This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tuatara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Tuatara has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Please take note of the license issues in using pictures of New Zealand currency, as discussed in the peer review and this template. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Does the tuatara have a voice or any sound producing organs?
From Classification:
This article needs a table showing which of the tuatara's features are believed to be the ancestral within which taxonomic group, e.g.
Uncinate process | Diapsids |
Gastric ribs | Diapsids |
Parietal eye | Vertebrates |
Samsara contrib talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Samsara contrib talk 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I just took a quick look over the article. I think that there's good information here, but think that the overall organization and flow need work. Flow/organization issues are common on Wikipedia, but I wonder if taxon-based articles shouldn't adopt some standard organizational scheme. WikiSpecies has an outline they suggest (or require?) that might be helpful (or not, I don't really remember). Here's my specific issues:
Hope that my comments are helpful and constructive. It's looking good so far, good luck! Pstevendactylus 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The physical description section of this article is far too complicated. I have tried to simplify it, but gave up after a while as I didn't understand a lot of it myself. Mostly, it is in the sensory organs and spine and ribs section, but the skull also had something I didn't like (the skull problems have inline comments). -- liquidGhoul 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a few areas of the article which need some collaboration. Most of it is jargon, of which I can't understand or I don't know how to simplify. Or if we even need to simplify. The rest is just some random things, I will state what is wrong with each bit.
Is the highlighted section neccesary, and if so how can it be simplified?
I removed the duplicate sentence of this in the next paragraph, but it contained a name. Is the earliest fossil reptile a Homeosaurus?
What the hell does that mean?
The red section is too complicated, and the green section is too simple. I don't know whether the eye was functional in the ancestor, and it has degenerated during its evolution or what. It needs to be expanded, but my sources don't speak of its evolution.
I don't really think either of the red sections are neccesary for an encyclopaedia, but I would like to explain how they are unspecialised. Again, I don't understand the text, so I can't really help.
Could we just say that its vertebrae is similar shape to fish and amphibians, and is unique among the amniotes without mentioning the exact shape?
I have tried really hard to simplify and clean this up, but it is really hard. I will have another go at it with a fresh head, but I am putting it up here if anyone is really keen.
The last paragraph of "Spine and ribs" talks about the general evolution of amniotes, and doesn't even mention tuatara. I suggest completely removing this paragraph.
This sentence is too long and segmented, but I cannot find a way to fix it.
Finally, can we use common names for the species, and can we have them capitalised to go with the rest of the herpetology featured articles? Thanks -- liquidGhoul 05:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Tuataras are awesome. Too bad they only live in New Zealand. Are they endangered? Does anyone know?...I'm going to try and get one if i can. :)
Is that correct? There was such a thing 111 years ago? Is it possible that 1895 was a typo and that 1995 was meant? Hi There 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think the article should say "classified as endangered" because this very strongly implies an IUCN classification. According to the source cited, tuatara were protected in 1895. I have changed it to reflect this. I hope it's OK Foxi tails ( talk) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is supported by the supplied footnoted source, but it is difficult for me to fathom how such a threatened and slow-breeding animal can be classified as Least Concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:5566:5F43:BD38:6C50 ( talk) 22:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a really troublesome passage:
So the way I read this is, the order Rhynchocephalia became a wastebin taxon into which putatively close extinct relatives of the tuatara were thrown. Williston was dissatisfied with the wastebin taxon and made a new taxonomic order, Sphenodontia. However, that would mean that Sphenodontia are a more exclusive order, rather than inclusive, as the text suggests. However, it may also be possible that the two orders over time came to be synonymously used, from my reading between the lines in the reptile encyclopaedia reference. We really need some more evidence (i.e. dead trees) to resolve this passage. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
{{cite book | last=Cree | first=Alison | year=2002 | editor=Halliday, Tim and Adler, Kraig | chapter=Tuatara | title=The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians | publisher=Oxford University Press | pages=210-211 | location=Oxford, UK | id=ISBN 0-19-852507-9}}
produces
Cree, Alison (2002). "Tuatara". In Halliday, Tim and Adler, Kraig (ed.). The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 210–211.
