![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A picture would be nice. (Kwaku)
Shouldn't this page be titled "Echidna" not "Echidnas"?
Would that fix the disambiguation issue with the page titled "Echidna"?
-- User:Echidna
The Monotreme page lists Zaglossus bartoni as another living species of Echidna. Could someone more knowledgable than I either add them here, or delete them there? GTBacchus 01:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When does Knuckles ever dig? He climbs and glides, but I've never seen him dig...
Yeah he does, like in sonic battle advance. ~ fran
Could we have a better picture of Knuckles? -- 81.208.161.29 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC) echidnas are moslty mexican mostly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.126.50 ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article says: The echidna's distribution across Australia is the largest of any mammal (Parker, Janet 'Echidna Love Trains').
However I question the validity of this statement, the marsupial family of Kangaroo are also distributed across the mainland, New Guinea (Papua), and Tasmania. 211.30.95.182 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you haven't heard, there's a new MSNBC story that talks about an group of scientists who explored the Foja mountains in Indonesia, and found an abundance of animals. Some are new species, some are species of animals that are rare or endangered - the article specifically mentions the Long-beaked Echidna.
Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11114156 It should be safe to assume that a reference to this article or event will be added to this page sometime in the future, correct? I'd edit it myself, but I'm not really an expert on the subject, article, or story, so I'd be uncomfortable making such an addition.
PS: I made one minor edit... Knuckles the Echidna can only glide, not fly. ;) --- TheInvisMan, 03:05 PM EST, Feb. 07, 2006
Yo how do you pronounce it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.130.80 ( talk • contribs) .
I was watching the newshour on PBS the other night and the explorers from the new guinea exploration team said they had found a new species of monotreme. They called it a giant echidna and said it weighed around 15 lbs. I have done some research on this though and the giant echidna is listed as an extinct species. So is this a new species or a "living fossil"? If anyone finds more info I would appreciate them if they would say something. I will do what research I can find and add it as I get it. 208.65.105.38 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops I wasn't signed in when I made the above post. L337wm2007 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
So here it is I found the official transcript of this particular PBS program. I decided to just copy paste as I am still a little unsure on my ability to make links. I really hope this isn't plagerism.
JEFFREY BROWN: Then there is also was a very strange-looking animal called a giant echidna?
BRUCE BEEHLER: Yes.
Some people call them spiny anteaters. The echidna group is part of an ancient group of mammals called the monotremes. There are only -- there are somewhere between five and six species. They are egg-laying mammals. They are the only mammals on Earth that lay eggs.
And they have all sorts of other weird habits. This -- this little guy -- well, he is not so little -- he weighs about 15 pounds -- creeps around on the ground. Using his long beak, he -- he pokes into the soft earth to gather up earthworms. And he also burrows in the ground when he seems -- he gets fearful of predators or things like that. And he has got -- but he also has these porcupine-like spines all over his back. He's a weird one. There's no question about it.
So in reply he used no scientific name... I didn't think he did so 1. No scientific name yet or 2. It's just not in this info. L337wm2007 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june06/lostworld_3-10.html here it is hope it helps :) L337wm2007 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
well don't I feel a little silly.... thanks for the help though I will tell my zoology class. L337wm2007 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This term is increasingly rare in the land of the echidna (Australia), it is valuable to have it included, but I do not think that the name ought not be seen as interchangable.
If you ask about spiny anteaters you are likely to hear 'what? Oh, you mean echidnas.'— Dananimal 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually a lot of people seem to either think that the spiny anteater is an entirely different species or they have it completely wrong (isn't that a porcupine?) it should be included just for reference sake. L337wm2007 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Eregli bob ( talk) 06:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well actually I have never seen someone write it, but I have had several people ask me this sadly enough. I have also had many people not believe me when I corrected them. L337wm2007 15:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The things some say about animals... *Sigh* I don't know why, but I always get sort of angry when I hear inaccuracies about animals. Dora Nichov 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple solution here, based on Eregli bob's note: add a phrase in the intro "sometimes called 'spiny anteater' outside its native Australia and New Guinea" set off with commas. Makes the point that the term is still sometimes used without suggesting it's common where the animal actually lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.94.95 ( talk) 04:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should also be made clear that echidnas are not actually anteaters, despite this seemingly increasingly more common nickname. It mentions that they are not closely related but there is no real evidence to show that echidnas have descended from anteaters at all, even those that do eat termites and ants. It's more likely that they diverted from ancient marsupials instead. I'm not sure if that level of technical information really belongs in the intro but it should be made apparent somewhere that there is no direct relationship between echidnas and anteaters at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the intro is quite dull and overly biological, and would like to add a reference to Knuckles the Echidna to make it a little more interesting -- but that seems to offend many people, who revert that edit almost instantly. I fail to see how it's any less relevant than the name's origins in Greek mythology, though, or indeed many other boring things in that cluttered intro. I mean, he is surely the only famous echidna. 81.170.11.105 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this photo on the most recent article from a different language, should it replace the current taxobox image? The colours are better, but I am unsure of detail. -- liquidGhoul 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish to ask your opinions about this:
The Pokemon Cyndaquil, bears a resemblance to the echidna, as well as having a similar-sounding name.
It could just be the sleep deprivation talking, but can anyone explain to me how "Cyndaquil" sounds anything, even remotely, like "echidna"?
Not a major concern, just something I thought of when I read the article. 58.106.209.10 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandslash, if it curled up, would look like that balled up echidna, wouldn't it? 69.133.11.119 ( talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add in a picture gallery? -- Pezzar 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Where can I get one of these animals? I really really like them and would love to have one of these. Michaeldrayson 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the article "It is the only surviving genre in the latter..." I presume that this should be genus, and am changing it unless someone has a valid objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.128.146 ( talk) 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, were we just going to leave it at family and not finish classifying it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently so. As a male hominid, I guess I should count my blessings... yep, just the one.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a there should be a reference to Knuckles (from the Sonic games). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.150.97 ( talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
i agree 67.86.119.65 ( talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree! My first encounter with the word "echidna" was from a Sonic the Hedgehog 3. 206.53.59.77 ( talk) 18:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Any justification for deleting my edit below? Was related to me several times on a recent tour, there are a number of web notes of this. (I placed the {{fact}} tag myself).
- Leonard G.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. ( talk • contribs)
I read in a book a while ago (I think the title was "Venomous Creatures") that echidnas were considered poisonous, not because of their own venom, but because they make a habit of rubbing poisonous frogs on their quills. They have some sort of natural immunity to the poison, and the poison on their quills protects them from predators. I don't have any online source for this, and I've long since lost the book in question, but there must be some source out there describing this curious behavior. Lurlock ( talk) 15:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that 'puggle' is an incorrect term, and a common misconception among overseas visitors. This word is virtually unknown in Australia, and I've never heard a baby echidna called this before. I've also never seen it mentioned in any literature originating from Australia. Can we get a source?
I've also often read that a baby PLATYPUS is called a 'puggle' on international websites etc, but I've never heard this term in Australia either. Whatever the case, it's not mentioned in the Platypus article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.200.181 ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I can understand that while Knuckles is a notable echidna, he definately does not deserve a whole section about him. Change the section to 'Notable Echidnas'. He does not deserve a picture on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.116.175 ( talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna is described as "recently discovered". This phrase will age and so, following the Manual of Style, should be avoided and replaced by a more precise and absolute expression. When was it discovered? Old Father Time ( talk) 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna contains several dates, but none appears to refer to an authenticated record of a live animal – or does "recently discovered" refer to the description from a damaged specimen in 1961? I have tentatively replaced "recently discovered" by "described in 1961". If anyone wishes to replace this by a reference to a live sighting, please do so. Old Father Time ( talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add a photo of an Echidna egg? Francisco Valverde ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
First 2 remarks copied from user_talk:UtherSRG by topic starter.
Dear UtherSRG, could you please explain why you reverted my change in the
echidna article? True anteaters are as closely related to echidnas as you and I (both us and true anteaters being
placentals while echidnas are
monotremes), and I suppose you don't consider yourselves close enough related to echidnas to mention it.
