![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving Pinta Island tortoise was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 June 2012. | ![]() |
Neccessary- maybe should be called by species namec] IF you need to tell me something - Like that's gonna happen 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the name shouldn't be changed. A species or subspecies refers to a group of animals. In this case there's only one. - 142.179.196.119 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.71.123 ( talk) 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm well say, for example, we were going to talk about a famous person, we wouldn't place them in the human article and discuss them there. Likewise, we wouldn't talk about humans in an article about a famous person either. I think that there should be two seperate articles.-- Stikman 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Name should be changed for sure. Funkynusayri ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, there are tons of better pictures of George on the net. Maybe we should get a new one, the one that's already there kind of sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.90.110 ( talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom of the external links section is the following sentence. "The Tortoise is no longer endangered because of a massive orgy at the New York zoo the endangered tortoise is safe." Aside from horrid grammar, this seems to have no bearing on the External Links section, it needs citation, and it seems to have no factual content. Could someone either delete this sentence, or verify, cite, and move it to a proper location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.204.188 ( talk) 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Source discussed here outdated. RIP George. You are free at last! |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Reuters is reporting on 2008-07-22: "QUITO (Reuters) - After decades of solitude, "Lonesome George" may finally save his species of Galapagos giant tortoise from extinction, his keepers said on Monday. George, a Pinta island tortoise who has shown little interest in reproducing during 36 years in captivity, stunned his keepers by mating with one of his two female companions of a similar species of Galapagos tortoise. Park rangers found a nest with several eggs in George's pen and placed three in incubators. It will take about four months to know whether the eggs bear George's offspring. "Even if these three eggs are fertile and the born tortoises survive it will take several (genetic) generations to think of having a Pinta purebred ... even centuries," the park said in a statement. ... " Lonesome George may end bachelor days on Galapagos I amended the line "Three eggs were collected and placed in incubators; it will take four months to know if they are viable. If the eggs hatch successfuly they would be hybrids, not purebreds of the Pinta subspecies. [1]", changing the word "hybrids" to intergrades. Even though the rank of sub-species is on its way out of zoological usefulness, it is nonetheless true that hybrids result from cross breeding between different species, not within the same species. Sub-species or trans-population interbreeding is called intergrading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.61.254 ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
I would like to move this page to Abingdon Island Tortoise it is currently a redirect and I cannot find any reason why it is listed by its scientific name. Zoo Pro 10:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a quick google search and this is how many hits each got.
So logicaly it would be best to move the article to Pinta Island Tortoise. Zoo Pro 23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074sy3/Lonesome_George_and_the_Battle_for_Galapagos/
In this programme it was mentioned that only the skeletons of males were discovered on the island in potholes. This is somewhat peculiar because if the "recent" males died in potholes, then what about the older males or females?
The programme raises a question of how can it be that all of the surviving tortoises on the island were male. One possible answer is that when all of the living tortoises had been captures, killed eaten, shipped off, etc that there would have been some eggs hidden in the ground still. A single batch or two could be all of one sex because the incubation temperature can determine the sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.46.220 ( talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please pick the correct tense (was vs is).
Paragraph 2 "George was penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Reproduction attempts Section "George is penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Also dictionary.com doesn't recognize purebreed as a word, throughout this article we see "purebred", "purebreed", and "pure breed".
206.47.249.252 (
talk)
13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across this new news article about Lonesome George. It says that he is supposedly "nearly 100" years old, and states that they have found some potentially better (more compatible) candidates for mating. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8274521/Will-Lonesome-George-finally-find-a-mate.html Alhanalem ( talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Researchers have identified one male tortoise from the Volcano Wolf region of neighboring Galápagos island of Isabela which has half his genes in common with George's subspecies"
So humans have 98% the same genes in common with chimpanzees, but the Pinta Island tortoise George has only half his genes in common with the Isabella Island tortoise which is thought to have a Pinta Island parent ??? I call B/S on that. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed microsatellites, for which the very loosely applied term "gene" here refers, are selected for studies such as this so that they are different between two (sub)species investigated, so the closeness between the two species studied is of no relevance. Having 50% of George's microsatellites would suggest that this individual is a hybrid between him or one of his close relatives and another subspecies. I agree that the text could be clearer, but I'm not sure how to best write it Sophronitis ( talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Goodnight sweet prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.69.118 ( talk) 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "citation needed" - on web cite #19 from El Comercio paragraph #3, first line states "Naula estima que el fallecimiento se debió a un paro del corazón, propio de que la tortuga ya habría cumplido su ciclo de vida."