ISBN
0-19-852507-9.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
I would like to see "In:" and "eds." in that sequence, does not currently seem implemented. Anybody know of a template that has this? Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a fiddle and the article is progressing nicely, though the last section on Etymology is a bit stubby..several other FAs such as the various cetaceans Blue Whale, Humpback Whale and now Common Raven sport a naming/taxonomy section which sits between the lead and the description. I would have thought this whole section could fit into the front of taxonomy - it sort of sits like a trivia section at the present. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is just so we know who to thank when this article gets nominated for FA. Feel free to add any significant contributors I may have missed (add your additions below my signature, and sign, thanks). I compiled this from memory and edit counts.
User:Tavilis, User:Avenue, and User:Gadfium who must have been watching this article for some time, and kept adding things to it.
I'm probably in there somewhere, too.
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article state: "The tuatara has been classified as an endangered species since 1895," while the taxobox indicates it is listed as "vulnerable", not "endangered"? Additionally, there are two extant Tuatara species, so it would not be an endangered species. This mistake (referring to the two species as a species) occurs throughout the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Skin and color
The sentence "The tuatara's greenish brown colour matches its environment, and can change over its lifetime, since tuatara shed their skin at least once per year as adults,[23] and three or four times a year as juveniles." was misleading. There is no connection between skin shedding and color change in reptiles. The "skin" being shed is actually the transparent outer layer of the skin, whereas pigment is primarily in living layers of the skin (although some reptile sheds do show traces of black markings). As a simple example, consider the color changes of the chameleon: They can change their colors drastically in a matter of minutes, with no shedding involved. I edited the sentence into two to change the misleading impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.103 ( talk) 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Scaring can be more prominent in a lizard that has recently shed. Not what you would call a colour change but possible the reason behind the original post. -- MC ( talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, " Zealandia has shifted ~6000 km to the northwest and respect to the underlying mantle from the time when it rifted from Antarctica between 130 and 85 million years ago." The plates approx 249 million years ago and then 100 million years ago are illustrated at the Cimmerian Plate article. So the answer is, quite a ways, but it spent a lot of time near the south pole, which might indicate it's cold weather adaptations as opposed to others. However, this is speculation on my part and a source still needs to be found. pschemp | talk 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of this map, but it seems a bit outdated to me. In particular, I think readers in Auckland and Wellington would appreciate one that shows tuatara live on Tiritiri Matangi [6] and Matiu/Somes Island. Does anyone know of other current habitats that aren't listed in DoC's Recovery Plan (Appendix 1, pp 29-36)? -- Avenue 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have ready access to this paper? It seems like it might help flesh out the Cultural significance section, and connect it with the rest of our article. -- Avenue 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
KRISTINA M. RAMSTAD, N. J. NELSON, G. PAINE, D. BEECH, A. PAUL, P. PAUL, F. W. ALLENDORF, C. H. DAUGHERTY (2007) Species and Cultural Conservation in New Zealand: Maori Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Tuatara. Conservation Biology 21 (2), 455–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00620.x
Can anyone get access to
FREEMAN AB, FREEMAN AND. 1995. REDISCOVERY OF AN ORIGINAL TYPE SPECIMEN OF SPHENODON-GUNTHERI BULLER IN THE CANTERBURY-MUSEUM, NEW-ZEALAND. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 22 (3): 357-359 SEP 1995
Thanks,
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm merging that article, and the reference wasn't used to add anything that isn't already present in this article, I'll quote it here:
"New Zealand Frogs and reptiles", Brian Gill and Tony Whitaker, David Bateman publishing, 1998
If anyone has that reference, obviously you're welcome to contribute! The original contributor, User:Kotare, did not reply to my query about it, although (s)he has been online. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC):
Don't have time to look this up myself at the moment, but I noticed both authorities for the living species in the taxobox are given in parenthesis. This means that they have been re-named or re-classified since original description, but this is not explained in the text (I've found references to S. punctatum rather than S. punctatus, maybe it has to do with this issue?). Anyway, if anybody has refs for a more detailed taxonomic history, it might help. Dinoguy2 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:ArthurWeasley has been kind enough to fashion a drawing of a tuatara skull for us.
