm/small zoo this weekend, including one of some red foxes. Wasn't going to upload it, given the huge number of photos that are already available, but then I noticed this comment. The right eye is pretty clear in this shot. Maybe this photo can find a place in the article. The resolution is very large, too. GDallimore ( Talk) 23:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Since i wrote this several of my friends have found pictures with fox's eyes, you're absolutely right. Csblach ( talk) 20:57, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

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)

The dimensions given seem incorrect. The measurement for tail length seems far out of proportion to the body length. Is this supposed to be the measurement for tail and body length combined? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.42.76.17 ( talk) 09:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. Van Tucky 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)

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)

Socially, the fox communicates with body language and a variety of vocalizations. Its vocal range is quite large and its noises vary from a distinctive three-yip "lost call" to a shriek reminiscent of a human scream. It also communicates with scent, marking food and territorial boundary lines with urine and faeces.

The article on Grey Wolves elaborates on this, so why not this article? *shrug* -- Snip3rNife ( talk) 07:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be bold and edit the article if you wish, hopefully with references. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"The first is silver or black, comprising 10% of the wild population." Is this a worldwide percentage, or referring to a distinct geographical population? I only ask as there is a big fuss being made at the moment in the UK about a black fox that has been spotted - the fuss would suggest that they are very rare indeed. I've certainly never heard of one here before, and find it hard to believe that as much as 10% of our native population is black. BBC video links: [2] (Chorley is in Lancashire); [3] (in Surrey). Roisterdoister ( talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

To the gatekeepers who have decided to lock this page:

The first reference to "sympatric" needs to be linked to Sympatric speciation. Cynwolfe ( talk) 16:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I saw no mention in the main article of a red fox's ability to climb trees. A fox repeatedly climbs a 12 ft (4m) hedge in our back garden. I have video footage of it sat on the top. Worth a mention? 88.105.56.189 ( talk) 18:47, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Rob Lewin 18/6/2008

Best of my knowledge, it's grays that climb, and not reds. most medium to large quadrupeds can "ladder" up objects, fyi. - Metanoid ( talk, email) 03:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

European red foxes can climb quite well too – much better than a dog (and you should see my collie go...), but not so well as a cat. Usually up a slanting trunk or where branches provide steps; also up mesh fences and the like. Can grey foxes actually climb up a trunk like a cat or bear? Not so sure about "most" large quadrupeds, Metanoid – I've not noticed my cattle or horses shinning up many trees lately... Goats do climb, though. Richard New Forest ( talk) 12:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Like Metanoid, when I read that an animal can "climb" trees, I'm assuming that means up a bole or trunk of a tree, like a cat, not by jumping up slanted trees to a branch or laddering up a thicket. That same debate occurs with lions and grizzlies so this POV of what consititutes climbing isn't universal. I suggest just making it clear if you wish, menting hedgerows, laddering etc. to make the difference clear.-- Paddling bear ( talk) 19:06, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused by the line in Behavior that states, "Young foxes disperse promptly on maturity (approx. 8–10 months)." then "The reason for this "group living" behaviour is not well understood; some researchers[who?] believe the non-breeders boost the survival rate of the litters while others[who?] believe there is no significant difference, and such arrangements are made spontaneously due to a resource surplus.". Is the latter referring to polygamous pairings vs. monogamous? If so, it's not group living with non-breeders. Are we missing a sentence? Also, since it clearly delineates polyandry and polygamy, don't we need an example of polyandry? All I see is ex. of the polygyny side of polygamy. -- Paddling bear ( talk) 19:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe, that a fox should run at 72 km/h.