This translates to: Naula estimated that the death was due to a stoppage of the heart, as the turtle would have already fulfilled their life cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrt5150 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My computer is apparently not hip enough for Flash player 10, so I can't watch the video and be sure this makes no sense. Confirm? Deny? InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Or something similarly titled. Per WP:LEDE, all lead info should be detailed in the body of the article, not just hinted at. As it stands, it starts by talking about goats and revegetation. A reader skipping the lead may (and did, in my case) wonder "What goats? Grass was missing?" It's easy enough to check the lead, but it shouldn't be necessary. InedibleHulk ( talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Though this article is mainly about Lonesome George I am missing information about the discovery of this subspecies and the role of Rollo Beck in the extinction of this subspecies. Also I am missing a comprehensive description -- Melly42 ( talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
George recently died, but how old was he? Mazarin07 ( talk) 13:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved and moved again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
Pinta Island tortoise → Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni – Reversal of move made recently(5 hours ago) due to recent edit that with unsourced change of article name. The article could have multiple names: Abingdon Island tortoise, [1] Abingdon Island giant tortoise, Pinta giant tortoise [2] and Pinta Island tortoise citation needed, but according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FNAME if the common name is ambiguous, use the scientific name. This article naming is on the the main page in ITN, so maybe a more faster close could be in order! Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should the taxobox list this tortoise as Extinct in the Wild or as extinct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are people insisting that the Pinta Island Tortoise is still EW? Lonesome George is dead, we should presume the species to be extinct completely until a new discovery occurs. -- TangoFett ( talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I see there's something of an edit war forming over this. I fail to see how an animal in captivity dying can affect it's status in the wild. If was extinct in the wild and now it is extinct in captivity it must be extinct in totality. Crispmuncher ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
{{
taxobox}}
from the documentation
Template:Taxobox/doc. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
taxobox}}
. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)I propose that we list the Pinta Island Tortoise as extinct without including the IUCN information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
<nowiki> | status = EX | status_system =<!-- Please do not replace the IUCN Status information until the status is updated, reliable sources state that this tortoise is extinct, IUCN does not.--> | status_ref =<ref>{{cite news|last=Jones|first=Bryony|title=Lonesome George, last of the Pinta Island tortoises, dies|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/world/americas/lonesome-george-giant-tortoise-dies/index.html|accessdate=25 June 2012|newspaper=CNN|date=25 June 2012}}</ref>
|status_system=
with the hidden note? In addition, should the article mention that IUCN does not label it as extinct? A possible solution could be to to label it extinct in the lead per a source and use {{#tag:ref|TEXT|group=Note}} to mention the IUCN dispute.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to use an absolute term (extinct) in the infobox, when the text of the article casts doubt on that. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|status_system=
is filled.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|status_system=
is filled. It's from such things that I've come to understand that the IUCN part is intergrated into the taxobox (when a |status_system=
is given). Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Need a taxonomist here. There are apparently individuals that are a cross between Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni and C.n.becki. These individuals are, one must assume, likely to be fertile. Presumably they are equally members of both subspecies, and therefore fully members of neither. In which case: what are they? As I understand it, a new subspecies cannot be declared to have emerged overnight, so are they simply C.n x, or C.n abingdoni x becki, or C.n ssp.? If they then reproduce within the local population, which must be assumed to be overwhelmingly C n becki, what are the offspring to be described as. Eventually, I guess, we end up with C n becki animals with a small admixture of C n abingdoni DNA. If the genetic material of C.n abingdoni continues within the same species, can the subspecies be genuinely declared "extinct", or is it regarded as somehow "subsumed". As you will guess, this is not my area of expertise. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a little concerned about this. Before I worked on Chelid turtles I did actually work on Galaps, it was a while ago now but among my research I did examine the specimens at Prague Zoo. Although one was a saddleback it could have been a G. n. becki and further on reading the article that was not written by P. C. H. Pritchard it just quoting him saying it was similar to G. n. abingdoni it was actually written by Frank Sulloway who has written many controversial articles in the past. I only have my own views here and hence cannot edit that section without breaching Original Research rules and I am not going to but I do feel that someone should look at whether a magazine called Skeptics is a source worth citing here. Would appreciate some comments here and maybe another editor to look into this. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That's what surprised me the most. I felt like they should know, not be uncertain. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly recommended- I would strongly recommend to find the "ICUN 3.1" link to change the conservation status to extinct with the wide table of the 8 circles with 2 letters in each of then representing different conservation statuses (from EX, (extinct) to LC, (least concern)). I hope everyone knows what i am talking about, and I would strongly recommend someone to verify this. Dominicskywalker ( talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Given there seems to be consensus to use 'possibly extinct' and 'believed to have become extinct' is it okay to remove this category that uses an absolute term? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems like this article should almost simply be titled "Lonesome George," seeing as nearly all of it is about him. If anybody with sufficient knowledge about these tortoises or patience to research (neither of which I have at the moment), please add some information about the actual species, Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni, in addition to the present information about George. -- Breakfast221 ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