I believe he would take some suggestions if there are any. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If a period piece is ever needed:
Spamsara 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is exactly same as from the reference:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.48.158 ( talk • contribs)
I've uploaded a higher res map of NZ as suggested by Avenue: Image:Nz large simple downsampled.gif Separa 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
Separa 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Might be interesting:
Source: http://www.historic.org.nz/magazinefeatures/2006Winter/2006_Winter_Discovering%20D'Urville.htm
Also this bit from the same source, although it sounds ethically questionable in terms of Maori culture and animal rights as we see them today:
82.71.48.158 ( talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know where they are located besides New Zealand? I found one in Africa on a trip, in Nigera. I wonder if this is possible? User: Demonteenager
Please don't move the page Demonteenager> TheLightElf ( talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the newer picture on it? I thought it was a better shot then the current one. IF anyone has it...please put it back up there. Anyoe else aggre? TheLightElf ( talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
New Scientist released an article about a record speed of evolution found in the tuatara. Since I don't know as much about the animal, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to put something on the page about it. Xe7al ( talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly a resistance to using the word " reptile" in this article, and I understand why, since reptiles are paraphyletic. However, the lede should be accessible to the general public, and I believe that most people have an intuitive understanding of what a reptile is, but far fewer have such an understanding of "amniote". I note that the articles on lizard, snake, and turtle all start with "X are reptiles", and crocodile also has such a sentence in the first paragraph. I think the attitude should be reserved for the reptile article, and kept out of this one.- gadfium 05:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When I read the article yesterday, I saw that tuatara are related to snakes and lizards. However there was no explicit statement that they are reptiles, hence I was unsure. I looked at the " Reptile" article, and the representative picture is a tuatara! So I added the statement. Axl ( talk) 09:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is "amniote" a more helpful description than "reptile"? Axl ( talk) 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference material for this discussion: Phylogenetic nomenclature#Lack of obligatory_ranks. 87.165.194.242 ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I will personally say now that Wikipedia guidelines encourage people to use common terms, and that banning a commonly used word with a a fairly uniform meaning just because it does not refer to a formal, rigidly defined scientific concept is asinine. Saying that the 'Tuatara is a Reptile' is not equivalent to saying that Class Reptilia is a good, commonly accepted Monophyletic class, anymore than saying that 'a Lungfish is a fish' is disputing that they are probably more closely related to amphibians than they are to sharks. Saying that the Tuatara is a Reptile does provide more information than 'the Tuatara is an Amniote', because the word Amniote means nothing to most people. JamesFox ( talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
yeah, the hemming and hawing here on how tuataras should not be represented as reptiles is not very convincing. for those defending this: i consider myself a cladist too (yes, birds are pretty much glorified reptiles), but that doesn't mean we should turn wikipedia into a compendium of cutting edge scientific articles. it's an encyclopedia for popular consumption; it should represent the current state of the science, and not what a particular cadre of editors -- or even researchers -- argue. sure, mention and/or explain the debate but, paraphyletic or no, the layman will point to most any scaly, air-breathing tetrapod and say "reptile". consider them in a more narrow fashion if you wish (i know archosaurs and squamates better, myself); but wikipedia's really not for trend-setting, as i see it. (also posted, more or less, at Talk:Reptile.) - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the avoidance of "reptile" is just silly, for several reasons.
