This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Varanus priscus. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Much of the article seems to be taken from here, verbatim: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/parks/naracoorte/wonambi/animals/extinct/megalania.html
Some cryptozoologists think that the Megalania may still exist in the Australian Outback See this site [1]
~The post that sightings huge monitors only began after Megalania's initial discovery are crap since since the aboriginies have reported huge monitor lizards for several hundred too even a few thousand years they even in the distant past would have told stories off how these monsters brought with them fire and destruction so the thought these animals have just started being reported needs too be re thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
~ I think the longest possible size for any monitor lizard today based on the most believable report of a giant montior lizard I could find would be 22 feet or a foot less than the extinct Megalania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
~Well you know why there are no reputable reports of it coming from the natives there at the moment it is because that they are suspicious of talking about their encounters and don't want to be ridiculed which is how most people are now with their monster sightings which means while your still here doubting that there have been sightings of it before it's initial discovery you forget that there could very well have been sightings of it but none really felt comfortable about mentioning it until they learned in 1859 that there was actually such a creature and that pushed them too come forward with their encounters and that is why people only really started talking about their claims of encountering monster lizards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Megalina's size has been subject to considerable exaggeration, due to poor extrapolation of fragmentary remains. The most recent, reasonable estimates put it as a average length of 3.45 meters (11.3 feet) and a mass of up to 158kg (347.60lbs) Please see page 4. http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/Wroe2002review.pdf.
I am sorry but it said in many websites that it was that big, I always thought it was that big, oh man, well I guess we have to have it like this. 66.99.53.61 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay now the article says that Megalania is 15.3-20 feet long, hopeful that is the right size. I am sorry but 11.3 feet long sounds too small for a massive lizard, well to me anyway. 64.107.164.130 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah would it be okay to keep the current size of Megalania like this. It be better. 64.107.164.130 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw a picture of a skeleton of a Megalania in a website with a person in it and believe me, it didn't look like a "puny" 11.3 foot lizard. 64.107.164.130 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just try to keep in mind there is a big difference between average and maximum size. Very few Komodo Dragons exceed 50kg in the wild, (Indeed I think the largest one examined by Auffenberg was about 50kg), and they average much less then that, but there are still giants up to 100kg out there. So the maximum might very well have approached 400-500kg and 15f+, but would be very rare.
I think there is one problem. Wroe speaks about 3,4 as average length, but this was accoring to Hecht not average total length, but snout-vent-length, whith the smallest known adult specimens of 2,2m snout-vent-length. And this is a huge difference. The tail of adult komodos is nearly exactly 50% of the whole size. In Megalania it is very probable, that its tail was in proportion a bit shorter. That means that adult Megalanias were at least 4m in length, and as they were very heaily built, had surely a higher weight than a komodo of the same size. Such an animal would have a weight of about 250 kg. Longer specimens with a total length of 5,5m would be around 500kg or more.
I remember seeing picture of Megalania from a BBC TV show or something like that. If someone can get around to uploading it and figuring out the copyright issues, that would be great. Bibliomaniac15 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting to find out that Megalania has been renamed Varanus. Does that mean Megalania is now the common name? Excuse me, but I have an interest in this fiddly little nomenclature stuff.-- Gazzster 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you-- Gazzster 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
And so the name should stay! Come on, does anyone seriously feel comfortanle saying Varanus prisca?It's not a monitor, it's an icon!-- Gazzster 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that "Megalania" meant "butcher" or "killer." Do we have a source of it meaning "strider"?-- Mr Fink 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Both the Museum of Victoria [ [2]] and the site of the Naracoorte Caves, South Australia [ [3]] give the meaning as 'giant ancient butcher'. So yes, we need a source for 'strider'.-- Gazzster 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It does mean "giant butcher" (prisca means "first") but it is, interestingly, feminine. The ordinary Latin word for butcher is lanius, but I assume they made it feminine so people wouldn't think it was a giant relative of Lanius (the shrike). Vultur 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks, but despite the popularity of "giant butcher," it is not the correct meaning for the name. It really does mean "giant strider", or "runner." When I put that change in, it had the reference to back it up (Owen, 1859). If one checks the bottom of the first page of Owen's description, one will find the etymology behind the name. Owen wanted to make it evident that this giant lizard was not waterbound. Jura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.127.45 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention Megalania often being mistranslated as "great butcher," or no?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI for editors. The recent 1,940kg estimate could initially be viewed as contentious. So to avoid an "editing war" over the size section, I've included a direct quote from Ralph Molnar's 2004 book on Megalania.
From page 127:
"...the Lau and Frost specimens (SVL estimated at 2.2 to 2.4 meters) seem to be close to the average, to judge from the sizes of the vertebrae held in the Queensland Museum. Blob's corrected equation gives a mass of about 320kg for a 2 meter (SVL) individual. The largest specimen (QM F2942) gives an estimated body length of 3.8 meters, which in turn gives a mass of approximately 1,940kg."