According to several sources—Márquez et al. (2004), Poulakakis et al. (2008), etc.—the Pinta Island tortoise (and the other Galapagos tortoises) are genetically distinct and should be treated as species rather than subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra. In fact, it seems that a large percentage of the recent papers on Galapagos tortoises treat them as separate species (including papers published this year). I don't normally work in turtles, so I don't know what the guidelines on their taxonomic determination are (some WikiProjects stick to certain reference sources to avoid endless conflicts), but I think we should at least mention the fact that many reliable scientific sources consider this a full species. Kaldari ( talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The current Synonym is given as "Geochelone abingdoni" which is the for species not the subspecies and doesn't really belong on this article, or if left labelled appropriately. A relevant synonym is Testudo ephippium, 1875 found in the Rhodin et al(page 000.197) reference and it also lists Testudo abingdoni, 1877 - which (as usual with synonyms) confuses me. Shall we add those two and reference Rhodin et al. ?12:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator ( talk • contribs)
The order of this article is poor. I understand that people are interested in Lonesome George; however, the first information should be about the Species. I suggest Lead→Taxonomy and range→Conservation efforts→Lonesome George→Reproduction Attempts→Death→Possible Remaining Individuals. It is possible that some sections may need to be slightly rewritten in order to create that order. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead needs additions per WP:LEAD. I'll take a crack at it tonight, unless someone wants to now. I'm considering adding {{ Lead too short}}, but I don't know if it would be beneficial. It looks poor since it is on the main page, and normal readers don't understand our lead policies, so I doubt they could create a quality lead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we know anything recent about this. Are the orginal specimens still available? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
AAAAH! Seems the correct name is Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii with double 'ii' at the end? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the article is moved, but wondering if this is uncontroversial! Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The ICZN allows for spelling emendation when the latin grammar is incorrect. This seems to be one of those cases. I believe it would be up to the first reviser whether or not to apply such emendation. Unfortunately, I have no idea who that would be. Kaldari ( talk) 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I really dislike the way the article appears with {{ -}}. Can we consider removing this? If the concern is that the map doesn't appear near the correct section, we could consider removing only the clear after the lead and moving the map to the left side of the page. Some of the concern will be fixed once the article, and thus the lead, is expanded a bit more. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
When did Galápagos Islands become part of Ecuador? I don't see anything on Galápagos Islands and no sources. I want to link the name change of Abingdon Island to the Enlgish( Earl of Abingdon) to the Spanish Pinta Island( es:Isla Pinta). Sources seem hard to come by, at least so far. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.galapagosexpeditions.com/islands/lonesome-george-tortoise.php Really? 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The article refers to this several times. Even in a quote. Makes it a little difficult to be internally consistant. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How could the species be extinct????? Couldn't people clone the turtle and keep trying to breed it with another species??? Last of it's kind, and nobody thought to clone it. That really goes to show how crazy people are... If anyone reading this agrees with my idea, please say so. Scientific Alan 2 ( talk) 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we find an IPA pronunciation for this anywhere? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii →
Pinta Island tortoise –
There is a green box above with a proposed move done yesterday that was rushed and closed within 25 hrs of proposal, unfortunately in error. I agree we need to follow only the directions at
WP:FNAME for this article title, but your interpretation of "ambiguous" at that guideline is incorrect. "Ambiguous" there does not apply when there are several different common names that could be applied to one taxon, rather it only applies to one common name when the meaning of that common name is not clear. In this case, "Pinta Island tortoise" is plenty clear enough for the major sources:
CNN,
Time magazine,
National Geographic,
BBC World News,
The Washington Post,
Chicago Sun-Times,
Slate magazine
Scientific American
Audubon magazine,
UPI
New Scientist magazine, etc. Also, per that guideline, ambiguity is determined specifically "as determined in reliable sources", not just by the logic of Wikipedia editors. So that means we can not say "my interpretation of info I found in reliable sources is that this name is ambiguous", but we can say "reliable sources have said this name is ambiguous".