If i train my english setter in an open field, and she comes upon a fox, she catches it, which has happened on several occasions. An estimate of her speed would be around 80 km/h, impossible!! Csblach ( talk) 00:37, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

It is referenced, so to remove it you would have to find another, more reliable source as to the maximum speed foxes can achieve. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 01:23, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right, but to evaluate the statement, i would either have to read the book, which i don't and probably never will possess or i should simply argue my way out of it. Will the following do?? A european hare runs at 70 km/hr(Dansk Jagtleksikon)

Therefore a fox cannot run so fast, besides other sources state that the fox runs at 50 km/hr(Department of Agriculture Western Australia.) Csblach ( talk) 22:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Zero chance of a fox ever running at 45mph. Greyhounds are significantly faster than foxes and the very very best greyhounds peak at about 19-20m/s and can sustain about 18-18.5m/s over few hundred metres including a standing start, the vast majority of greyhounds being slower. As for hares running at 70kmh maybe the fastest hare on its fastest day as a peak speed. They are regularly caught by greyhounds when given a headstart despite greyhounds not being able to sustain speeds over about 67kmh. That would suggest a sustained speed over a few hundred metres in the range of 60-65kmh for hares, so a peak speed of 70kmh is not unreasonable. I have never seen anything to make me think that a fox could easily outrun the fastest hares and greyhounds, even briefly. -- LiamE ( talk) 23:40, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why is this article part of "WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddling bear ( talk • contribs) 19:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No idea. It seems to be a mistake; Vietnam is not mentioned once in this article. I will remove the template. Robofish ( talk) 11:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Under Red_Fox#Feral_foxes_in_Australia it'd be good to have a representative picture of what's colloquially known as a "good fox" (because "the only good fox is a dead one"). Google Image Search turned up this, which is (presumably) copyright; does anyone have a free image that could serve the purpose? There's plenty of other pics of living foxes in the article, so removing the one currently illustrating that article won't lose too much imo.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22295180@N06/3693662878/

Rosuav ( talk) 02:24, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Are these accurate terms for male and female foxes? I can't seem to find this information in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.126.170.20 ( talk) 14:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

See the general articles on Foxes. And, no it's not correct: it's Dog and Vixen. GDallimore ( Talk) 16:25, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The human male name "Todd" is actually derived from "Fox Hunting" - so it's kind of ironic it's mentioned here... MJN SEIFER ( talk) 21:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Fur Use has this curious sentence: ...over 1,000 American fox skins were imported to Britain annually, while 500,000 were exported annually from Germany and Russia. Why were they imported to Britain and "exported from" Germany and Russia? If they were American fox skins, how could they have been exported from Germany or Russia?

If we're talking about American fox skins sent to Britain, we should probably say they were "exported to" Britain, since the sentence's subject is the American fox skins. (We wouldn't use "imported" unless the sentence subject were "Britain," as in Britain imported 1000 fox skins annually from America.)

As for the remaining 500,000, I suspect this is supposed to be exported to Germany and Russia, but I don't have the source book. Were the 500,000 pelts even American? The original source may have claimed that Britain imported 1000 pelts from America and 500,000 pelts from Germany and Russia. Could somebody please check? Thanks. — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 01:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's what the source states: ... as many as 100,000 skins of the various American foxes come to England every year. From Germany about 500,000 are exported every year, and nearly as many from Russia Mariomassone ( talk) 08:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. That provides more context, but it doesn't completely clarify things. Was it claiming that the 500,000 from Germany were going specifically to England? Or was it saying that Germany annually exports 500,000 pelts to all of its trading partners? To put it another way, was this sentence in a paragraph about where England gets its red fox fur, or about the global fur trade? — MiguelMunoz ( talk) 18:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, all. We lived in a large wooded area (the western edge of what is called the "Black Forest") north of Colorado Springs for seven years (2000 - 2007) in a strongly-established and fairly extensive red fox area. Pairs of foxes were observed several times in our neighborhood chasing single coyotes -- and the coyotes were running, not fighting. The paper cited, Sargeant, Alan B., and Stephen H. Allen, 1989, "Observed interactions between coyotes and red foxes," Journal of Mammalogy 70(3):631-633, should not be taken as definitive; not only did they find the coyotes to be the aggressors in only 71 % of cases, but the paper was based upon interviews with only 28 individuals (ranchers, hunters, and local residents, along with the two authors) who had observed these interactions. The statement, "there are few reports of red foxes acting aggressively toward coyotes except when attacked or when their pups were approached," may therefore be somewhat misleading (i.e., I can think of three such incidents in our neighborhood during the period June 2000 - October 2007). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.230.160 ( talk) 21:12, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I often see Red Foxes near my home eating rabbits, but they are not listed under diet, while some very odd things like Llamas are listed. Seems strange. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.182.42.242 ( talk) 18:25, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Rabbits are listed. See leporids Mariomassone ( talk) 15:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

most of the photos in the current article do not match their captions — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.198.91 ( talk) 23:13, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

