Gmelin did not give a reason, only described features of Lacerta in Latin : long naked body with a tail and uniform feet. Apparently, it just didn't occur to him to propose a new genus. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Gmelin followed Linnaeus who proposed Lacerta in 1758 and placed all naked tetrapods known at the time in this genus, including crocodilus. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Wagler merely used the names proposed by Gmelin and Cuvier to group them under a new genus, but without adding any additional info on locations. I don't think that he ever saw a gharial himself. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Cuvier did not give a location for his Crocodilus tenuirostris but instead just 7 dots. Since he referred to
Faujas' History of Mount Petri near Maastricht, perhaps he had the crocodile fossils in mind that were found there. I reformulated this, as he did not explicitly state that tenuirostris was a gharial. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"for reptiles with a very long and slender muzzle, webbed feet and nearly equal teeth" makes it sound like Adams personally put other species there than the gharial into Gavialidae
He didn't, but only placed the genus Gavial in this family. His description is even shorter than above sentence, missing is only : Old World. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"Gavialis and Tomistoma have been regarded close relatives" better to say "gharial and false gharial" rather than use the very unfamiliar scientific names to try and include (I'd assume) extinct members User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I checked the source, removed this sentence and added a different one instead : referring to a single ocean-crossing event of this particular individual. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
There is not much info about gharial fossils. The only other article I could find was published in a predatory journal and hence deleted a while ago. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I find the content of the page on gharha ambiguous because of its focus on a musical instrument but with a photo of an earthen pot and in the caption again another name mentioned that is not even explained. How about showing a photo of an earthen pot instead of linking the word? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That would not be correct, since none of the referenced authors ever referred to the nasal growth as ghara. Ghara is an earthen pot, and because of its nasal growth resembling the shape of this pot, the animal is called gharial. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Blowing bubbles apparently attracts females -- :). Hard to prove in the wild as gharials are very shy and submerge when people get close. So you can't get close enough to hear the males bubble and wait for reactions of females. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
changed the size ranges of females and males in lead, and moved info about sizes of hatchlings and juveniles from Characteristics to Reproduction, with some more details --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"In spring 2017, the Babai River was surveyed over a stretch of 102 km (63 mi) using an unmanned aerial vehicle, which was flown at an altitude of 80 m (260 ft)" we don't really need this information. Just give the estimate User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
You should do for example {{cvt|5|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} which reads 5 m (16 ft 5 in), but if the conversion reads "0 inches" then use ft instead of ftin. As an American, 5 ft 6 in is more meaningful than 5.5 ft or 66 in User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Since these two crocs share the same habitat, I do think it relevant to explain just a little how they get along along despite some competition for resources. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
09:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The the fact that they compete for resources is the important part here. What exactly do they compete for? Or is that they don't compete? I don't imagine they go after the same prey items. Maybe you could rephrase "They do not compete for beach space because..." or something like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I think this question is answered, see the 2nd para: Large groups of young, subadult and adult gharials form in December and January to bask together. Adult males and females associate by mid February; and under Reproduction, I added a sentence about females guarding nests and hatchlings. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"gharials hatched and raised in captivity measure" I think it'd be better to say "A 2019 study" or "Hatchlings in Chitwan National Park were measured to be..." or something like that rather than extending the measurements the study found to all gharials User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
What folk medicines were gharials used in (like were their teeth ground up to cure headaches or something?)