There is also an error above in interpretation of what makes a reliable source. While scientific sources are important for facts in a biological article, they are virtually irrelevant when determing a common name for an article title. Our guideline,
WP:FNAME, has a whole section titled
Use the most common name when possible, and we need to do that here. If there is any question about what "common name" means in this context, the guidline references the definition at
common (vernacular) name.
While it was perhaps ok then to be bold by moving the article in less than a reasonable comment period, it should probably immediately go back to its original name while we discuss it, since that move is now challenged (see
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). --
Tom Hulse (
talk)
07:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
My preference is for common names where possible(see previous comments). So let's look at the options - listed prefererences in reverse order.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by George Steinmetz since it was made in the face of established consensus. I am not entirely sure what I think about his edit oldid, but I feel that it should be discussed here first since consensus has already been reached. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we just remove the "conservation status" part of the infobox entirely? Doggitydogs ( talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
Update after}}
to the IUCN information, but maybe removal of IUCN from the infobox is the cleanest thing for a reader. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
12:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This section seems misplaced or unnecessary. It states the goats were introduced in 1958, at a time when the species was already considered extinct. It then states (With no citation) that the goats were eliminated. It has no connection to trying to conserve the species (George was found 13 years after the goats arrived) and gives no time frame for the goat's removal. I would think the removal of the goats would be a broader conservation effort for the island as a whole, not the tortoises.
The Lonesome George section then suggests that the goats from 1958 were responsible for the species' loss due to habitat destruction, yet the species was already considered extinct before the goats arrived. The island's vegetation had been devastated by introduced feral goats, and the indigenous C. n. abingdonii population had been reduced to a single individual.
Probably should remove the conservation effort section and tweak the later sentence to not draw a conclusion that the goats were responsible (At least for the tortoises). -- ferret ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Interwiki links need to be checked as some refer to a subspecies and some to a Lonesome George. Ivo ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the link to the offical IUCN article to offically change the status to extinct. http://www.iucn.org/es/sobre/union/secretaria/oficinas/sudamerica/?10248/Lonesome-George-a-farewell-from-a-friend Dominicskywalker ( talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)dominicskywalker
New says Lonesome george was not the last one.-- 50.99.30.155 ( talk) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
IUCN lists this as extinct as of 2016 (see here). I'm a little confused by the note in the taxobox that says that EX status is out-of-date. Is there still some point of contention here or should the taxobox show the status as extinct? Plantdrew ( talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pinta Island tortoise. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pinta Island tortoise. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A news item involving Pinta Island tortoise was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 24 June 2012. | ![]() |
Neccessary- maybe should be called by species namec] IF you need to tell me something - Like that's gonna happen 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that the name shouldn't be changed. A species or subspecies refers to a group of animals. In this case there's only one. - 142.179.196.119 15:34, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Poor George. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.22.71.123 ( talk) 19:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmm well say, for example, we were going to talk about a famous person, we wouldn't place them in the human article and discuss them there. Likewise, we wouldn't talk about humans in an article about a famous person either. I think that there should be two seperate articles.-- Stikman 21:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC) Name should be changed for sure. Funkynusayri ( talk) 15:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, there are tons of better pictures of George on the net. Maybe we should get a new one, the one that's already there kind of sucks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.90.110 ( talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