Scarabaeoid (
talk)
18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear which, if any, species they are describing in the June 2010 issue
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/06/foja-mountains/white-text
FX ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
" Neocortex makes up half of the echidna's brain, compared to one-third of a human brain.[ref name=bbc121119/]"
is incorrect, in the text, as well as the source. Human Brain is much more neocortex, 80% or more. I will find a reference for this and return. meanwhile, absurd claim that Echidna is more advanced than human is removed from page
Rustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.227.53 ( talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Article as it stands doesn't explain what spines are for. Seeing as they are a distinctive and recognisable feature of the animal, it would be desirable to have some reference to the function of the spines (and perhaps how they are different from spines of hedgehogs and spiny anteaters). Bilby4 ( talk) 04:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the article should explain the purpose of the penile spines in regards to echidna mating. It seem strange to include them in the discussion without explaining what they are and what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
When concerning how to help echidnas, it seems that teaching people how to help them seems a bit much. It would probably be best to not mention handling echidnas at all to prevent people from trying to help them directly, which would probably do more harm then good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, it may need to be established what is meant by "During mating, the heads on one side "shut down" and do not grow in size; the other two are used to release semen into the female's two-branched reproductive tract. Each time it has sex, it alternates heads in sets of two." Whether this mean it switches during each mating season or instance of mating is a little unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The section mentions the divergence of platypus-echidna and that this might imply that echidnas came from water-foraging ancestors. However, I feel that this could use a little more explanation of the evidence, such as their anatomical and physiological traits such as: as aquadynamic streamlining, dorsally projecting hind limbs acting as rudders, and locomotion founded on hypertrophied humeral long-axis rotation, which provides a very efficient swimming stroke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the section it mentions how olviparous reproduction may have given monotremes an advantage over marsupials however it can be expanded. This advantage can in part lead to the observed associated adaptive radiation of echidnas and expansion of the niche space, which together contradict the fairly common assumption of halted morphological and molecular evolution that continues to be associated with monotremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The description section says echidnas are small mammals, but when I checked the source it states they are medium-sized mammals (and that was referring to the smaller short-beaked variety). I'm changing that to say medium-sized to be in line with the source 124.168.178.29 ( talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I find this section highly problematic (and the article as a whole of rather low quality): The writing is confusing and there is a lot of speculation that is, at best, written in a potentially misleading manner. I think particularly of the claims of a close connection between monotremes (possibly also mammals in general) and birds/reptiles. If monotremes were non-mammals or if mammals descended from birds, e.g., this would turn the current accepted wisdom on its head. 80.226.24.12 ( talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Earlier today I deleted the last paragraph of the section, explaining why in my edit summary. NewYorkYankee reverted the deletion, saying, "The paragraph is cited. If it contains errors, you should point them out and look for consensus on the Talk page." Very well. I deleted the paragraph because it is full of nonsense about the relationship between echidnas and birds and reptiles. There is no meaningful relationship. Echidnas are mammals, and therefore synapsids; their history diverges from the history of reptiles and birds, which are diapsids, around 350 million years ago. The earliest birds didn't appear until around 150 million years ago, so the idea of echidnas being derived from birds is completely inconsistent with modern understanding (as well as inconsistent with the earlier paragraphs in this section). As for the sources that are cited here, I don't believe they support the statements made in the paragraph, but in any case the first one is quite old (1993), and the second is a primary research study dealing with a very difficult and rather controversial topic -- the sex chromosomes in monotremes are extraordinarily complex. (The second reference says interesting things about the evolution of sex chromosomes, but it does not claim to shed any light on the overall evolutionary history of monotremes.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you eat ants, you are an anteater. Why the distinction? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし!) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is the section about the ears under Diet? Shouldn't it be under Anatomy or something? 89.17.134.9 ( talk) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"Echidnas evidently evolved..." states the article. yet there is NO EVIDENCE for "evolution", it's only a theory. 06:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.171.53 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Echidnas evidently evolved between 20 and 50 million years ago, descending from a platypus-like monotreme.[3] This ancestor was aquatic, but echidnas adapted to life on land.[3] Echidnas are able to find the wae by spitting on the non-believers, and are linked to their queens. 64.201.166.121 ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how long it's going to take for someone to notice that under the "in popular culture" heading, someone put "& Knuckles" at the end of the list of Archie comic echidnas. (It already stated Knuckles was there and the way it's worded is an obvious reference to the meme). Obviously I can't fix it because the page is protected, so I'm guessing that happened before the page was protected.