The use as indigenous medicine has been repeated by various authors since at least the 1980s, but none of them provided any details about which body parts were used as remedy for which ailments. Only in 2 publications was briefly stated that ghara and penis were used, but without referencing. So I think this aspect has not been researched in-depth. But funds available in India and Nepal between the late 1970s and 1990s were foremost used for conservation actions like guarding wild nests, raising and restocking gharials. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"wild eggs were collected and hatched since 1978, and a total of 1,365 gharials released in the rivers..." small grammar lesson: because you used and as a connector, we have 2 independent clauses here, so we need a verb in both clauses, so it should be "...a total of 1,365 gharials were released..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Releasing is not equal to success. In the early years, none monitored what happened to the released ones. Monitoring started in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I participated in a few of such surveys, and in one year we did not find a single of the radio-tagged and released gharials; most of them must have drowned, some turned up entangled in fishing nets. Many were just not able to withstand the masses of water during the monsoon floods. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The indicator for succes of reintroduction programs is that the reintroduced individuals reproduce; this is a sign that they settled in, can feed themselves AND provide what their offspring needs: care, food, shelter, safety. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
revised; by far most content of this section was added long ago by different contributors. I'm inclined to remove the content based only on newspaper articles and press releases. What do you think? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It makes it sound like those are the only things people have done towards conservation, so keep if that's the case. If it's not, then just make clear those are only some examples. Conservation measures are often not attached to papers with a doi or anything, so press releases are okay for this section User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I decided to remove this part about the tri-state committee, because: a) this info related to only one site where releases used to be carried out; b) it is somewhat outdated: a management plan was published for this site in 2014; and c) this content is already part of the National Chambal Sanctuary page. Instead, I added content with refs about reintroduction programmes --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, the fish species + size caught by wild gharials has not been determined. You would probably have to dive with them to figure this out. Known however is the diversity of fish species in some of the rivers where gharials live. But of course, if I listed some, this would not necessarily imply that gharials have a preference for just those. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Info about stomach content is already part of the Feeding ecology section, using as source the review by Whitaker & Basu (1982), who wrote that fish is digested too fast to identify species in gharials found dead. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, completely; he did not even refer to the name proposed by Oppel. And he also ignored the names proposed by Bonnaterre, Schneider and Daudin. Nor did he explain whether he had a specimen at his disposal. Probably he had not, since he did not write a single word about country of origin, as did most of his contemporaries who had one or more specimens of the species they described. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Re: Why isn't R. gangeticus listed in the synonyms? You mean in the speciesbox? He didn't specifically call it Rhamphostoma gangeticus. On the other hand, he neither used Rhamphostoma tenuirostre. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
" The sister group of the gharial and the false gharial are estimated to have diverged from the Crocodylus" there isn't a sister group to gharials and false gharials which excludes CrocodylusUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"Both species are placed in the family Gavialidae because of their close relationship" this is implied, if you want to say they're in the same family, make a small reference to it in the first sentence of the section User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"This species is thought to represent the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" it's not thought to, it is, and this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct 'Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"This species represents the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Instead of that entire first paragraph in Evolution, you could just say "Gharials and false gharials are both placed into the family Gavialidae based on anatomical and genetic similarity." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
All the info you put about DNA is confusing and misleading. "suggested that it forms a sister group with the false gharial" this would mean it wasn't widely accepted that they are sister groups. "Analysis of the gharial's tail muscles implied that it forms a sister group with all the other crocodilians" you forgot the false gharial. "supporting the view that they are sister taxa" again, you present this as if it was controversial User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
revised; initially, it wasn't widely accepted that they form a (one, not many) sister group. Depending on which trait authors focused on, they came to different conclusions. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for reformulating the 1st sentence of the section on Evolution. I hope this and the other paragraphs are clearer now than before. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"In the Indus River, it was considered common in the 1930s" better to say "A 1933 survey reported it to have been common" I'm sure they came up with an estimate which you can add. Do the same for the 1982 survey User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Neither guesstimates nor estimates from a systematic survey were provided. Gharial was hunted, not counted at the time. I haven't come across any pre-1970s publication on population counts, not in regard to gharial and not to other species. Did you? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not aware of any such lists. Before 1972, anybody could hunt gharials and collect eggs without any check by gov officials. I read somewhere that 'many' were hunted after World War II, but think that gharials were also hunted before the wars. There is an old account of the hunting method used in the Indus, but frankly, I would not really want to add this cruelty to this page and inspire people to test it. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm tempted to place it under In culture, as this described method seems to be a traditional one employed by the Kehal people, who are (still today) landless fisherfolk living along the Indus; alas no wiki page about them. But I think that they were NOT the only ones responsible for the extinction of the gharial in Pakistan. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Just added an account re stones in a shot gharial. Hunters like this captain Forsyth and comrades surely shot more than they could eat. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I intentionally avoided the word winter, as there is no snow. But in the
Terai of northern India and southern Nepal, there is indeed a cold season from mid/end of Nov to end of Jan. Then temperatures drop in the evenings and nights to around 5 °C (41 °F), and mornings are very foggy, often until about 11ish. So foggy that close by the rivers, you can't see your own hand in front of you. It even rains for a few days around X-mas and New Year. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Gmelin did not give a reason, only described features of Lacerta in Latin : long naked body with a tail and uniform feet. Apparently, it just didn't occur to him to propose a new genus. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Gmelin followed Linnaeus who proposed Lacerta in 1758 and placed all naked tetrapods known at the time in this genus, including crocodilus. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Wagler merely used the names proposed by Gmelin and Cuvier to group them under a new genus, but without adding any additional info on locations. I don't think that he ever saw a gharial himself. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Cuvier did not give a location for his Crocodilus tenuirostris but instead just 7 dots. Since he referred to
Faujas' History of Mount Petri near Maastricht, perhaps he had the crocodile fossils in mind that were found there. I reformulated this, as he did not explicitly state that tenuirostris was a gharial. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"for reptiles with a very long and slender muzzle, webbed feet and nearly equal teeth" makes it sound like Adams personally put other species there than the gharial into Gavialidae
He didn't, but only placed the genus Gavial in this family. His description is even shorter than above sentence, missing is only : Old World. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"Gavialis and Tomistoma have been regarded close relatives" better to say "gharial and false gharial" rather than use the very unfamiliar scientific names to try and include (I'd assume) extinct members User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I checked the source, removed this sentence and added a different one instead : referring to a single ocean-crossing event of this particular individual. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
There is not much info about gharial fossils. The only other article I could find was published in a predatory journal and hence deleted a while ago. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I find the content of the page on gharha ambiguous because of its focus on a musical instrument but with a photo of an earthen pot and in the caption again another name mentioned that is not even explained. How about showing a photo of an earthen pot instead of linking the word? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That would not be correct, since none of the referenced authors ever referred to the nasal growth as ghara. Ghara is an earthen pot, and because of its nasal growth resembling the shape of this pot, the animal is called gharial. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Blowing bubbles apparently attracts females -- :). Hard to prove in the wild as gharials are very shy and submerge when people get close. So you can't get close enough to hear the males bubble and wait for reactions of females. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
changed the size ranges of females and males in lead, and moved info about sizes of hatchlings and juveniles from Characteristics to Reproduction, with some more details --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"In spring 2017, the Babai River was surveyed over a stretch of 102 km (63 mi) using an unmanned aerial vehicle, which was flown at an altitude of 80 m (260 ft)" we don't really need this information. Just give the estimate User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
You should do for example {{cvt|5|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} which reads 5 m (16 ft 5 in), but if the conversion reads "0 inches" then use ft instead of ftin. As an American, 5 ft 6 in is more meaningful than 5.5 ft or 66 in User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk20:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Since these two crocs share the same habitat, I do think it relevant to explain just a little how they get along along despite some competition for resources. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
09:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The the fact that they compete for resources is the important part here. What exactly do they compete for? Or is that they don't compete? I don't imagine they go after the same prey items. Maybe you could rephrase "They do not compete for beach space because..." or something like that User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I think this question is answered, see the 2nd para: Large groups of young, subadult and adult gharials form in December and January to bask together. Adult males and females associate by mid February; and under Reproduction, I added a sentence about females guarding nests and hatchlings. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"gharials hatched and raised in captivity measure" I think it'd be better to say "A 2019 study" or "Hatchlings in Chitwan National Park were measured to be..." or something like that rather than extending the measurements the study found to all gharials User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
What folk medicines were gharials used in (like were their teeth ground up to cure headaches or something?)