At the bottom of the external links section is the following sentence. "The Tortoise is no longer endangered because of a massive orgy at the New York zoo the endangered tortoise is safe." Aside from horrid grammar, this seems to have no bearing on the External Links section, it needs citation, and it seems to have no factual content. Could someone either delete this sentence, or verify, cite, and move it to a proper location? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.204.188 ( talk) 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Source discussed here outdated. RIP George. You are free at last! |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Reuters is reporting on 2008-07-22: "QUITO (Reuters) - After decades of solitude, "Lonesome George" may finally save his species of Galapagos giant tortoise from extinction, his keepers said on Monday. George, a Pinta island tortoise who has shown little interest in reproducing during 36 years in captivity, stunned his keepers by mating with one of his two female companions of a similar species of Galapagos tortoise. Park rangers found a nest with several eggs in George's pen and placed three in incubators. It will take about four months to know whether the eggs bear George's offspring. "Even if these three eggs are fertile and the born tortoises survive it will take several (genetic) generations to think of having a Pinta purebred ... even centuries," the park said in a statement. ... " Lonesome George may end bachelor days on Galapagos I amended the line "Three eggs were collected and placed in incubators; it will take four months to know if they are viable. If the eggs hatch successfuly they would be hybrids, not purebreds of the Pinta subspecies. [1]", changing the word "hybrids" to intergrades. Even though the rank of sub-species is on its way out of zoological usefulness, it is nonetheless true that hybrids result from cross breeding between different species, not within the same species. Sub-species or trans-population interbreeding is called intergrading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.61.254 ( talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC) |
I would like to move this page to Abingdon Island Tortoise it is currently a redirect and I cannot find any reason why it is listed by its scientific name. Zoo Pro 10:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
I have done a quick google search and this is how many hits each got.
So logicaly it would be best to move the article to Pinta Island Tortoise. Zoo Pro 23:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074sy3/Lonesome_George_and_the_Battle_for_Galapagos/
In this programme it was mentioned that only the skeletons of males were discovered on the island in potholes. This is somewhat peculiar because if the "recent" males died in potholes, then what about the older males or females?
The programme raises a question of how can it be that all of the surviving tortoises on the island were male. One possible answer is that when all of the living tortoises had been captures, killed eaten, shipped off, etc that there would have been some eggs hidden in the ground still. A single batch or two could be all of one sex because the incubation temperature can determine the sex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.46.220 ( talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Please pick the correct tense (was vs is).
Paragraph 2 "George was penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Reproduction attempts Section "George is penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Also dictionary.com doesn't recognize purebreed as a word, throughout this article we see "purebred", "purebreed", and "pure breed".
206.47.249.252 (
talk)
13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
I came across this new news article about Lonesome George. It says that he is supposedly "nearly 100" years old, and states that they have found some potentially better (more compatible) candidates for mating. See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8274521/Will-Lonesome-George-finally-find-a-mate.html Alhanalem ( talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
"Researchers have identified one male tortoise from the Volcano Wolf region of neighboring Galápagos island of Isabela which has half his genes in common with George's subspecies"
So humans have 98% the same genes in common with chimpanzees, but the Pinta Island tortoise George has only half his genes in common with the Isabella Island tortoise which is thought to have a Pinta Island parent ??? I call B/S on that. Eregli bob ( talk) 04:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed microsatellites, for which the very loosely applied term "gene" here refers, are selected for studies such as this so that they are different between two (sub)species investigated, so the closeness between the two species studied is of no relevance. Having 50% of George's microsatellites would suggest that this individual is a hybrid between him or one of his close relatives and another subspecies. I agree that the text could be clearer, but I'm not sure how to best write it Sophronitis ( talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Goodnight sweet prince. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.69.118 ( talk) 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Regarding "citation needed" - on web cite #19 from El Comercio paragraph #3, first line states "Naula estima que el fallecimiento se debió a un paro del corazón, propio de que la tortuga ya habría cumplido su ciclo de vida."