Jura ( talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very unconvinced about the derivation from "plaina" - allegedly Greek for "to roam about". For a start, Greek verbs are normally cited in either the first person singular present indicative ("I roam") or the present infinitive ("to roam") - "plaina" doesn't seem to have the right ending to be either of these. Moreover, why would the p have been omitted, totally obscuring the nature of the word? I've added the "fact" template pending some better explanation. -- rossb ( talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the deal with italicising the name "Megalania"? Now that it is being used as the common name and is no longer the generic name, I don't think it qualifies to be written in italics. We don't italicise "rhinoceros" or "hippopotamus" when we are using the names colloquially. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:15, 25 Maybe 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
using the wayback machine for this - http://web.archive.org/web/20060426215521/www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Stephenson:Neal:Cryptonomicon:277:a_sharpened_Y...%28Alan_Sinder%29
The issue of when, exactly Megalania went extinct was examined in detail in Molnar. A precise date isn't known, only that no fossils are known from before 30,000 years ago (though the fossils in question don't have an exact age yet), and there was a major fauna & flora change (due to climatic changes) approximately 48,000 years ago. Previously reported dates of around 20,000 years are apparently wrong due to some specific technical issues about calculating recent dates (the way Molnar phrased it implied everyone was doing it wrong prior to 1985). Mokele ( talk) 03:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks. I am not clear whether Megalania now counts as a common name and therefore does not need italics? There were a couple of places where it was treated with italics like a genus name (which of course it was originally) so I took the liberty of changing the name to italics throughout. If we can get a reference to back up the idea that Megalania is now used as a common name, and not as a genus name, then I suppose it does not need italics except where the word is being used to refer to the original taxon. I do apologize if I have created extra work for someone. Invertzoo ( talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please, tell me what is wrong with this "The megalania (Megalania prisca or Varanus priscus), sometimes called the giant ripper lizard or devil dragon, is a very large goanna or monitor lizard (and the world's largest known lizard), claimed to be extinct by mainstream scientists although it is a controversial subject. It was part of a megafaunal assemblage that inhabited southern Australia during the Pleistocene. It has been claimed to have disappeared around 40,000 years ago.[3] The first aboriginal settlers of Australia may have encountered living megalanias.[4] Some Aboriginal Dreaming stories may even be about them.[5]". I don't understand why you're trying to remove this, I can't see anything wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurokSwe ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Extinct?The article mentions "now extinct", yet where is the reference for that? Where is the reliable sources? Where is the evidence? I'd say that this is just an assumption, an opinion, a belief. And I thought such werent allowed on Wikipedia and this article. This part of the text needs to be removed, unless there are some concrete evidence for this claim other than someone's assumption that "it has to be extinct because it has not been seen". That is nothing we know, there are several people who claim to have seen this animal, and we can't just discredit their stories just because we havent seen a living creature. I require that the insertion "now extinct" will be removed, since it is completely unecessary, or it should be changed to "claimed to be extinct" for example. TurokSwe ( talk) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
OK, that's probably enough. Having watched this unfold yesterday, and then see it resume today, I'll make a call as an uninvolved admin that there is clear consensus on this talk page that Megalania is extinct, based on reliable sources cited in the article. As such, no one needs to worry that if they don't reply to TurokSwe, that this status will change in the article, or that claims of sightings will be added. It won't, and they won't. Further comments along these lines can be safely ignored. --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megalania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that consensus seems to be to use "megalania" as a common name throughout the article (going by the comment at the top of the article), shouldn't the title of the article not be italicized? Spizaetus ( talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
A cursory glance shows that many recent papers found on Google scholar mostly classify Megalania as "Varanus priscus" or "Varanus (Megalania) priscus/prisca", most likely following the paper by J. J. Head et al. in 2009 (which is also referenced in this very article). I've been confused by this supposed controversy for years now. Most of the papers about the taxonomic classification of Megalania are over a decade old and as far as I know, haven't been contested, am I missing something here? Monsieur X ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. De-italicization found to be sufficient. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 20:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Megalania → Varanus priscus – There seems to be full consensus that Megalania is a junior synonym of Varanus, so I'd say there's 2 ways we can address this: either we move to page to Varanus priscus as is standard, or we keep it as Megalania without the italics and use it as a common name (as we sorta do with megalodon). Just quickly going through google, I see https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa102 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.06.013 from 2021 which use "megalania" without italics. I can't say I really have a preference, but this issue should be addressed because it's confusing to read that it's classified as V. priscus when the article uses Megalania throughout Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 August 2022, it was proposed that this article be moved to Varanus priscus. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Much of the article seems to be taken from here, verbatim: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/parks/naracoorte/wonambi/animals/extinct/megalania.html
Some cryptozoologists think that the Megalania may still exist in the Australian Outback See this site [1]
~The post that sightings huge monitors only began after Megalania's initial discovery are crap since since the aboriginies have reported huge monitor lizards for several hundred too even a few thousand years they even in the distant past would have told stories off how these monsters brought with them fire and destruction so the thought these animals have just started being reported needs too be re thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
~ I think the longest possible size for any monitor lizard today based on the most believable report of a giant montior lizard I could find would be 22 feet or a foot less than the extinct Megalania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
~Well you know why there are no reputable reports of it coming from the natives there at the moment it is because that they are suspicious of talking about their encounters and don't want to be ridiculed which is how most people are now with their monster sightings which means while your still here doubting that there have been sightings of it before it's initial discovery you forget that there could very well have been sightings of it but none really felt comfortable about mentioning it until they learned in 1859 that there was actually such a creature and that pushed them too come forward with their encounters and that is why people only really started talking about their claims of encountering monster lizards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 ( talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Megalina's size has been subject to considerable exaggeration, due to poor extrapolation of fragmentary remains. The most recent, reasonable estimates put it as a average length of 3.45 meters (11.3 feet) and a mass of up to 158kg (347.60lbs) Please see page 4. http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/Wroe2002review.pdf.
I am sorry but it said in many websites that it was that big, I always thought it was that big, oh man, well I guess we have to have it like this. 66.99.53.61 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay now the article says that Megalania is 15.3-20 feet long, hopeful that is the right size. I am sorry but 11.3 feet long sounds too small for a massive lizard, well to me anyway. 64.107.164.130 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Yeah would it be okay to keep the current size of Megalania like this. It be better. 64.107.164.130 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I saw a picture of a skeleton of a Megalania in a website with a person in it and believe me, it didn't look like a "puny" 11.3 foot lizard. 64.107.164.130 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Just try to keep in mind there is a big difference between average and maximum size. Very few Komodo Dragons exceed 50kg in the wild, (Indeed I think the largest one examined by Auffenberg was about 50kg), and they average much less then that, but there are still giants up to 100kg out there. So the maximum might very well have approached 400-500kg and 15f+, but would be very rare.
I think there is one problem. Wroe speaks about 3,4 as average length, but this was accoring to Hecht not average total length, but snout-vent-length, whith the smallest known adult specimens of 2,2m snout-vent-length. And this is a huge difference. The tail of adult komodos is nearly exactly 50% of the whole size. In Megalania it is very probable, that its tail was in proportion a bit shorter. That means that adult Megalanias were at least 4m in length, and as they were very heaily built, had surely a higher weight than a komodo of the same size. Such an animal would have a weight of about 250 kg. Longer specimens with a total length of 5,5m would be around 500kg or more.
I remember seeing picture of Megalania from a BBC TV show or something like that. If someone can get around to uploading it and figuring out the copyright issues, that would be great. Bibliomaniac15 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
It's interesting to find out that Megalania has been renamed Varanus. Does that mean Megalania is now the common name? Excuse me, but I have an interest in this fiddly little nomenclature stuff.-- Gazzster 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you-- Gazzster 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
And so the name should stay! Come on, does anyone seriously feel comfortanle saying Varanus prisca?It's not a monitor, it's an icon!-- Gazzster 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
I thought that "Megalania" meant "butcher" or "killer." Do we have a source of it meaning "strider"?-- Mr Fink 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Both the Museum of Victoria [ [2]] and the site of the Naracoorte Caves, South Australia [ [3]] give the meaning as 'giant ancient butcher'. So yes, we need a source for 'strider'.-- Gazzster 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
It does mean "giant butcher" (prisca means "first") but it is, interestingly, feminine. The ordinary Latin word for butcher is lanius, but I assume they made it feminine so people wouldn't think it was a giant relative of Lanius (the shrike). Vultur 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry folks, but despite the popularity of "giant butcher," it is not the correct meaning for the name. It really does mean "giant strider", or "runner." When I put that change in, it had the reference to back it up (Owen, 1859). If one checks the bottom of the first page of Owen's description, one will find the etymology behind the name. Owen wanted to make it evident that this giant lizard was not waterbound. Jura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.127.45 ( talk) 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Should we mention Megalania often being mistranslated as "great butcher," or no?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI for editors. The recent 1,940kg estimate could initially be viewed as contentious. So to avoid an "editing war" over the size section, I've included a direct quote from Ralph Molnar's 2004 book on Megalania.
From page 127:
"...the Lau and Frost specimens (SVL estimated at 2.2 to 2.4 meters) seem to be close to the average, to judge from the sizes of the vertebrae held in the Queensland Museum. Blob's corrected equation gives a mass of about 320kg for a 2 meter (SVL) individual. The largest specimen (QM F2942) gives an estimated body length of 3.8 meters, which in turn gives a mass of approximately 1,940kg."
Jura ( talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm very unconvinced about the derivation from "plaina" - allegedly Greek for "to roam about". For a start, Greek verbs are normally cited in either the first person singular present indicative ("I roam") or the present infinitive ("to roam") - "plaina" doesn't seem to have the right ending to be either of these. Moreover, why would the p have been omitted, totally obscuring the nature of the word? I've added the "fact" template pending some better explanation. -- rossb ( talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
What's the deal with italicising the name "Megalania"? Now that it is being used as the common name and is no longer the generic name, I don't think it qualifies to be written in italics. We don't italicise "rhinoceros" or "hippopotamus" when we are using the names colloquially. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:15, 25 Maybe 2009 (Earth Standard Time)
using the wayback machine for this - http://web.archive.org/web/20060426215521/www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Stephenson:Neal:Cryptonomicon:277:a_sharpened_Y...%28Alan_Sinder%29
The issue of when, exactly Megalania went extinct was examined in detail in Molnar. A precise date isn't known, only that no fossils are known from before 30,000 years ago (though the fossils in question don't have an exact age yet), and there was a major fauna & flora change (due to climatic changes) approximately 48,000 years ago. Previously reported dates of around 20,000 years are apparently wrong due to some specific technical issues about calculating recent dates (the way Molnar phrased it implied everyone was doing it wrong prior to 1985). Mokele ( talk) 03:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Hello folks. I am not clear whether Megalania now counts as a common name and therefore does not need italics? There were a couple of places where it was treated with italics like a genus name (which of course it was originally) so I took the liberty of changing the name to italics throughout. If we can get a reference to back up the idea that Megalania is now used as a common name, and not as a genus name, then I suppose it does not need italics except where the word is being used to refer to the original taxon. I do apologize if I have created extra work for someone. Invertzoo ( talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Please, tell me what is wrong with this "The megalania (Megalania prisca or Varanus priscus), sometimes called the giant ripper lizard or devil dragon, is a very large goanna or monitor lizard (and the world's largest known lizard), claimed to be extinct by mainstream scientists although it is a controversial subject. It was part of a megafaunal assemblage that inhabited southern Australia during the Pleistocene. It has been claimed to have disappeared around 40,000 years ago.[3] The first aboriginal settlers of Australia may have encountered living megalanias.[4] Some Aboriginal Dreaming stories may even be about them.[5]". I don't understand why you're trying to remove this, I can't see anything wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurokSwe ( talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
Extinct?The article mentions "now extinct", yet where is the reference for that? Where is the reliable sources? Where is the evidence? I'd say that this is just an assumption, an opinion, a belief. And I thought such werent allowed on Wikipedia and this article. This part of the text needs to be removed, unless there are some concrete evidence for this claim other than someone's assumption that "it has to be extinct because it has not been seen". That is nothing we know, there are several people who claim to have seen this animal, and we can't just discredit their stories just because we havent seen a living creature. I require that the insertion "now extinct" will be removed, since it is completely unecessary, or it should be changed to "claimed to be extinct" for example. TurokSwe ( talk) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
|
OK, that's probably enough. Having watched this unfold yesterday, and then see it resume today, I'll make a call as an uninvolved admin that there is clear consensus on this talk page that Megalania is extinct, based on reliable sources cited in the article. As such, no one needs to worry that if they don't reply to TurokSwe, that this status will change in the article, or that claims of sightings will be added. It won't, and they won't. Further comments along these lines can be safely ignored. --
Floquenbeam (
talk) 22:02, 12 April 2013 (UTC) |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Megalania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
Given that consensus seems to be to use "megalania" as a common name throughout the article (going by the comment at the top of the article), shouldn't the title of the article not be italicized? Spizaetus ( talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
A cursory glance shows that many recent papers found on Google scholar mostly classify Megalania as "Varanus priscus" or "Varanus (Megalania) priscus/prisca", most likely following the paper by J. J. Head et al. in 2009 (which is also referenced in this very article). I've been confused by this supposed controversy for years now. Most of the papers about the taxonomic classification of Megalania are over a decade old and as far as I know, haven't been contested, am I missing something here? Monsieur X ( talk) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. De-italicization found to be sufficient. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mello hi! ( 投稿) 20:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
Megalania → Varanus priscus – There seems to be full consensus that Megalania is a junior synonym of Varanus, so I'd say there's 2 ways we can address this: either we move to page to Varanus priscus as is standard, or we keep it as Megalania without the italics and use it as a common name (as we sorta do with megalodon). Just quickly going through google, I see https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa102 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.06.013 from 2021 which use "megalania" without italics. I can't say I really have a preference, but this issue should be addressed because it's confusing to read that it's classified as V. priscus when the article uses Megalania throughout Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)