Bobby19456 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead tells us echidnas "are not closely related to the true anteaters of the Americas". What makes the American ones the true ones? In both cases, anteater is a colloquial, common name. It's not the scientific one, where some real truth could validly be assigned. I see no problem in removing the word "true", and it would remove the hint of American-centrism presently there. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The section that was headed "Classification" has very little on classification, and a lot on echidna anatomy, so I have changed the title. Some broader reorganization of the article might be a good idea, rather than grouping anatomy and physiology, taxonomy, and lifespan together. Vicki Rosenzweig ( talk) 01:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
″Fully grown females can weigh up to 4.5 kilograms (9.9 lb), the males 25% larger, up to 6 kilograms (13 lb).″ The reference for this information only mentions "about 4.5 kg" and "about 6 kg" (not "up to", and no % comparison). Also, 6kg is 33% larger than 4.5kg. (4.5kg is 25% smaller). 51.6.34.252 ( talk) 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits by IP editors 193.119.106.181 / 203.219.171.186 have repeatedly re-added contentious material to the Echidna article, despite being reverted by several editors.
One claim is that " The word can also derive from echinus, the Latin word for " hedgehog" ". However, according to Wiktionary, the Latin word for hedgehog is erinaceus; while echinus gives "hedgehog; sea urchin", it seems that this Latin term is derived from Ancient Greek, and primarily relates to sea urchins, rather than hedgehogs.
The fossil record of monotremes is very sparse, and to link vague terms such as "platypus-like monotreme" to Steropodon and Steropodontidae, and "echidna-like monotremes" to Kryoryctes implies a level of certainty regarding these species as being the direct ancestors of echidnas that is not supported by the linked articles, or by the ref by Phillips et al. Bahudhara ( talk) 01:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Lots of interesting information . I was wondering about average length and height (metric). Am I missing it somewhere? 49.176.210.120 ( talk) 11:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A picture would be nice. (Kwaku)
Shouldn't this page be titled "Echidna" not "Echidnas"?
Would that fix the disambiguation issue with the page titled "Echidna"?
-- User:Echidna
The Monotreme page lists Zaglossus bartoni as another living species of Echidna. Could someone more knowledgable than I either add them here, or delete them there? GTBacchus 01:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When does Knuckles ever dig? He climbs and glides, but I've never seen him dig...
Yeah he does, like in sonic battle advance. ~ fran
Could we have a better picture of Knuckles? -- 81.208.161.29 16:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC) echidnas are moslty mexican mostly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.24.126.50 ( talk) 16:05, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Currently the article says: The echidna's distribution across Australia is the largest of any mammal (Parker, Janet 'Echidna Love Trains').
However I question the validity of this statement, the marsupial family of Kangaroo are also distributed across the mainland, New Guinea (Papua), and Tasmania. 211.30.95.182 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
In case you haven't heard, there's a new MSNBC story that talks about an group of scientists who explored the Foja mountains in Indonesia, and found an abundance of animals. Some are new species, some are species of animals that are rare or endangered - the article specifically mentions the Long-beaked Echidna.
Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11114156 It should be safe to assume that a reference to this article or event will be added to this page sometime in the future, correct? I'd edit it myself, but I'm not really an expert on the subject, article, or story, so I'd be uncomfortable making such an addition.
PS: I made one minor edit... Knuckles the Echidna can only glide, not fly. ;) --- TheInvisMan, 03:05 PM EST, Feb. 07, 2006
Yo how do you pronounce it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.130.80 ( talk • contribs) .
I was watching the newshour on PBS the other night and the explorers from the new guinea exploration team said they had found a new species of monotreme. They called it a giant echidna and said it weighed around 15 lbs. I have done some research on this though and the giant echidna is listed as an extinct species. So is this a new species or a "living fossil"? If anyone finds more info I would appreciate them if they would say something. I will do what research I can find and add it as I get it. 208.65.105.38 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops I wasn't signed in when I made the above post. L337wm2007 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
2006 (UTC)
So here it is I found the official transcript of this particular PBS program. I decided to just copy paste as I am still a little unsure on my ability to make links. I really hope this isn't plagerism.
JEFFREY BROWN: Then there is also was a very strange-looking animal called a giant echidna?
BRUCE BEEHLER: Yes.
Some people call them spiny anteaters. The echidna group is part of an ancient group of mammals called the monotremes. There are only -- there are somewhere between five and six species. They are egg-laying mammals. They are the only mammals on Earth that lay eggs.
And they have all sorts of other weird habits. This -- this little guy -- well, he is not so little -- he weighs about 15 pounds -- creeps around on the ground. Using his long beak, he -- he pokes into the soft earth to gather up earthworms. And he also burrows in the ground when he seems -- he gets fearful of predators or things like that. And he has got -- but he also has these porcupine-like spines all over his back. He's a weird one. There's no question about it.
So in reply he used no scientific name... I didn't think he did so 1. No scientific name yet or 2. It's just not in this info. L337wm2007 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june06/lostworld_3-10.html here it is hope it helps :) L337wm2007 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
well don't I feel a little silly.... thanks for the help though I will tell my zoology class. L337wm2007 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
This term is increasingly rare in the land of the echidna (Australia), it is valuable to have it included, but I do not think that the name ought not be seen as interchangable.
If you ask about spiny anteaters you are likely to hear 'what? Oh, you mean echidnas.'— Dananimal 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually a lot of people seem to either think that the spiny anteater is an entirely different species or they have it completely wrong (isn't that a porcupine?) it should be included just for reference sake. L337wm2007 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Eregli bob ( talk) 06:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Well actually I have never seen someone write it, but I have had several people ask me this sadly enough. I have also had many people not believe me when I corrected them. L337wm2007 15:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The things some say about animals... *Sigh* I don't know why, but I always get sort of angry when I hear inaccuracies about animals. Dora Nichov 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Simple solution here, based on Eregli bob's note: add a phrase in the intro "sometimes called 'spiny anteater' outside its native Australia and New Guinea" set off with commas. Makes the point that the term is still sometimes used without suggesting it's common where the animal actually lives. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.68.94.95 ( talk) 04:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Maybe it should also be made clear that echidnas are not actually anteaters, despite this seemingly increasingly more common nickname. It mentions that they are not closely related but there is no real evidence to show that echidnas have descended from anteaters at all, even those that do eat termites and ants. It's more likely that they diverted from ancient marsupials instead. I'm not sure if that level of technical information really belongs in the intro but it should be made apparent somewhere that there is no direct relationship between echidnas and anteaters at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
I think the intro is quite dull and overly biological, and would like to add a reference to Knuckles the Echidna to make it a little more interesting -- but that seems to offend many people, who revert that edit almost instantly. I fail to see how it's any less relevant than the name's origins in Greek mythology, though, or indeed many other boring things in that cluttered intro. I mean, he is surely the only famous echidna. 81.170.11.105 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I found this photo on the most recent article from a different language, should it replace the current taxobox image? The colours are better, but I am unsure of detail. -- liquidGhoul 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I wish to ask your opinions about this:
The Pokemon Cyndaquil, bears a resemblance to the echidna, as well as having a similar-sounding name.
It could just be the sleep deprivation talking, but can anyone explain to me how "Cyndaquil" sounds anything, even remotely, like "echidna"?
Not a major concern, just something I thought of when I read the article. 58.106.209.10 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
Sandslash, if it curled up, would look like that balled up echidna, wouldn't it? 69.133.11.119 ( talk) 18:17, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Could someone add in a picture gallery? -- Pezzar 07:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Where can I get one of these animals? I really really like them and would love to have one of these. Michaeldrayson 15:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
According to the article "It is the only surviving genre in the latter..." I presume that this should be genus, and am changing it unless someone has a valid objection. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.128.146 ( talk) 03:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Erm, were we just going to leave it at family and not finish classifying it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.140.218.179 ( talk) 02:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Apparently so. As a male hominid, I guess I should count my blessings... yep, just the one.-- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a there should be a reference to Knuckles (from the Sonic games). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.128.150.97 ( talk) 00:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
i agree 67.86.119.65 ( talk) 03:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
I also agree! My first encounter with the word "echidna" was from a Sonic the Hedgehog 3. 206.53.59.77 ( talk) 18:54, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
Any justification for deleting my edit below? Was related to me several times on a recent tour, there are a number of web notes of this. (I placed the {{fact}} tag myself).
- Leonard G.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Leonard G. ( talk • contribs)
I read in a book a while ago (I think the title was "Venomous Creatures") that echidnas were considered poisonous, not because of their own venom, but because they make a habit of rubbing poisonous frogs on their quills. They have some sort of natural immunity to the poison, and the poison on their quills protects them from predators. I don't have any online source for this, and I've long since lost the book in question, but there must be some source out there describing this curious behavior. Lurlock ( talk) 15:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I was under the impression that 'puggle' is an incorrect term, and a common misconception among overseas visitors. This word is virtually unknown in Australia, and I've never heard a baby echidna called this before. I've also never seen it mentioned in any literature originating from Australia. Can we get a source?
I've also often read that a baby PLATYPUS is called a 'puggle' on international websites etc, but I've never heard this term in Australia either. Whatever the case, it's not mentioned in the Platypus article.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.200.181 ( talk) 15:47, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
I can understand that while Knuckles is a notable echidna, he definately does not deserve a whole section about him. Change the section to 'Notable Echidnas'. He does not deserve a picture on this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.199.116.175 ( talk) 23:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna is described as "recently discovered". This phrase will age and so, following the Manual of Style, should be avoided and replaced by a more precise and absolute expression. When was it discovered? Old Father Time ( talk) 21:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
The article Sir David's Long-beaked Echidna contains several dates, but none appears to refer to an authenticated record of a live animal – or does "recently discovered" refer to the description from a damaged specimen in 1961? I have tentatively replaced "recently discovered" by "described in 1961". If anyone wishes to replace this by a reference to a live sighting, please do so. Old Father Time ( talk) 20:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Could someone add a photo of an Echidna egg? Francisco Valverde ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
First 2 remarks copied from user_talk:UtherSRG by topic starter.
Dear UtherSRG, could you please explain why you reverted my change in the
echidna article? True anteaters are as closely related to echidnas as you and I (both us and true anteaters being
placentals while echidnas are
monotremes), and I suppose you don't consider yourselves close enough related to echidnas to mention it.
Scarabaeoid (
talk)
18:32, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
It's not clear which, if any, species they are describing in the June 2010 issue
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/print/2010/06/foja-mountains/white-text
FX ( talk) 15:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
" Neocortex makes up half of the echidna's brain, compared to one-third of a human brain.[ref name=bbc121119/]"
is incorrect, in the text, as well as the source. Human Brain is much more neocortex, 80% or more. I will find a reference for this and return. meanwhile, absurd claim that Echidna is more advanced than human is removed from page
Rustin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.227.53 ( talk) 16:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Article as it stands doesn't explain what spines are for. Seeing as they are a distinctive and recognisable feature of the animal, it would be desirable to have some reference to the function of the spines (and perhaps how they are different from spines of hedgehogs and spiny anteaters). Bilby4 ( talk) 04:19, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe the article should explain the purpose of the penile spines in regards to echidna mating. It seem strange to include them in the discussion without explaining what they are and what they do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
When concerning how to help echidnas, it seems that teaching people how to help them seems a bit much. It would probably be best to not mention handling echidnas at all to prevent people from trying to help them directly, which would probably do more harm then good. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
For clarity's sake, it may need to be established what is meant by "During mating, the heads on one side "shut down" and do not grow in size; the other two are used to release semen into the female's two-branched reproductive tract. Each time it has sex, it alternates heads in sets of two." Whether this mean it switches during each mating season or instance of mating is a little unclear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collins.1116 ( talk • contribs) 01:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The section mentions the divergence of platypus-echidna and that this might imply that echidnas came from water-foraging ancestors. However, I feel that this could use a little more explanation of the evidence, such as their anatomical and physiological traits such as: as aquadynamic streamlining, dorsally projecting hind limbs acting as rudders, and locomotion founded on hypertrophied humeral long-axis rotation, which provides a very efficient swimming stroke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 22:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
At the end of the section it mentions how olviparous reproduction may have given monotremes an advantage over marsupials however it can be expanded. This advantage can in part lead to the observed associated adaptive radiation of echidnas and expansion of the niche space, which together contradict the fairly common assumption of halted morphological and molecular evolution that continues to be associated with monotremes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shippley.3 ( talk • contribs) 22:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The description section says echidnas are small mammals, but when I checked the source it states they are medium-sized mammals (and that was referring to the smaller short-beaked variety). I'm changing that to say medium-sized to be in line with the source 124.168.178.29 ( talk) 03:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
I find this section highly problematic (and the article as a whole of rather low quality): The writing is confusing and there is a lot of speculation that is, at best, written in a potentially misleading manner. I think particularly of the claims of a close connection between monotremes (possibly also mammals in general) and birds/reptiles. If monotremes were non-mammals or if mammals descended from birds, e.g., this would turn the current accepted wisdom on its head. 80.226.24.12 ( talk) 00:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Earlier today I deleted the last paragraph of the section, explaining why in my edit summary. NewYorkYankee reverted the deletion, saying, "The paragraph is cited. If it contains errors, you should point them out and look for consensus on the Talk page." Very well. I deleted the paragraph because it is full of nonsense about the relationship between echidnas and birds and reptiles. There is no meaningful relationship. Echidnas are mammals, and therefore synapsids; their history diverges from the history of reptiles and birds, which are diapsids, around 350 million years ago. The earliest birds didn't appear until around 150 million years ago, so the idea of echidnas being derived from birds is completely inconsistent with modern understanding (as well as inconsistent with the earlier paragraphs in this section). As for the sources that are cited here, I don't believe they support the statements made in the paragraph, but in any case the first one is quite old (1993), and the second is a primary research study dealing with a very difficult and rather controversial topic -- the sex chromosomes in monotremes are extraordinarily complex. (The second reference says interesting things about the evolution of sex chromosomes, but it does not claim to shed any light on the overall evolutionary history of monotremes.) Looie496 ( talk) 19:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
If you eat ants, you are an anteater. Why the distinction? KägeTorä - (影虎) ( もしもし!) 09:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Why is the section about the ears under Diet? Shouldn't it be under Anatomy or something? 89.17.134.9 ( talk) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
"Echidnas evidently evolved..." states the article. yet there is NO EVIDENCE for "evolution", it's only a theory. 06:37, 27 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.250.171.53 ( talk)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Echidnas evidently evolved between 20 and 50 million years ago, descending from a platypus-like monotreme.[3] This ancestor was aquatic, but echidnas adapted to life on land.[3] Echidnas are able to find the wae by spitting on the non-believers, and are linked to their queens. 64.201.166.121 ( talk) 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure how long it's going to take for someone to notice that under the "in popular culture" heading, someone put "& Knuckles" at the end of the list of Archie comic echidnas. (It already stated Knuckles was there and the way it's worded is an obvious reference to the meme). Obviously I can't fix it because the page is protected, so I'm guessing that happened before the page was protected.
Bobby19456 ( talk) 02:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
The lead tells us echidnas "are not closely related to the true anteaters of the Americas". What makes the American ones the true ones? In both cases, anteater is a colloquial, common name. It's not the scientific one, where some real truth could validly be assigned. I see no problem in removing the word "true", and it would remove the hint of American-centrism presently there. HiLo48 ( talk) 22:29, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
The section that was headed "Classification" has very little on classification, and a lot on echidna anatomy, so I have changed the title. Some broader reorganization of the article might be a good idea, rather than grouping anatomy and physiology, taxonomy, and lifespan together. Vicki Rosenzweig ( talk) 01:56, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
″Fully grown females can weigh up to 4.5 kilograms (9.9 lb), the males 25% larger, up to 6 kilograms (13 lb).″ The reference for this information only mentions "about 4.5 kg" and "about 6 kg" (not "up to", and no % comparison). Also, 6kg is 33% larger than 4.5kg. (4.5kg is 25% smaller). 51.6.34.252 ( talk) 22:08, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Recent edits by IP editors 193.119.106.181 / 203.219.171.186 have repeatedly re-added contentious material to the Echidna article, despite being reverted by several editors.
One claim is that " The word can also derive from echinus, the Latin word for " hedgehog" ". However, according to Wiktionary, the Latin word for hedgehog is erinaceus; while echinus gives "hedgehog; sea urchin", it seems that this Latin term is derived from Ancient Greek, and primarily relates to sea urchins, rather than hedgehogs.
The fossil record of monotremes is very sparse, and to link vague terms such as "platypus-like monotreme" to Steropodon and Steropodontidae, and "echidna-like monotremes" to Kryoryctes implies a level of certainty regarding these species as being the direct ancestors of echidnas that is not supported by the linked articles, or by the ref by Phillips et al. Bahudhara ( talk) 01:39, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Lots of interesting information . I was wondering about average length and height (metric). Am I missing it somewhere? 49.176.210.120 ( talk) 11:50, 5 April 2022 (UTC)