The use as indigenous medicine has been repeated by various authors since at least the 1980s, but none of them provided any details about which body parts were used as remedy for which ailments. Only in 2 publications was briefly stated that ghara and penis were used, but without referencing. So I think this aspect has not been researched in-depth. But funds available in India and Nepal between the late 1970s and 1990s were foremost used for conservation actions like guarding wild nests, raising and restocking gharials. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"wild eggs were collected and hatched since 1978, and a total of 1,365 gharials released in the rivers..." small grammar lesson: because you used and as a connector, we have 2 independent clauses here, so we need a verb in both clauses, so it should be "...a total of 1,365 gharials were released..." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Releasing is not equal to success. In the early years, none monitored what happened to the released ones. Monitoring started in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I participated in a few of such surveys, and in one year we did not find a single of the radio-tagged and released gharials; most of them must have drowned, some turned up entangled in fishing nets. Many were just not able to withstand the masses of water during the monsoon floods. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
The indicator for succes of reintroduction programs is that the reintroduced individuals reproduce; this is a sign that they settled in, can feed themselves AND provide what their offspring needs: care, food, shelter, safety. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
revised; by far most content of this section was added long ago by different contributors. I'm inclined to remove the content based only on newspaper articles and press releases. What do you think? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
It makes it sound like those are the only things people have done towards conservation, so keep if that's the case. If it's not, then just make clear those are only some examples. Conservation measures are often not attached to papers with a doi or anything, so press releases are okay for this section User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I decided to remove this part about the tri-state committee, because: a) this info related to only one site where releases used to be carried out; b) it is somewhat outdated: a management plan was published for this site in 2014; and c) this content is already part of the National Chambal Sanctuary page. Instead, I added content with refs about reintroduction programmes --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
To my knowledge, the fish species + size caught by wild gharials has not been determined. You would probably have to dive with them to figure this out. Known however is the diversity of fish species in some of the rivers where gharials live. But of course, if I listed some, this would not necessarily imply that gharials have a preference for just those. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Info about stomach content is already part of the Feeding ecology section, using as source the review by Whitaker & Basu (1982), who wrote that fish is digested too fast to identify species in gharials found dead. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Yes, completely; he did not even refer to the name proposed by Oppel. And he also ignored the names proposed by Bonnaterre, Schneider and Daudin. Nor did he explain whether he had a specimen at his disposal. Probably he had not, since he did not write a single word about country of origin, as did most of his contemporaries who had one or more specimens of the species they described. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Re: Why isn't R. gangeticus listed in the synonyms? You mean in the speciesbox? He didn't specifically call it Rhamphostoma gangeticus. On the other hand, he neither used Rhamphostoma tenuirostre. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
" The sister group of the gharial and the false gharial are estimated to have diverged from the Crocodylus" there isn't a sister group to gharials and false gharials which excludes CrocodylusUser:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"Both species are placed in the family Gavialidae because of their close relationship" this is implied, if you want to say they're in the same family, make a small reference to it in the first sentence of the section User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"This species is thought to represent the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" it's not thought to, it is, and this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct 'Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"This species represents the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Instead of that entire first paragraph in Evolution, you could just say "Gharials and false gharials are both placed into the family Gavialidae based on anatomical and genetic similarity." User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
All the info you put about DNA is confusing and misleading. "suggested that it forms a sister group with the false gharial" this would mean it wasn't widely accepted that they are sister groups. "Analysis of the gharial's tail muscles implied that it forms a sister group with all the other crocodilians" you forgot the false gharial. "supporting the view that they are sister taxa" again, you present this as if it was controversial User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
revised; initially, it wasn't widely accepted that they form a (one, not many) sister group. Depending on which trait authors focused on, they came to different conclusions. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Thanks for reformulating the 1st sentence of the section on Evolution. I hope this and the other paragraphs are clearer now than before. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
"In the Indus River, it was considered common in the 1930s" better to say "A 1933 survey reported it to have been common" I'm sure they came up with an estimate which you can add. Do the same for the 1982 survey User:Dunkleosteus77 |
push to talk03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Neither guesstimates nor estimates from a systematic survey were provided. Gharial was hunted, not counted at the time. I haven't come across any pre-1970s publication on population counts, not in regard to gharial and not to other species. Did you? --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm not aware of any such lists. Before 1972, anybody could hunt gharials and collect eggs without any check by gov officials. I read somewhere that 'many' were hunted after World War II, but think that gharials were also hunted before the wars. There is an old account of the hunting method used in the Indus, but frankly, I would not really want to add this cruelty to this page and inspire people to test it. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I'm tempted to place it under In culture, as this described method seems to be a traditional one employed by the Kehal people, who are (still today) landless fisherfolk living along the Indus; alas no wiki page about them. But I think that they were NOT the only ones responsible for the extinction of the gharial in Pakistan. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Just added an account re stones in a shot gharial. Hunters like this captain Forsyth and comrades surely shot more than they could eat. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I intentionally avoided the word winter, as there is no snow. But in the
Terai of northern India and southern Nepal, there is indeed a cold season from mid/end of Nov to end of Jan. Then temperatures drop in the evenings and nights to around 5 °C (41 °F), and mornings are very foggy, often until about 11ish. So foggy that close by the rivers, you can't see your own hand in front of you. It even rains for a few days around X-mas and New Year. --
BhagyaMani (
talk)
22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply