This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
We can't say that Shokako Mammoth is the largest mammoth, at 4.7 m height, when the article for the Imperial Mammoth says that M. imperator was 4.9 m tall. Contradictory, yes? At least, not until we get all the facts straightened out.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Sorry but, can you tell me the reference or remains away from wikipedia that shows a Imperial mammoth of 16 feet tall at the shoulders???, If you want I can show you a 17,4 feet tall Shokako mammoth, the mammoth of photograph is about 5.3 meters high and is mounted in ibaraki nature muesum.-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 8:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, even if it was only 4.7 m tall, the article mentions its sturdy build,so that it still may be the most massive mammoth, if not the tallest. I, for one, have run across alot of variability in the sizes given for various species of elephant/mammoth. For example, on wikipedia itself, the Deinotherium article lists it as the largest elephant. 152.14.80.138 ( talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally the largest land mammal is the Songhua River mammoth, larger than any elephant or mammoth-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 ( talk)
I am a little confused about the overall height of the mammoth. The speciman examined in the mass calculation is listed as 4.7 m tall, while the specimen in the museum is listed as having an overall height of 5.3 m. Are they the same speciman? Is the extra 0.6 m coming from the little stands that are below the mammoth's feet? Cbmclean ( talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! These two are the same specimen! Originally, the fossils showed a 4.7 meters high at the shoulders. The museum mammoth is based in those fossils. In the article is listed the 5.3 meters high, because in the webpage´s of the museum tells that. I´ve been examining a lot of photos of the mammoth in the museum and I concluded that it doesn´t arrive to 5.3 meters. The most likely thing is that the shoulder height for the mammoth is 4.7 meters high or a bit more. Go to youtube and type Ibaraki Museum, you can watch there the mammoth with some lines next to the Mammoth in the wall that indicated the mammoth height meter by meter, the 0 meter line is a little stand like the mammoth feet. I prefer to use the official 4.7 meters to make the calculations. It isn´t good to speculate the size of the mammoth in the museum, because the stimations would be badly made. -- Mr Asier ( Asier) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Asiertxo. I am an amateur elephantophile, so I was really fascinated when I found this article, and I had never heard of this particular species. I was especially struck by the first illustration you posted, showing the size of the mammoth as compared to an average african elephant. That really brought home the mammoth's true size. Anyway, I'm curious where you got that illustration from. I think it's really beautiful. It's worth a thousand words, I think. I'm curious who made it and if it accurately reflects what scientists think the mammoth may have looked like in life. I also noticed that the tip-top ofthe head of that mammoth extends slightly above the 5 m line. Is that from the inflated 5.3 m figure given by the museum, or is the 4.7 m figure strictly the shoulder height. I noticed in the drawing that comapres the mammoth to the Indricotherium, the "shoulder height" is listed as 4.7 m, but the 4.7 meter line seems to extend to the very tip of the head, which is considerably above the shoulder height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.157 ( talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Mammoth, Probably this mammoth is over 4.7 meters at the shoulders. But I don´t konw 100%, so I can´t make my calculations with a mammoth over 4.7 meters. I try to be as profesional I can, and do the things the best I can. For now, I prefer to make the estimates with 4.7 meters high (official Measure) mammoth.
PD: If mammoth were 5 to 5.3 meters high at the shoulders, it wouldn´t be larger than Indricotherium, it would be much much larger than indricotherium.-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article says this mammoth weighed 17 tons, or three times that of an African elephant, but the article on African Bush Elephants says they weigh up to 22,000 pounds, with one exceptional one killed in 1955 weighing 27,000 pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.100 ( talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but, What is that logic?, the man of the picture is about 6 feet, but the NBA players are up to 7 feet and 1940 Robert Wadlow die with a height of 2.72 meters.... It doesn´t have any sense what you have written. An avergae African elephant is about 5 to 6 tons and 3 to 3.5 meters high rarelly the elephants grew more, the largest elephants use to weight 7.5 tons and 3.8 meters high. The 1955 elephant (4.0 meters high) has never been weihged, that wieght is only an estimnate. Today the 27.000 punds are dismissed, now is accepted that this elephant weighed between 8-9 tons or 18.000 to 20.000. There isn´t any evidence of 22.000 pounds elephants.... -- Mr Asier ( Asier) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, I have had trouble finding more information about this mammoth. In fact, I didn't even know of its existance before I found this page. Do you know of any scholarly literature in English that describes this mammoth's lifestyle, morphology, habitat, or relation to other mammoths? Cbmclean 204.85.66.157 ( talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I´ve been weeks and weeks working in this project with amateur paleontologist and world recornized paleontologist. So please... Who are you to say that this is an hoax and telling that this article could be removed, you only spend a few minutes searching in google... Is this a Joke?-- Asier ( talk) 8:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For now, I have removed the {{ hoax}}, and changed the {{ unreferenced}} into a {{ refimprove}}. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, What information need to be referenced??, I uploaded more links and references-- Asier ( talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 ( talk)
Buf.... I can´t understand... Who is the "smart" person that remove Mammmuthus sungari from Mammuthus article?. Is incredibly. Some people is much Ignorant that I could never have thoutgh... That demostrated that people is making changes Without knowing anything. I can´t beleive this... Please people who didn´t know anything about proboscideans, mammoths and paleontology... don´t make so ridiculus changes, don´t make me spend time. Thanks -- Asier ( talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier; This is cbmclean, who has been corresponding with you about this mammoth. I think that Martijn Hoekstra was wrong if he declared this article a hoax without knowing more about it. However, I have to agree with him that there is a scarcity of non-scholarly information about this mammoth on the web. I haven't done a search of scholarly literature yet, but I plan on it. I, for one, am fascinated by this mammoth. I had never heard of it. I want to know what its range was, what the climate was like in its habitat, and its evolutionary relationships to the other mammoths. Was the original description of the species done in English?
Asier it isn´t worth to be justyfing yourself on your work. I´ve read many articles on paleonthological subjects and this is the only one in which the weight of the species is justified or at least explained by your calculations cause I´m surprised by the lack of consensus on this issue. It is the only article about giant prehistoric animals which shows volumetrical models incredibly well done. The article shows a reconstruction of the eskeleton that proves the actual animal´s size. It has helped me a lot with my survey on proboscideans, Im writing a thesis just now! The links you refer to also justify the size. This article has much more references than any other article about any other mammoth species (except the one on mammuthus primigenius).What more references are people asking for?? I believe that the people who submit their opinions don´t have a real basis on the subject. For instance, in the article on mammuthus imperator it is said that it had a shoulder height of 4.9 meters which isn´t by far the truth. The largest M. imperator remains show a eskeletal reconstruction of 4.08 m high at the shoulders (around 4.25 m at shoulder flesh). It is also said that it was the largest mammoth species, how can this be true if remais of M. trogontherii much larger have been found? For instance a humerus nearly 5 foot long. And of course, M sungari was even larger too. -- Airam ( talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, do you know how to locate the original species description? That would settle alot of questions. Cbmclean ( talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For all those concerned, I looked at the link provided by Asier and labled as "13 sungari." It is the 13th artcle from the top. It mentions mamuthus sungari as a "giant" speciman. It also seems to ilmply that mamuthus sungari is alternately classified int he genus parelephas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As an explanation for some of the tags, here are a couple of specific problems with this article:
1. There is only one unchallenged reference that refers to M. sungari. Of the remaining three, two are references on the mass of Indricotherium, and the third has an unreliable tag and appears to be
self-published, which is a no-no. There are several external links, but unless those are cited somewhere in the text, they don't count as references. At least one appears to be a blog post, which is also unacceptable as a reference,while several are in Chinese and Japanese, which is only marginally better, albeit understandable given that the topic of the article is an obscure taxon from China. Either way, since they're not cited, they're not references. This leaves a single source which, based on where and how its cited, appears to document that Songhua River Mammoth is the common name of M. sungari, useful information, but not nearly enough given the length of the article.
2. Given the reference problems, as written, the section "Size" violates
WP:OR. You're not presenting information on the mass of M. sungari that has been published elsewhere, you're publishing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Helioseus (
talk •
contribs) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article needs deleted for now. The editors don't want others working on it, and they don't seem to have found reliable sources. The Chinese references on the web are about the same as this, self-published sources that use on academic references. The writers are aggressive about keeping it here, but they don't have any energy to find academic references, and there's no place in the world where a new mammoth would not be extensively published in the press and in peer-reviewed journals, at least an abstract. IF the writers want the article to stay on Wikipedia all they have to do is source it. But if they spend time attacking me, they won't get it sourced. They will, however, distract from the controversy of whether or not the mammoth exists. It's time to focus on the lack of sources. No mammoth this large and this unique is going to be without scientific references in Chinese, Japanese, and English. If there are no references, maybe it's because there is no .... -- Amaltheus ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Amaltheus, please give Asier a little more time before trying to delete this site. I agree that it is frustrating that this mammoth seems so obscure. But it seems that the animal was discovered and described completely out of the "mainstream" of english-speaking paleontology. It seems to have been discovered in China and/or Mongolia at a time when those countries were much less open to the west than they are now, so it is not inconceivable that such an exciting find might be virtually unknown in the west. Especially if the animal was not originally described in English. Asier says that he has been working on this animal with a professional paleontologist. Hopefully, this means we will soon se some more published information in English level journals. Asier, please understand that you can't reasonably ask other users to "stay away" on Wikipedia. The strength of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. Unfortunately the weakness of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. So even though this article is "your baby," anyone on wikipedia has the right to alter it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about. Ideally, people will refrain from editing articles about which they are uninformed. However, Asier is objecting not so much to the content of your article, as to the quality. He feels that the source material just is not adequate. This is a legitimate complaint. However, I think he is being a bit hasty, so I have asked him to just slow down and give you guys some more time to get more information together. Hopefully he will agree. Cbmclean ( talk) 19:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that I can't read Chinese or Japenese, so I can't check those references. At this point I just kind of have to put my hands up and defer to you unless I find better information contradicting you. 65.191.184.209 ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It´s imposible to work with users like you (Amaltheus) or Martijn Hoekstra (although this user now asks before changing any data). Asier has been giving responses to each question formulated by us and working on improving the article´s references while you haven´t even asked anything, you just delete information without making any sense and adding that this species might be an hoax, which is crazy!! Asier has lately answered with some agressiveness but I understand him ´cause it must be frustating that someone who doesn´t understand the subject has this attitude towards his work. Who are you to threaten anyone on deleting an article? This is interesting information for some users like me as well as a new subject for research. I would appreciate some respect from you towards this work. -- Airam ( talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you state the article is unsourced? It is because of the size of the sungari mammoth? There are a lot of reconstructions of this mammoth in asian countries. What references are you refering to? The scientific existence of this mammoth is proven by the Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing. Tell me exactly the points you want to clear up so we can achieve an agreement over this article.-- Airam ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.138.204 ( talk)
Amaltheus, if you check out the link that is provided, the first heading is not about the mammoth. YOu have to scroll down to the 13th bold-faced heading. It is entitled "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE." I can vouch that it does mention sungari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.184.209 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, everybody, I was the one who left that second to last comment. I had mistakenly put Asier's name, but I meant to say "Almatheus." So, Almatheus, I was trying to tell you about the abstract that Asier was talking about. It's the 13th bold-faced entry, as described above. Cbmclean ( talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what I'm waiting for the abstact for. Look if it is only published once, anywhere, in the entire world, yet it's supposed to be this fabulous discovery, why is there no scientific interest in it? Why should Wikipedia show significantly more interest in a fabulous mammoth than the scientific community? Maybe because there is something wrong with the mammoth or the find or the interest-like there is none. Cough up. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I´m in contact with two chinese paleontologist (Adrian Lister students), I´m waiting for their answer. So, soon we could know the truth about this mammoth.--
Asier (
talk) 11:32,
24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your rediscoving it for science and putting it on Wikipedia is original research ( WP:NOR. Original research on paleontological subjects is submitted to peer-reviewed journals, not to general encyclopedias. If what you're doing is original research, the article has to go. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I´ve talk with Adrian Lister chinese colleges and they answer me that this species was described in 1959 by Zhou, M.Z. I´ve uploaded in the refereneces. -- Asier ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
this paper is given as a reference, but the name sungari does not occur in this paper at all. I have heavy doubts about the sources given in this article.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That paper was the reference to calculate the animal height in live (shoulder height in the flesh), that paper only talk about body mass calculations... I don´t know why you based all the references in only that paper?. Chek this reference talking about mammuthus sungari paper.-- Asiertxo ( talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I´m Asier. The person who created the Mammuthus sungari article. Since some people are making changes without asking before and with any idea about this species. I decided to leave a short version. I´m a little surprised because this article was more accurate to what sizes concerns. I aported photos, I convinced a japanese friend to go to the museum and measure the skeleton, I made volumetrical models... For example in other mammoths and other large prehistoric especies articles, nobody questions the sizes. The imperial mammoth article says that this mammoth was up to 4.9 meters at the shoulders, there isn´t any evidence of this. The largest Imperial mammoth mount in the world is less than 4 meters at the shoulders, "Kika" the giant female M.trogontherii, isn´t 4.7 meters by far. The Indricotherium article doesn´t says the truth too. The world largest Indricotheriums remains suggest a creature less than 5 meters at the shoulders...
The largest proboscideans mounts in the world are based in the two giant M.sungari found in 1980. This mounts are obviously the biggest in the world by far. The second largest mammoth mount in the world is based in Mammuthus sungari too, in one specimen found in 1984. This one is 4.33 m at the shoulders. Another Deinotherium giganteum skeleton mounted in bulgaria is very near in size.
I talked with many paleontologist of every were from USA, Europe to China before making this article. On chinese paleontologist told me that the largest M.sungari specimens are probaly Palaeloxodon sp. and he was with me that theese ones are probably larger than Indricotheriums.
May be one day, one paleontologist decide to make a serius research in this species and all of you will remeber that extensive wikipedia article talking about M.sungari.
Regards.
-- Asiertxo ( talk) 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Here an IP MADE AN EDIT, but according to the given source (Dong Wei, Xu Qinqi, Jin Changzhu, Liu Jinyi "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE", Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing 100044), M. sungari survived not into the end of the late pleistocene.
" The giant Mammuthus (Parelephas) sungari, evolved from less giant forms from Siberia, was extinct during the beginning of the Late Pleistocene."
I WILL CHANGE THAT!-- Altaileopard ( talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese Paleontologist with wich I am in contact, confirmed me some weeks ago that the original fossils are clearly Mammuthus, not Palaeoloxodon as previous authors suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiertxo ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been looking for a while and have not been able to confirm that this species was ever officially described. The Zhou 1959 reference does not appear to address any taxonomics, and nothing more recent on the species comes up in searches. Does anyone have access to the 1959 paper to verify if there is a formal description, or if the designation is an informal one that was sucked into the popular media due to the size estimates. -- Kevmin ( talk)
Giving the recent description of M. sungari remains actually belonging to M. armeniacus, rendering this species invalid, I wan't to propose the deletion of this article, but before putting the tag I want to know if there's anyone against it. thoughts? Mike.BRZ ( talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Msungari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
We can't say that Shokako Mammoth is the largest mammoth, at 4.7 m height, when the article for the Imperial Mammoth says that M. imperator was 4.9 m tall. Contradictory, yes? At least, not until we get all the facts straightened out.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Re:Sorry but, can you tell me the reference or remains away from wikipedia that shows a Imperial mammoth of 16 feet tall at the shoulders???, If you want I can show you a 17,4 feet tall Shokako mammoth, the mammoth of photograph is about 5.3 meters high and is mounted in ibaraki nature muesum.-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 8:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget, even if it was only 4.7 m tall, the article mentions its sturdy build,so that it still may be the most massive mammoth, if not the tallest. I, for one, have run across alot of variability in the sizes given for various species of elephant/mammoth. For example, on wikipedia itself, the Deinotherium article lists it as the largest elephant. 152.14.80.138 ( talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Finally the largest land mammal is the Songhua River mammoth, larger than any elephant or mammoth-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 ( talk)
I am a little confused about the overall height of the mammoth. The speciman examined in the mass calculation is listed as 4.7 m tall, while the specimen in the museum is listed as having an overall height of 5.3 m. Are they the same speciman? Is the extra 0.6 m coming from the little stands that are below the mammoth's feet? Cbmclean ( talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello! These two are the same specimen! Originally, the fossils showed a 4.7 meters high at the shoulders. The museum mammoth is based in those fossils. In the article is listed the 5.3 meters high, because in the webpage´s of the museum tells that. I´ve been examining a lot of photos of the mammoth in the museum and I concluded that it doesn´t arrive to 5.3 meters. The most likely thing is that the shoulder height for the mammoth is 4.7 meters high or a bit more. Go to youtube and type Ibaraki Museum, you can watch there the mammoth with some lines next to the Mammoth in the wall that indicated the mammoth height meter by meter, the 0 meter line is a little stand like the mammoth feet. I prefer to use the official 4.7 meters to make the calculations. It isn´t good to speculate the size of the mammoth in the museum, because the stimations would be badly made. -- Mr Asier ( Asier) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, Asiertxo. I am an amateur elephantophile, so I was really fascinated when I found this article, and I had never heard of this particular species. I was especially struck by the first illustration you posted, showing the size of the mammoth as compared to an average african elephant. That really brought home the mammoth's true size. Anyway, I'm curious where you got that illustration from. I think it's really beautiful. It's worth a thousand words, I think. I'm curious who made it and if it accurately reflects what scientists think the mammoth may have looked like in life. I also noticed that the tip-top ofthe head of that mammoth extends slightly above the 5 m line. Is that from the inflated 5.3 m figure given by the museum, or is the 4.7 m figure strictly the shoulder height. I noticed in the drawing that comapres the mammoth to the Indricotherium, the "shoulder height" is listed as 4.7 m, but the 4.7 meter line seems to extend to the very tip of the head, which is considerably above the shoulder height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.157 ( talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Mammoth, Probably this mammoth is over 4.7 meters at the shoulders. But I don´t konw 100%, so I can´t make my calculations with a mammoth over 4.7 meters. I try to be as profesional I can, and do the things the best I can. For now, I prefer to make the estimates with 4.7 meters high (official Measure) mammoth.
PD: If mammoth were 5 to 5.3 meters high at the shoulders, it wouldn´t be larger than Indricotherium, it would be much much larger than indricotherium.-- Mr Asier ( Asier) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This article says this mammoth weighed 17 tons, or three times that of an African elephant, but the article on African Bush Elephants says they weigh up to 22,000 pounds, with one exceptional one killed in 1955 weighing 27,000 pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.100 ( talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry but, What is that logic?, the man of the picture is about 6 feet, but the NBA players are up to 7 feet and 1940 Robert Wadlow die with a height of 2.72 meters.... It doesn´t have any sense what you have written. An avergae African elephant is about 5 to 6 tons and 3 to 3.5 meters high rarelly the elephants grew more, the largest elephants use to weight 7.5 tons and 3.8 meters high. The 1955 elephant (4.0 meters high) has never been weihged, that wieght is only an estimnate. Today the 27.000 punds are dismissed, now is accepted that this elephant weighed between 8-9 tons or 18.000 to 20.000. There isn´t any evidence of 22.000 pounds elephants.... -- Mr Asier ( Asier) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, I have had trouble finding more information about this mammoth. In fact, I didn't even know of its existance before I found this page. Do you know of any scholarly literature in English that describes this mammoth's lifestyle, morphology, habitat, or relation to other mammoths? Cbmclean 204.85.66.157 ( talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I´ve been weeks and weeks working in this project with amateur paleontologist and world recornized paleontologist. So please... Who are you to say that this is an hoax and telling that this article could be removed, you only spend a few minutes searching in google... Is this a Joke?-- Asier ( talk) 8:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
For now, I have removed the {{ hoax}}, and changed the {{ unreferenced}} into a {{ refimprove}}. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, What information need to be referenced??, I uploaded more links and references-- Asier ( talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 ( talk)
Buf.... I can´t understand... Who is the "smart" person that remove Mammmuthus sungari from Mammuthus article?. Is incredibly. Some people is much Ignorant that I could never have thoutgh... That demostrated that people is making changes Without knowing anything. I can´t beleive this... Please people who didn´t know anything about proboscideans, mammoths and paleontology... don´t make so ridiculus changes, don´t make me spend time. Thanks -- Asier ( talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier; This is cbmclean, who has been corresponding with you about this mammoth. I think that Martijn Hoekstra was wrong if he declared this article a hoax without knowing more about it. However, I have to agree with him that there is a scarcity of non-scholarly information about this mammoth on the web. I haven't done a search of scholarly literature yet, but I plan on it. I, for one, am fascinated by this mammoth. I had never heard of it. I want to know what its range was, what the climate was like in its habitat, and its evolutionary relationships to the other mammoths. Was the original description of the species done in English?
Asier it isn´t worth to be justyfing yourself on your work. I´ve read many articles on paleonthological subjects and this is the only one in which the weight of the species is justified or at least explained by your calculations cause I´m surprised by the lack of consensus on this issue. It is the only article about giant prehistoric animals which shows volumetrical models incredibly well done. The article shows a reconstruction of the eskeleton that proves the actual animal´s size. It has helped me a lot with my survey on proboscideans, Im writing a thesis just now! The links you refer to also justify the size. This article has much more references than any other article about any other mammoth species (except the one on mammuthus primigenius).What more references are people asking for?? I believe that the people who submit their opinions don´t have a real basis on the subject. For instance, in the article on mammuthus imperator it is said that it had a shoulder height of 4.9 meters which isn´t by far the truth. The largest M. imperator remains show a eskeletal reconstruction of 4.08 m high at the shoulders (around 4.25 m at shoulder flesh). It is also said that it was the largest mammoth species, how can this be true if remais of M. trogontherii much larger have been found? For instance a humerus nearly 5 foot long. And of course, M sungari was even larger too. -- Airam ( talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, do you know how to locate the original species description? That would settle alot of questions. Cbmclean ( talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
For all those concerned, I looked at the link provided by Asier and labled as "13 sungari." It is the 13th artcle from the top. It mentions mamuthus sungari as a "giant" speciman. It also seems to ilmply that mamuthus sungari is alternately classified int he genus parelephas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean ( talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As an explanation for some of the tags, here are a couple of specific problems with this article:
1. There is only one unchallenged reference that refers to M. sungari. Of the remaining three, two are references on the mass of Indricotherium, and the third has an unreliable tag and appears to be
self-published, which is a no-no. There are several external links, but unless those are cited somewhere in the text, they don't count as references. At least one appears to be a blog post, which is also unacceptable as a reference,while several are in Chinese and Japanese, which is only marginally better, albeit understandable given that the topic of the article is an obscure taxon from China. Either way, since they're not cited, they're not references. This leaves a single source which, based on where and how its cited, appears to document that Songhua River Mammoth is the common name of M. sungari, useful information, but not nearly enough given the length of the article.
2. Given the reference problems, as written, the section "Size" violates
WP:OR. You're not presenting information on the mass of M. sungari that has been published elsewhere, you're publishing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Helioseus (
talk •
contribs) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the article needs deleted for now. The editors don't want others working on it, and they don't seem to have found reliable sources. The Chinese references on the web are about the same as this, self-published sources that use on academic references. The writers are aggressive about keeping it here, but they don't have any energy to find academic references, and there's no place in the world where a new mammoth would not be extensively published in the press and in peer-reviewed journals, at least an abstract. IF the writers want the article to stay on Wikipedia all they have to do is source it. But if they spend time attacking me, they won't get it sourced. They will, however, distract from the controversy of whether or not the mammoth exists. It's time to focus on the lack of sources. No mammoth this large and this unique is going to be without scientific references in Chinese, Japanese, and English. If there are no references, maybe it's because there is no .... -- Amaltheus ( talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Amaltheus, please give Asier a little more time before trying to delete this site. I agree that it is frustrating that this mammoth seems so obscure. But it seems that the animal was discovered and described completely out of the "mainstream" of english-speaking paleontology. It seems to have been discovered in China and/or Mongolia at a time when those countries were much less open to the west than they are now, so it is not inconceivable that such an exciting find might be virtually unknown in the west. Especially if the animal was not originally described in English. Asier says that he has been working on this animal with a professional paleontologist. Hopefully, this means we will soon se some more published information in English level journals. Asier, please understand that you can't reasonably ask other users to "stay away" on Wikipedia. The strength of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. Unfortunately the weakness of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. So even though this article is "your baby," anyone on wikipedia has the right to alter it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about. Ideally, people will refrain from editing articles about which they are uninformed. However, Asier is objecting not so much to the content of your article, as to the quality. He feels that the source material just is not adequate. This is a legitimate complaint. However, I think he is being a bit hasty, so I have asked him to just slow down and give you guys some more time to get more information together. Hopefully he will agree. Cbmclean ( talk) 19:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Asier, I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that I can't read Chinese or Japenese, so I can't check those references. At this point I just kind of have to put my hands up and defer to you unless I find better information contradicting you. 65.191.184.209 ( talk) 02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It´s imposible to work with users like you (Amaltheus) or Martijn Hoekstra (although this user now asks before changing any data). Asier has been giving responses to each question formulated by us and working on improving the article´s references while you haven´t even asked anything, you just delete information without making any sense and adding that this species might be an hoax, which is crazy!! Asier has lately answered with some agressiveness but I understand him ´cause it must be frustating that someone who doesn´t understand the subject has this attitude towards his work. Who are you to threaten anyone on deleting an article? This is interesting information for some users like me as well as a new subject for research. I would appreciate some respect from you towards this work. -- Airam ( talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do you state the article is unsourced? It is because of the size of the sungari mammoth? There are a lot of reconstructions of this mammoth in asian countries. What references are you refering to? The scientific existence of this mammoth is proven by the Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing. Tell me exactly the points you want to clear up so we can achieve an agreement over this article.-- Airam ( talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.138.204 ( talk)
Amaltheus, if you check out the link that is provided, the first heading is not about the mammoth. YOu have to scroll down to the 13th bold-faced heading. It is entitled "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE." I can vouch that it does mention sungari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.184.209 ( talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, everybody, I was the one who left that second to last comment. I had mistakenly put Asier's name, but I meant to say "Almatheus." So, Almatheus, I was trying to tell you about the abstract that Asier was talking about. It's the 13th bold-faced entry, as described above. Cbmclean ( talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This is what I'm waiting for the abstact for. Look if it is only published once, anywhere, in the entire world, yet it's supposed to be this fabulous discovery, why is there no scientific interest in it? Why should Wikipedia show significantly more interest in a fabulous mammoth than the scientific community? Maybe because there is something wrong with the mammoth or the find or the interest-like there is none. Cough up. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I´m in contact with two chinese paleontologist (Adrian Lister students), I´m waiting for their answer. So, soon we could know the truth about this mammoth.--
Asier (
talk) 11:32,
24 January 2008 (UTC)
Your rediscoving it for science and putting it on Wikipedia is original research ( WP:NOR. Original research on paleontological subjects is submitted to peer-reviewed journals, not to general encyclopedias. If what you're doing is original research, the article has to go. -- Amaltheus ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I´ve talk with Adrian Lister chinese colleges and they answer me that this species was described in 1959 by Zhou, M.Z. I´ve uploaded in the refereneces. -- Asier ( talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
this paper is given as a reference, but the name sungari does not occur in this paper at all. I have heavy doubts about the sources given in this article.-- Altaileopard ( talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That paper was the reference to calculate the animal height in live (shoulder height in the flesh), that paper only talk about body mass calculations... I don´t know why you based all the references in only that paper?. Chek this reference talking about mammuthus sungari paper.-- Asiertxo ( talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Hello, I´m Asier. The person who created the Mammuthus sungari article. Since some people are making changes without asking before and with any idea about this species. I decided to leave a short version. I´m a little surprised because this article was more accurate to what sizes concerns. I aported photos, I convinced a japanese friend to go to the museum and measure the skeleton, I made volumetrical models... For example in other mammoths and other large prehistoric especies articles, nobody questions the sizes. The imperial mammoth article says that this mammoth was up to 4.9 meters at the shoulders, there isn´t any evidence of this. The largest Imperial mammoth mount in the world is less than 4 meters at the shoulders, "Kika" the giant female M.trogontherii, isn´t 4.7 meters by far. The Indricotherium article doesn´t says the truth too. The world largest Indricotheriums remains suggest a creature less than 5 meters at the shoulders...
The largest proboscideans mounts in the world are based in the two giant M.sungari found in 1980. This mounts are obviously the biggest in the world by far. The second largest mammoth mount in the world is based in Mammuthus sungari too, in one specimen found in 1984. This one is 4.33 m at the shoulders. Another Deinotherium giganteum skeleton mounted in bulgaria is very near in size.
I talked with many paleontologist of every were from USA, Europe to China before making this article. On chinese paleontologist told me that the largest M.sungari specimens are probaly Palaeloxodon sp. and he was with me that theese ones are probably larger than Indricotheriums.
May be one day, one paleontologist decide to make a serius research in this species and all of you will remeber that extensive wikipedia article talking about M.sungari.
Regards.
-- Asiertxo ( talk) 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Here an IP MADE AN EDIT, but according to the given source (Dong Wei, Xu Qinqi, Jin Changzhu, Liu Jinyi "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE", Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing 100044), M. sungari survived not into the end of the late pleistocene.
" The giant Mammuthus (Parelephas) sungari, evolved from less giant forms from Siberia, was extinct during the beginning of the Late Pleistocene."
I WILL CHANGE THAT!-- Altaileopard ( talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
The Chinese Paleontologist with wich I am in contact, confirmed me some weeks ago that the original fossils are clearly Mammuthus, not Palaeoloxodon as previous authors suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiertxo ( talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
I have been looking for a while and have not been able to confirm that this species was ever officially described. The Zhou 1959 reference does not appear to address any taxonomics, and nothing more recent on the species comes up in searches. Does anyone have access to the 1959 paper to verify if there is a formal description, or if the designation is an informal one that was sucked into the popular media due to the size estimates. -- Kevmin ( talk)
Giving the recent description of M. sungari remains actually belonging to M. armeniacus, rendering this species invalid, I wan't to propose the deletion of this article, but before putting the tag I want to know if there's anyone against it. thoughts? Mike.BRZ ( talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
An image used in this article,
File:Msungari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at
Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
This notification is provided by a Bot -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC) |