If this was the turtle article, I could see the issue, because frankly their taxonomy will not be resolved until we find transitional fossils linking them to another group. But to dispute the application of 'reptile' to a sister taxon to the clade representing the lion's share of reptile diversity is ridiculous. Mokele ( talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the idea was that the diagram would be labelled using the other one as a template, rather than replacing the high quality complete version with a more cruddy attempt that is missing the lower jaw, i.e. the unique dentition. It shouldn't take too much time to do this. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm seriously concerned about your editing, especially when you put the coin image back in....note the discussion about why it can't be in there is the first thing on this talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the history of this article before you edit more. I'm not convinced that your content changes are helpful. (though most of the formatting ones are fine) But then again you delinked a red link for the southland museum and art gallery when we had an article on WP for it already under a different capitalization...its pretty obvious you didn't make a thorough effort check to see if we did. Please be more careful. breathe | inhale 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
apparently a 111-year-old male just became a father.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how long they can live for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadCarbon ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to restore "Lizard Love: 110-year dinosaur descendent (sic) to become daddy". CNN. as a reference in the image caption, but tuatara are not dinosaurs, and it's also the article that has the unverified 200-year claim, so I'm now thinking I'll leave it out unless others can point to some benefit. (Meanwhile, it seems CNN have fixed the spelling mistake, assuming it was ever there.) Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk; todo) 18:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got a couple of photos I took last year when visiting NZ. The first one is of a display case that doesn't really work as a photo, but has some information on it that might be useful. They're not great (bad lighting), but feel free to put them in if they fit. KeresH ( talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, you guys. Here we are again, debating on the merits of "reptile" or "higher animal." Seeing the reverts being tossed forth on both sides, I've started this section to hopefully start some discussion on this issue and make some consensus. If reverts continue to happen, I will protect the page. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, one thing that should be indisputable here: "Higher animal" is among the worst possible options. It has no scientific or taxonomic validity, it's completely uninformative, and it perpetuates the ancient misconception of a "scala naturae". If we're going to have this debate, "amniote", "sphenodontian" or even "basal diapsid" should be used as the alternative to "reptile" by those who have a problem with paraphyletic taxa, but not "higher animal". Mokele ( talk) 23:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Mokele, if as you say, Sauropsid is "no different than" reptile, you shouldn't have any problem with it. It is of course different than reptile but you can't seem to find a logical point of view. Sauropsid is an excellent choice as a result for this debate. It is monophyletic, it is more descriptive than reptile, it wikilinks to reptile where the difference is explained for the common man, it helps educate people that reptilia has some serious problems when it comes to modern biology, it is supported in the literature and it follows Benton's taxonomy, which is what all the other "reptile" articles use and what the Tree of Life Project decided to use. Other people here have worked to find an acceptable solution. You have just blindly and stubbornly reverted and that's not appropriate behaviour. pschemp | talk 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it standard policy to deliberately select the most obscure possible wording for an intro, when a common and easily understood equivalent exists? Mokele ( talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think we need to roll this back and take it from the top. Tempers are flaring, including mine, over what should be a simple matter, and for my part, I apologize. I realize I'm not exactly the easiest person to deal with, but let's try to clear the air and resolve this. And for what it's worth, it's not just us - this entire discussion has already taken place once. So, why don't we try to lay things out and decide once and for all. I think part of the problem is we've lost sight of the underlying issue, namely the importance of easy understanding vs. accuracy. Nobody here disputes that there are a myriad of terms which can refer to the tuatara: "reptile", "amniote", "diapsid", "basal diapsid", "sphenodont", "Sauropsid", etc. I further think that we've resolved the issue of paraphyly being a problem - we're using ITIS classification, and "reptilia/sauropsida" is recognized in both ITIS and the scientific literature, regardless of the paraphyletic nature of the clade. This, IMHO, leaves only the issue of communication. Which term is best for the intro? Personally, I favor reptile for the following reasons:
Ok, let's try to resolve this thing without killing each other. What term do you favor, why do you think it's preferable, and what impact will it have on the article regarding clarity, accuracy, and information content, especially considering that this is an introductory sentence. Mokele ( talk) 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Dinoguy, the claim that ordinary people are too uneducated to understand Sauropsid is both wrong and a disservice to the readers of the encyclopedia. This is exactly what wikilinks are are for, so people can click on terms they want to learn more about. No one is arguing that Tuatara aren't reptiles. The problem is that the definition of reptile is not the most useful term due to its mish mash of inclusions. Sauropsid on the other hand is more specific, and thus more useful. If just the term reptile is used, no casual reader will ever be prompted to dig deep enough to realize that there are serious problems with the old class