I have corrected two per image files, bit didn't notice other problems upon a cursory look. Materialscientist ( talk) 06:25, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

The photo that says Foxes mating in Washington D.C. may not actually be a mating position. Read the detailed description on the photo. The photographer assumed they were mating, but later found out they were wounded. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.116.115.219 ( talk) 07:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. To me this looks like a typical post-mating position (can't think of anything else), and that the people describing the image simply did not know how animals mate. Further opinions are welcome. Materialscientist ( talk) 07:40, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like a perfectly ordinary "copulatory tie", typical in the canid mating process. I agree with the above statement; it is likely that the photographer was unfamiliar with this detail. Mariomassone ( talk) 15:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The picture showing the Fox is in fact a smoky red fox not a red fox and is a cross breed of a black forx and a common red fox. It needs to be indicated as it is incorrect as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.27.34.108 ( talk) 04:31, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, i'm not sure that's correct. Black foxes are just variant Red Fox Vulpes vulpes, with a recessive genetic trait making them black. They are not, as far as I know, a separate species, meaning that in either case, they would belong here in their species article. OwainDavies ^{( about)}_{( talk)} edited at 08:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Red fox is the name of the species as a whole, whereas smoky red is simply a colour variation. It's still a red fox. Mariomassone ( talk) 16:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The species is widespread in Australia, but this it not indicated in the mp in the infobox. There are plenty of sources which map the species range across the continent, such as this one http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/invasive/publications/information-gaps/introduction.html Given the large area that the species inhabits in Australia it seems wrong to leave it off the map. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 01:07, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason I de-jargonized this article was the use of the term "leporids" to refer to all animals commonly called "hares" or "rabbits". Because most sub-species of foxes will take "hare" or "rabbit" prey outside of the leporidae family, the use of such a term is inaccurately exclusive. 24.11.192.78 ( talk) 11:59, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the current vandalism by the (now blocked) user WizardBeardBoii of the introductory section, the revision history lists that ClueBot_NG reverted the affected section to its previous state. However, this reversion has apparently not occurred, as the actual page still displays the vandalized text, despite appearing to have reverted in the Edit page.

As I am not terrifically experienced in dealing with vandalism, I have to ask if there is sort of error preventing the reverted text from appearing on the page. Shadowmask ( talk) 18:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I've reconciled the subspecies list with MSW3 ( here). Several on the list appear to be synonyms of others. For the moment I've left these in brackets, with a cross ref – is that the best thing, or ought they just to be deleted? Richard New Forest ( talk)

In this passage "Vulpes vulpes fulvus Desmarest, 1820", is often referred to as V. v. fulva, this confuses me a bit ... Shouldn't it be with a female suffix, like in "Vulpes vulpes crucigera (Bechstein, 1789)"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.173.115 ( talk) 02:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

I stumbled across an article about the hunting behavior of red foxes. The research indicates that the foxes use the earth's magnetic field to hunt. I do not have the time to add this to the article but wanted to leave a not here in case someone else is so inclined:

• Predation by foxes aided by Earth's magnetic field: http://phys.org/news/2011-01-predation-foxes-aided-earth-magnetic.html
• Directional preference may enhance hunting accuracy in foraging foxes: http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/7/3/355