This translates to: Naula estimated that the death was due to a stoppage of the heart, as the turtle would have already fulfilled their life cycle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcrt5150 ( talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
My computer is apparently not hip enough for Flash player 10, so I can't watch the video and be sure this makes no sense. Confirm? Deny? InedibleHulk ( talk) 11:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Or something similarly titled. Per WP:LEDE, all lead info should be detailed in the body of the article, not just hinted at. As it stands, it starts by talking about goats and revegetation. A reader skipping the lead may (and did, in my case) wonder "What goats? Grass was missing?" It's easy enough to check the lead, but it shouldn't be necessary. InedibleHulk ( talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Though this article is mainly about Lonesome George I am missing information about the discovery of this subspecies and the role of Rollo Beck in the extinction of this subspecies. Also I am missing a comprehensive description -- Melly42 ( talk) 13:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
George recently died, but how old was he? Mazarin07 ( talk) 13:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was Moved and moved again. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)( non-admin closure)
Pinta Island tortoise → Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni – Reversal of move made recently(5 hours ago) due to recent edit that with unsourced change of article name. The article could have multiple names: Abingdon Island tortoise, [1] Abingdon Island giant tortoise, Pinta giant tortoise [2] and Pinta Island tortoise citation needed, but according to WP:COMMONNAME and WP:FNAME if the common name is ambiguous, use the scientific name. This article naming is on the the main page in ITN, so maybe a more faster close could be in order! Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 15:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
Should the taxobox list this tortoise as Extinct in the Wild or as extinct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Why are people insisting that the Pinta Island Tortoise is still EW? Lonesome George is dead, we should presume the species to be extinct completely until a new discovery occurs. -- TangoFett ( talk) 16:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
( edit conflict)I see there's something of an edit war forming over this. I fail to see how an animal in captivity dying can affect it's status in the wild. If was extinct in the wild and now it is extinct in captivity it must be extinct in totality. Crispmuncher ( talk) 16:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC).
{{
taxobox}}
from the documentation
Template:Taxobox/doc. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
taxobox}}
. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)I propose that we list the Pinta Island Tortoise as extinct without including the IUCN information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
<nowiki> | status = EX | status_system =<!-- Please do not replace the IUCN Status information until the status is updated, reliable sources state that this tortoise is extinct, IUCN does not.--> | status_ref =<ref>{{cite news|last=Jones|first=Bryony|title=Lonesome George, last of the Pinta Island tortoises, dies|url=http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/25/world/americas/lonesome-george-giant-tortoise-dies/index.html|accessdate=25 June 2012|newspaper=CNN|date=25 June 2012}}</ref>
|status_system=
with the hidden note? In addition, should the article mention that IUCN does not label it as extinct? A possible solution could be to to label it extinct in the lead per a source and use {{#tag:ref|TEXT|group=Note}} to mention the IUCN dispute.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems unreasonable to use an absolute term (extinct) in the infobox, when the text of the article casts doubt on that. Kevin McE ( talk) 19:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|status_system=
is filled.
Ryan
Vesey
Review me!
20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
|status_system=
is filled. It's from such things that I've come to understand that the IUCN part is intergrated into the taxobox (when a |status_system=
is given). Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Need a taxonomist here. There are apparently individuals that are a cross between Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni and C.n.becki. These individuals are, one must assume, likely to be fertile. Presumably they are equally members of both subspecies, and therefore fully members of neither. In which case: what are they? As I understand it, a new subspecies cannot be declared to have emerged overnight, so are they simply C.n x, or C.n abingdoni x becki, or C.n ssp.? If they then reproduce within the local population, which must be assumed to be overwhelmingly C n becki, what are the offspring to be described as. Eventually, I guess, we end up with C n becki animals with a small admixture of C n abingdoni DNA. If the genetic material of C.n abingdoni continues within the same species, can the subspecies be genuinely declared "extinct", or is it regarded as somehow "subsumed". As you will guess, this is not my area of expertise. Kevin McE ( talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
I am a little concerned about this. Before I worked on Chelid turtles I did actually work on Galaps, it was a while ago now but among my research I did examine the specimens at Prague Zoo. Although one was a saddleback it could have been a G. n. becki and further on reading the article that was not written by P. C. H. Pritchard it just quoting him saying it was similar to G. n. abingdoni it was actually written by Frank Sulloway who has written many controversial articles in the past. I only have my own views here and hence cannot edit that section without breaching Original Research rules and I am not going to but I do feel that someone should look at whether a magazine called Skeptics is a source worth citing here. Would appreciate some comments here and maybe another editor to look into this. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
That's what surprised me the most. I felt like they should know, not be uncertain. Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Strongly recommended- I would strongly recommend to find the "ICUN 3.1" link to change the conservation status to extinct with the wide table of the 8 circles with 2 letters in each of then representing different conservation statuses (from EX, (extinct) to LC, (least concern)). I hope everyone knows what i am talking about, and I would strongly recommend someone to verify this. Dominicskywalker ( talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Given there seems to be consensus to use 'possibly extinct' and 'believed to have become extinct' is it okay to remove this category that uses an absolute term? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 22:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
It seems like this article should almost simply be titled "Lonesome George," seeing as nearly all of it is about him. If anybody with sufficient knowledge about these tortoises or patience to research (neither of which I have at the moment), please add some information about the actual species, Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni, in addition to the present information about George. -- Breakfast221 ( talk) 02:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
According to several sources—Márquez et al. (2004), Poulakakis et al. (2008), etc.—the Pinta Island tortoise (and the other Galapagos tortoises) are genetically distinct and should be treated as species rather than subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra. In fact, it seems that a large percentage of the recent papers on Galapagos tortoises treat them as separate species (including papers published this year). I don't normally work in turtles, so I don't know what the guidelines on their taxonomic determination are (some WikiProjects stick to certain reference sources to avoid endless conflicts), but I think we should at least mention the fact that many reliable scientific sources consider this a full species. Kaldari ( talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The current Synonym is given as "Geochelone abingdoni" which is the for species not the subspecies and doesn't really belong on this article, or if left labelled appropriately. A relevant synonym is Testudo ephippium, 1875 found in the Rhodin et al(page 000.197) reference and it also lists Testudo abingdoni, 1877 - which (as usual with synonyms) confuses me. Shall we add those two and reference Rhodin et al. ?12:58, 26 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SunCreator ( talk • contribs)
The order of this article is poor. I understand that people are interested in Lonesome George; however, the first information should be about the Species. I suggest Lead→Taxonomy and range→Conservation efforts→Lonesome George→Reproduction Attempts→Death→Possible Remaining Individuals. It is possible that some sections may need to be slightly rewritten in order to create that order. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The lead needs additions per WP:LEAD. I'll take a crack at it tonight, unless someone wants to now. I'm considering adding {{ Lead too short}}, but I don't know if it would be beneficial. It looks poor since it is on the main page, and normal readers don't understand our lead policies, so I doubt they could create a quality lead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Do we know anything recent about this. Are the orginal specimens still available? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
AAAAH! Seems the correct name is Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii with double 'ii' at the end? Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I suggest the article is moved, but wondering if this is uncontroversial! Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The ICZN allows for spelling emendation when the latin grammar is incorrect. This seems to be one of those cases. I believe it would be up to the first reviser whether or not to apply such emendation. Unfortunately, I have no idea who that would be. Kaldari ( talk) 19:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