due to advances in evolutionary biology. It's not like the term Sauropsid was invented yesterday, or even 20 years ago. Its been around for a long time. Wikipedia is here to capture the sum of human knowledge. If class definitions are changing, such as the old Reptilia, our information should reflect that. Ignoring such things is making the assumption that readers are too stupid to understand current issues, and that is quite wrong. pschemp | talk 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh and I am the average reader because I don't have a degree in Biology. So you can all stop trying to guess what the average reader would or would not be confused about. I am not confused at all by the term Sauropsid. Rather I find it intriging and useful. I also find the assumptions that anyone without a degree is unable to understand what is going on without using the word "reptile" to be insulting. All anyone wil even half a notion about what a reptile is has to do is look at the picture and the answer is clear. During the time this article used the word amniote, there was no giant influx of confused average joes, wandering lost in the forest of articles becouse the term reptile wasn't there. That's proof of the average reader's behaviour. (And contrary to your belief Mokele, there is no requirement on WP that people have degrees in specific subjects to edit them. Nor does having a degree make your opinion count more. So don't even go down that road.) pschemp | talk 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One other point needs to be addressed: consistency. As far as I can tell, every single other article on Wikipedia uses "reptile" instead of "sauropsid", and none of the other pages on the reptile orders use the term. Why should tuatara be singled out? WP:Consistency clearly favors "reptile" as is, and frankly, I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to justify changing every single instance of "reptile" in Wikipedia to "sauropsid". Mokele ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One key issue here is the validity of "reptile" as a term. Given that it continues to be used in the scientific literature, unless a peer-review article to the contrary can be cited, the claim that "reptile" is somehow outdated, inferior or otherwise undesirable is without basis. Mokele ( talk) 00:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How about we put this to a more general vote over here? -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Mokele, your new intro looks okay, but is it still consistent with the reference that follows? If not, remove it and preferably replace it with your own reference. Also, don't forget the taxobox. -- Jwinius ( talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In line with the new, apparently agreed-upon taxonomy in WP:RAA, can we get a bot to change Class (Reptile|Sauropsida) fields to Class: (Reptile|Reptilia)? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does this mean? Did BBC news also get the image from flickr?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How long can Tuataras get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.15.193 ( talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In the intro to the article it should be mentioned the morphology behind their classification separately from other diapsids as well as a SHORT etymology of the name. Other anatomical features and extant information such as During routine maintenance work at Karori Sanctuary etc should be shunted down to it's proper section in the article. Intro should not be larger than other sections in the article... 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 07:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"The tuatara has been protected by law since 1895[9][10] (the second species," I believe this should have been 1985 ?????? Jimbellofbelmont ( talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
can you please add a pic of the Brothers Island Tuatara please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.225.116 ( talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
1. Is there documentation on the process in which the rats were eradicated? 2. While they are of course currently protected, is there any pet-store trade going on for these animals? Perhaps bred in captivity? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
S. guntheri was sunk back into S. punctatus back in 2010. Two of the authors of the 2010 paper were on the orig 1990 paper which separated them; abstract - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10592-009-9952-7 . 203.158.40.95 ( talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Either "the single species of tuatara" or "the two extant species" has to go. Which is it? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 20:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone fix this intervening in the Taxonomy block? Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hymenoptera Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.14.74 ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"...the family has several characteristics unique among reptiles." These characteristics are not spelled out clearly. Kortoso ( talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says, "The tuatara is considered the most unspecialised living amniote; the brain and mode of locomotion resemble those of amphibians and the heart is more primitive than that of any other reptile.[20]" what is it about the tuatara's "locomotion" that resembles an amphibian's? This quote mentions the difference, but I can't find a description of it. Did I miss it? Leadwind ( talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara."
Is this definitely right?
The Malagasy three-eyed lizard, Chalarodon madagascariensis, has a developed parietal eye that isn't covered by scales (see
)
Chalarodon ( talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dinobass ( talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the clarification of "developed" vs "pronounced"... but I think that the objection stills stands. The eye in C. madagascariensis has a lens and a retina, according to Brandt and to a number of flickr users (who are probably referencing the guide). Not sure where Brandt gets their cite from, but I think it may be premature to suggest that either eye is more developed than the other in the absence of a comparative study. There's relatively little literature on C. madagascariensis at present.