DouglasCalvert ( talk) 21:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

The map appears to indicate that foxes are widespread in Tasmania, however this is clearly not the case - see http://www.thefoxwebsite.org/images/aus_map2.jpg. They are likely to still be extremely rare, if not extinct. Many researches have noted that their range is unlikely to extend into the western wildnerness areas (ie more than half of the island) due to similar factors as the distribution of the Thylacine (unsuitable habitat). -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 05:35, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red fox/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Miyagawa ( talk · contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm going to have to jump in and review this one, given the high importance to the dogs project. :) Plus my own general interest and happyness that an article in so many Wikis has got some love. I'll aim to get the review completed over the weekend. I'm looking forward to reading it. The only thing that is slightly disappointing immediately is that there isn't an image in the urban foxes subsection. Mainly because the section heading immediately brings forth thoughts of foxes ripping apart big bags and scattering rubbish everywhere. But there isn't anything on commons that suits. So I'm having a look on Flickr for anything that could be brought over and so far the only really good shots are perhaps one with two foxes on the roof of a shed, one where a fox is crossing a road - finally found one with a bin bag! I'll upload them onto commons and then post the thumbs here for you to look at so you can decide if they're worth adding to the section. The things I do when I could be properly reviewing your article, eh? ;) Miyagawa ( talk) 09:41, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Darn it, the big bag photo was actually a dog! I'll add the fox on the street image to the article. Miyagawa ( talk) 09:43, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up this review! Sasata ( talk) 15:15, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - I haven't forgotten about this, but I do keep on getting distracted. I was about to say it was a good thing as the new GA in DYK rules meant I figured you could have put it through there once it passes... but then I noticed this had already been a DYK in 2004. :( Miyagawa ( talk) 18:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I can at least do the basic run through/checks and put the template out right now:

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   All present and correct!

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   All sources appear perfectly suitable.

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No problems there.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   Review underway. Miyagawa ( talk) 18:30, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• I count 11 duplicate links. Miyagawa ( talk) 18:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

• Duplinks removed. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Evolution: Good use of the illustration due to the close proximity of the two species. However you don't need to link to Rüppell's fox in the image caption as it is linked in the article (especially as it is very much nearby the image).

• Unlinked. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Build: "Vixens have three pairs of teats" - given the next half of the sentence, would it be better to say "normally have..."?

• Done. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Senses: I think the plural of grouse is still grouse.

• It seems that both forms are acceptable, per this. I don't know if one or the other is preferred in British English though. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Social and territorial behaviour: The piped link to Spraying (animal behavior) is a little long - I'd reduce it down just to words "urine to mark their territories".

• Done. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Images: You might just want to double check whether you need the wikilinks in the image captions or not. Certainly in some places they won't be in the main article, but I'm sure they are in others.

• I think duplicated wikilinks in captions are generally tolerable, but I've removed a few anyway. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Hunting: I would suggest that you duplicate the cite from the quote onto the end of the first paragraph.

• Done. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Taming and domestication: You might want to work in a link to Domesticated silver fox.

• It's already piped in "population of foxes" in the 2nd paragraph. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• It's a great article and a very interesting read. Considering the size, there really isn't a great deal of issues. It's 99.9% there with just a few tweaks required. Placing this one on hold and once those bits are cleared up then it'll be a straight forward pass. Miyagawa ( talk) 14:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks again for taking the time to review this, it's much appreciated. Sasata ( talk) 15:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Great - I did a double check on Grouse vs. Grouses and I've found both. So I think it's probably fine. I've updated the table above and I think this one now meets the criteria for a GA. Miyagawa ( talk) 18:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The sentence Though largely monogamous, DNA evidence from one population indicated large levels of polygyny, incest and mixed paternity litters.[79] is completely opaque to me. I'd like to copyedit it into meaning something, but I am not sure what that would be. Can anyone help? -- John ( talk) 19:40, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for a stupid comment - I known nothing about any of this and only read the sentence above. To me it says that most red foxes mate a single partner for life, and the couples don't have common parents. However, DNA analysis carried on one group [of uncertain size] indicated that those foxes mated more than one [male] partner, and some of the couples had common parents. Materialscientist ( talk) 22:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Makes sense. The way it is currently written is both ungrammatical and confusing. I think some references for the first claim would be a good start. -- John ( talk) 23:56, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I fixed the grammar; it is the foxes that are claimed to be monogamous, not the DNA evidence, as I thought. It does seem somewhat difficult still to reconcile the two claims.-- John ( talk) 00:03, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

If it helps, the sentence, Though largely monogamous, DNA evidence from one population indicated large levels of polygyny, incest and mixed paternity litters.[79] says that foxes usually pair with just one partner (they're monogamous) but DNA (at least from one population) showed many offspring (not their parents) actually had more than just the two parents. Put another way, if you were to watch foxes, it would appear that the pairs act monogamous, but if (at least in one population) if you test the DNA of their offspring, you'd find that some of the kits had different parents. They found evidence of polygyny (the dog fox fathered litters with more than one vixen), incest (some siblings or parent-offsprings mated), and mixed paternity (vixens had litters with more than one father). The point is that like people, black birds and many others, monogamy may be the usual mode but not 100%. FYI, monogamous doesn't necessarily mean one partner for life. If one mate does, monogamous animals will often find a new mate, they just have one at a time. Paddling bear ( talk) 03:02, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

GA toolbox
Copyvio detector Authorship External links
Reviewing
Templates Criteria Instructions

This review is transcluded from Talk:Red fox/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Jezhotwells ( talk · contribs) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I am quickfailing this nomination as there are a number of cleanup tags that need addressing, some dating back to 2005 - [Articles containing potentially dated statements (2005), Articles with unsourced statements (August 2011, December 2011), Articles with links needing disambiguation (June 2011)]. When all of this is sorted out and you have checked the article against the GA criteria feel free to renominate. Jezhotwells ( talk) 14:16, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Is there any way this recent GA could have a DYK summarizing Red fox#Vocalisations?

Did you know... the Red fox makes a variety of vocalizations, including a barking "wow wow wow" and a long, drawn out "waaaaah" sound?

It would be like Christmas for me. – Quadell ^{( talk)} 14:03, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Not sure where to put this but feel this little fellow deserves a mention, he's made a lot of headlines. I made a new section to talk about rural/urban distribution; I don't see dispersal itself covered in the article, though that would not be appropriate to talk about in the subsection I made (under Relationships with humans -> Urban foxes). Harshmustard ( talk) 18:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

There are tons of red foxes in Utah, yet this map doesn't show them extending into Utah. You can see a map here (linked from the Utah Division of WIldlife Resources page) showing distribution in Utah. It can also be found in northeast Arizona, northern New Mexico (see www.examiner.com/wildlife-in-albuquerque/new-mexico-s-foxes as the system has that domain blacklisted for some reason), all over in Colorado, and in some locations in Oklahoma. Can the map be updated to include these areas? ··· 日本穣 ^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I would add that tasmania has no recorded foxes and while they are all over the mainland, tasmania should not be colored at all. If it is, it should be "uncertain" and not present — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.9.193.253 ( talk) 05:50, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• Allen 1938 Harv error: link from #CITEREFAllen1938 doesn't point to any citation.

I'll try to fix this, unless anyone gets it first. Gaff ( talk) 05:20, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

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 of 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)

Improved reference to the article referenced by Una Smith about a "high-altitude adapted population of red foxes in the Rocky Mountains". Title: "On the trail of a gray ghost." Abstract: "A search for the heritage of an elusive gray-colored mountain fox is described. Results seem to indicate that these foxes are distinct from other fox species." ^[3] ScottS ( talk) 18:05, 26 December 2014 (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 [4] was the front page citing Presnall (1958) and Churcher (1959) about introductions to the Eastern seaboard. The Presnall article is at [5] and says:

"Red foxes weremade to fart big and eat turds

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 [6] 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)

The North American distribution map needs to be updated. Numerous maps show the foxes extend at least as far as east Texas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.74.65.251 ( talk) 01:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Is the "game" section really necessary? The "Diet, hunting and feeding behaviour" is all that needed about "game". Editor abcdef ( talk) 06:19, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The red fox (Vulpes vulpes) is the largest of the true foxes and the most abundant [clarification needed] member of the Carnivora,

Not true!

There are more cats, or dogs. This needs clarification, because foxes, cats and dogs are all in the order Carnivora. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.228.4.253 ( talk) 16:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

In the first sentence — the most abundant [clarification needed] member of the Carnivora?

Cats and dogs are In the order Carnivora and their populations are far greater than any foxes.

Would most abundant carnivoran species be better, since cats and dogs are subspecies. Editor abcdef ( talk) 21:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Among the true foxes, the red fox represents a more progressive form in the direction of carnivory.

The phrase "represents a more progressive form in the direction of carnivory" seems possibly less clear, more complex than it needs to be. I take it that it's saying the red fox has a more predominantly carnivorous diet, relative to other foxes (which, one assumes, are more omnivorous).

But not my field and I may have misunderstood, so I'll leave editing to others. -- Chriswaterguy talk 02:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

According to the Tasmanian government: "Encouragingly, no physical evidence of fox activity has been collected in Tasmania since July 2011 and it is hoped that fox eradication has been successful. " http://www.parks.tas.gov.au/?base=3026 This is pretty definitive and based on this, I propose that Tasmania be removed from the distribution map. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 04:50, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

This edit request to Red fox has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In section Subspecies, Steppe Foxes range is mentioned being in Kherson, _Russia_. Kherson is situated in Ukraine.

TimoHellman 16:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

 Done - and thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay ( talk) 17:05, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article about foxes living in cities. This has become widespread of late and is surely worth a mention, especially as many believe that the urban fox is evolving into a distinct distinct species, with a different diet and behaviour. The urban fox has learnt to cross roads safely, avoiding vehicles and it's main source of food is human left-overs, eating discarded kebabs, KFC, burgers etc. rather the fare it's country cousins rely on. Smokey TheCat 12:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I have essayed a new sub-section on this. Please feel free to improve it my lovely fellow editors. Smokey TheCat 13:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding "Urban foxes," it might be necessary to note that this applies to London and the UK. In countries like the U.S. or Germany, authorities would catch the foxes and release them in their "natural habitat," somewhere in the woods. I have never heard of or seen urban foxes in Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg, Boston, New York. Sure, here and there some might make it to the big city, but not in the scale you have in London. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.233.220 ( talk) 10:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a quick word on my recent edits. The refs were (and still are in some cases) set up so that most ref in the article body created a separate ref in the page. E.g.:

1. Dale 1906, p. 207 2. Dale 1906, p. 204

And those in turn linked to a publication in the "Further reading" list". So I have moved the bibliographical info from "Further reading" into the ref itself and consolidated them like this:

1. Dale 1906, p. 204, 207

Where the pages were all over the place I kept the page numbers in line, which looks kinda ugly, but less ugly than multiple refs. -- Cornellier ( talk) 20:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

In the lead image of the red fox, I can't see its hind legs. I wonder if I can find an image of the red fox with all its four legs showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esagurton ( talk • contribs) 11:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I encourage you to try to find such an image.-- Quisqualis ( talk) 20:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Jose Castello recently published his new book "Canids of the World" and he follows Statham et al. (2014) in applying Vulpes fulva to all North American red foxes and restricting V. vulpes to all Old World red foxes. He also list nine subspecies of the North American red fox as valid, compared to more than 30 subspecies of the Old World red fox. Therefore, it may be prudent to split off the North American red foxes into the page Vulpes fulva given the data in Statham et al. (2014). 68.4.252.105 ( talk) 15:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Some people have said that they have come to see red foxes in northern Mexico, although they also say that it is difficult to capture and videotape them, they should change the image of the distribution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.219.121.0 ( talk) 07:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Could be beneficial in the mutations section to include the marble colouring (often called the arctic marble red fox). There is one with this mutation currently being kept in the black pine animal sanctuary Stevethedinosaur22 ( talk) 06:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)