I really dislike the way the article appears with {{ -}}. Can we consider removing this? If the concern is that the map doesn't appear near the correct section, we could consider removing only the clear after the lead and moving the map to the left side of the page. Some of the concern will be fixed once the article, and thus the lead, is expanded a bit more. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
When did Galápagos Islands become part of Ecuador? I don't see anything on Galápagos Islands and no sources. I want to link the name change of Abingdon Island to the Enlgish( Earl of Abingdon) to the Spanish Pinta Island( es:Isla Pinta). Sources seem hard to come by, at least so far. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
http://www.galapagosexpeditions.com/islands/lonesome-george-tortoise.php Really? 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
The article refers to this several times. Even in a quote. Makes it a little difficult to be internally consistant. Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How could the species be extinct????? Couldn't people clone the turtle and keep trying to breed it with another species??? Last of it's kind, and nobody thought to clone it. That really goes to show how crazy people are... If anyone reading this agrees with my idea, please say so. Scientific Alan 2 ( talk) 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a forum. Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/) [1] 00:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we find an IPA pronunciation for this anywhere? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 ( talk) 09:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii →
Pinta Island tortoise –
There is a green box above with a proposed move done yesterday that was rushed and closed within 25 hrs of proposal, unfortunately in error. I agree we need to follow only the directions at
WP:FNAME for this article title, but your interpretation of "ambiguous" at that guideline is incorrect. "Ambiguous" there does not apply when there are several different common names that could be applied to one taxon, rather it only applies to one common name when the meaning of that common name is not clear. In this case, "Pinta Island tortoise" is plenty clear enough for the major sources:
CNN,
Time magazine,
National Geographic,
BBC World News,
The Washington Post,
Chicago Sun-Times,
Slate magazine
Scientific American
Audubon magazine,
UPI
New Scientist magazine, etc. Also, per that guideline, ambiguity is determined specifically "as determined in reliable sources", not just by the logic of Wikipedia editors. So that means we can not say "my interpretation of info I found in reliable sources is that this name is ambiguous", but we can say "reliable sources have said this name is ambiguous".
There is also an error above in interpretation of what makes a reliable source. While scientific sources are important for facts in a biological article, they are virtually irrelevant when determing a common name for an article title. Our guideline,
WP:FNAME, has a whole section titled
Use the most common name when possible, and we need to do that here. If there is any question about what "common name" means in this context, the guidline references the definition at
common (vernacular) name.
While it was perhaps ok then to be bold by moving the article in less than a reasonable comment period, it should probably immediately go back to its original name while we discuss it, since that move is now challenged (see
Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle). --
Tom Hulse (
talk)
07:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
My preference is for common names where possible(see previous comments). So let's look at the options - listed prefererences in reverse order.
Regards, SunCreator ( talk) 13:45, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
I recently reverted an edit by George Steinmetz since it was made in the face of established consensus. I am not entirely sure what I think about his edit oldid, but I feel that it should be discussed here first since consensus has already been reached. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:21, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
Can we just remove the "conservation status" part of the infobox entirely? Doggitydogs ( talk) 07:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
{{
Update after}}
to the IUCN information, but maybe removal of IUCN from the infobox is the cleanest thing for a reader. Regards,
SunCreator (
talk)
12:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
This section seems misplaced or unnecessary. It states the goats were introduced in 1958, at a time when the species was already considered extinct. It then states (With no citation) that the goats were eliminated. It has no connection to trying to conserve the species (George was found 13 years after the goats arrived) and gives no time frame for the goat's removal. I would think the removal of the goats would be a broader conservation effort for the island as a whole, not the tortoises.
The Lonesome George section then suggests that the goats from 1958 were responsible for the species' loss due to habitat destruction, yet the species was already considered extinct before the goats arrived. The island's vegetation had been devastated by introduced feral goats, and the indigenous C. n. abingdonii population had been reduced to a single individual.
Probably should remove the conservation effort section and tweak the later sentence to not draw a conclusion that the goats were responsible (At least for the tortoises). -- ferret ( talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Interwiki links need to be checked as some refer to a subspecies and some to a Lonesome George. Ivo ( talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I found the link to the offical IUCN article to offically change the status to extinct. http://www.iucn.org/es/sobre/union/secretaria/oficinas/sudamerica/?10248/Lonesome-George-a-farewell-from-a-friend Dominicskywalker ( talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)dominicskywalker
New says Lonesome george was not the last one.-- 50.99.30.155 ( talk) 03:52, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
IUCN lists this as extinct as of 2016 (see here). I'm a little confused by the note in the taxobox that says that EX status is out-of-date. Is there still some point of contention here or should the taxobox show the status as extinct? Plantdrew ( talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pinta Island tortoise. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pinta Island tortoise. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)