This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Mammals: Monotremes and Marsupials Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials (assessed as Low-importance). Australia: Biota Low‑importance Antechinus is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Antechinus is a very striking example of parallel evolution. But if you try to look the animal up using "marsupial mouse," which is a common phrase a person might use, it redirects to the general category "Dasyuridae," a page with a list of scientific-labeled animal-types and no actual instance of the phrase "marsupial mouse" anywhere, giving no hint of which animal is the marsupial mouse and rendering it basically a dead end. I imagine it would be much more useful if "marsupial mouse" sent the searcher directly to this page, antechinus. 72.79.76.198 (talk) 09:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the post-reproductive mortality in males is partially explained as a wsy to macimise resources available to pregnant females? It seems that the timing of mating is already related to maximising redource availability, and males are larger than females this could more than double resources per female, including those fertilised by the hapless males. Stub Mandrel (talk) 22:16, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

elmidae I found this Nat Geo article, about the semelparous (!) behaviour. Full of information and yes an RS. I’m short on time to make use of it in the article, thought you might be interested. No obligation of course. Sadly no mention of the name 'root rat' ;) I spent a long time talking to 2 indigenous fellers yesterday who told me all about them, and their descriptions of the anumals' behaviour tallied precisely with what is in the Nat Geo article. These guys know about the land and the animals on it; not once did they use the name antechinus. Boscaswell talk 19:28, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The following section relating to mating behaviour has been removed as not stating how an evolutionary advantage results:

"It may ensure that as many matings as possible occur during the mating period. It also ensures that males can focus all their effort into one short breeding season."

The questions now answered are:

• Why would it be evolutionarily advantageous that as many matings as possible occur during the mating period?
• How does "males focus[ing] all their effort into one short breeding season" confer an evolutionary advantage?

2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 01:46, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restored the material. Your unwillingness to read the given source, which spells it all out, is a not a reason for the information to be removed from the article. Some minimal understanding of animal life histories and energetics should make it clear to you that reducing the necessary duration of costly competition and mating behaviour is a direct evolutionary advantage, but even if you don't understand that, the source and statement are valid. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:00, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A source is a reference, not additional reading material; please be constructive and clean it up or leave it out. 2A02:8071:184:4E80:0:0:0:6F0F (talk) 06:36, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We summarize the sources - the reader is supposed to turn there for details. Feel free to wallow in your misconceptions on the function of sources, but if you continue to remove text from the article because you can't be bothered to read, you will eventually be blocked for disruptive editing. Reverted again. The next time this happens, you will be reported for edit-warring. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:16, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Giving a third opinion on the matter. The previous paragraph ends with:

If there were no male die-off, there would still only be a small likelihood of males surviving to the next mating period. Thus, it is far better for the males to invest heavily in one breeding season than attempt to survive to the next one.

This seems to give the necessary context for the statement, and hopefully answers 2A02:8071:184:4E80's questions about the evolutionary advantage. With that considered, I believe that the statement should be kept. I will note that the last sentence of the previous paragraph would do better with a source of its own – right now, it reads as a slightly OR-y inference from the previous (sourced) sentence.

However, I will remind participants that edit-warring is a two-player game^[a]: even if Elmidae is correct on the merits, being right isn't enough, and the behavior from both sides can be seen as edit-warring. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:38, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I would like to suggest adding a scientifically relevant source to the article on Antechinus, relating to research into the species’ reproductive behavior that has been developed over several years.

Starting as early as 2020, Italian researcher Erika Zaid began investigating the effects of reproductive strategies on sleep patterns in male Antechinus. This work culminated in a peer-reviewed article published in Current Biology in 2024, titled:

"Semelparous marsupials reduce sleep for sex" Zaid, E., Lesku, J.A., et al. (Current Biology, 2024) https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.12.031

The study shows that male Antechinus drastically reduce sleep during the breeding season, a behavior understood as an evolutionary adaptation to maximize mating opportunities before their post-reproductive death (a result of the species’ semelparous life cycle). Earlier versions of this research were presented at conferences and in Zaid's doctoral thesis as early as 2020–2022.

This research adds significant depth to our understanding of the behavioral and physiological trade-offs involved in the reproductive strategy of these unique marsupials.

Suggested addition to the article (in a "Reproduction" or "Behavior" section):

“Research conducted since 2020 and published in 2024 by Italian researcher Erika Zaid showed that male Antechinus reduce sleep substantially during the breeding season. This sleep deprivation is believed to be an evolutionary strategy to maximize reproductive success before death, characteristic of the species' semelparous life history.” Zaid, E., Lesku, J.A., et al. (2024). Semelparous marsupials reduce sleep for sex. Current Biology. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.12.031

Please let me know if the wording needs to be adapted to better fit the tone and structure of the article. Thank you for your attention! Xan1777 (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Xan1777: Do you have some connection to this research? - UtherSRG (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing further to add — I believe the current wording fits the tone and structure of the article as it is. Thank you! 37.162.38.153 (talk) 19:38, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinarily I would say that this type of random extra-specific minutiae is not suitable for an encyclopedic overview, but for this taxon we have an unusually detailed section on reproduction, so a single sentence might actually make sense. Without the name-dropping, however - the researcher's name should not appear. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:02, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Elmidae that name-dropping isn't necessary. What about:

A 2024 study showed that male Antechinus reduce sleep substantially during the breeding season, which is believed to be an evolutionary strategy to maximize reproductive success before death.

I don't believe that mentioning semelparity again is needed, as I presume the sentence would be added in the "Male semelparity" subsection. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 06:26, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a good formulation.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 05:35, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bigger issue is that the given DOI links to a completely unrelated study about Drosophila wing development. The correct link would be this one, and the implausible DOI typo makes me wonder if the original edit request might have been AI-generated. A closer look at the actual study might be warranted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 05:58, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking the same thing... - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 11 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]