Chalarodon ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The species section needs a complete rewrite as it starts with the assertion that there are two extant species, despite earlier mentions in the article that recent work has merged the two previously named "species". The section then concludes by informing the reader of the merger, thus contradicting the rest of the section while agreeing with the previous sections of the article. I imagine that this would be rather confusing for the average reader. I have not looked over the entire article, so there may be other instances of this confusion in other sections as well. -- Khajidha ( talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
“The tuatara Sphenodon punctatus has been protected by law since 1895.[11][12] A second species, S. guntheri, was recognised in 1989[6] but since 2009 its use has been discontinued.[13][14]”
The use of what? The species name? The law? The law in relation to the second species? This should be clarified. -- X883 ( talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tuatara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 19:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I have a question: There's stated that there are two living forms of Tuatara (formerly considered subspecies) confined to islands, however even the IUCN states that tuataras used to live on mainland New Zealand before it's extirpation. But considering the geographical forms as subspecies, does this means there was a mainland form/subspecies endemic to North and South islands that went extinct by introduced predators (the discovery of a third extinct form could be an important item in this subject) or one of the extant forms is the relict population of the mainland subspecies? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.230.97 ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I've written a page for the tuatara tick, Amblyomma sphenodonti. I'm wondering if a section could be useful here on its tick. There are other diseases too... Markanderson72 ( talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
the reader should not have to go to the link to find out which of several West Coasts in the world is intended! -- 142.163.194.149 ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If there are things that make their genome unique from other animals, then by all means, list them. However, it seems like a lot of the information included is overly technical and unnecessary for a basic encyclopedia article. -- An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia:, is Sphenodon diversum considered a synonym (or has it been assigned to another genus)? The article currently mentions it as if it is a distinct species. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There was a recent edit and subsequent removal of a list item in the popular culture section of this article. See here. The comment given by User:Elmidae was "irrelevant". What's the thought there? It seems appropriate for that spot in the article and was cited but I'm hesitant to revert it back in case there was some other reason. Maybe I'm biased on what falls under popular culture. For reference, I'm looking at the page Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and that list item seems somewhere between a good example and a poor example. Thoughts? - Procyonidae ( talk) 20:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The ref in the article: [1] has multiple identifiers in it, but there is a disagreement between them on the publication date. Currently, the article is using the date that Springer via DOI provided, which is July 3, 2009. But the other two links from Griffith via HDL and Semantic Scholar have the date listed as June 1, 2010 or just 2010. Which of these sources is the most reliable here and thus should have the date it provides be in the reference? BhamBoi ( talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
References
While looking for something else I came across this statement in the Evening Post editorial of 10 May 1870 [12] - one or two specimans (Tuatara) were caught many years ago at Mākara NealeWellington ( talk) 06:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned, if only briefly, that tuataras were formerly hunted and eaten by Maori people (who also hunted and ate moas)? 98.123.38.211 ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Tuatara article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | Tuatara has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
Please take note of the license issues in using pictures of New Zealand currency, as discussed in the peer review and this template. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Does the tuatara have a voice or any sound producing organs?
From Classification:
This article needs a table showing which of the tuatara's features are believed to be the ancestral within which taxonomic group, e.g.
Uncinate process | Diapsids |
Gastric ribs | Diapsids |
Parietal eye | Vertebrates |
Samsara contrib talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Samsara contrib talk 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I just took a quick look over the article. I think that there's good information here, but think that the overall organization and flow need work. Flow/organization issues are common on Wikipedia, but I wonder if taxon-based articles shouldn't adopt some standard organizational scheme. WikiSpecies has an outline they suggest (or require?) that might be helpful (or not, I don't really remember). Here's my specific issues:
Hope that my comments are helpful and constructive. It's looking good so far, good luck! Pstevendactylus 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The physical description section of this article is far too complicated. I have tried to simplify it, but gave up after a while as I didn't understand a lot of it myself. Mostly, it is in the sensory organs and spine and ribs section, but the skull also had something I didn't like (the skull problems have inline comments). -- liquidGhoul 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There are a few areas of the article which need some collaboration. Most of it is jargon, of which I can't understand or I don't know how to simplify. Or if we even need to simplify. The rest is just some random things, I will state what is wrong with each bit.
Is the highlighted section neccesary, and if so how can it be simplified?
I removed the duplicate sentence of this in the next paragraph, but it contained a name. Is the earliest fossil reptile a Homeosaurus?
What the hell does that mean?
The red section is too complicated, and the green section is too simple. I don't know whether the eye was functional in the ancestor, and it has degenerated during its evolution or what. It needs to be expanded, but my sources don't speak of its evolution.
I don't really think either of the red sections are neccesary for an encyclopaedia, but I would like to explain how they are unspecialised. Again, I don't understand the text, so I can't really help.
Could we just say that its vertebrae is similar shape to fish and amphibians, and is unique among the amniotes without mentioning the exact shape?
I have tried really hard to simplify and clean this up, but it is really hard. I will have another go at it with a fresh head, but I am putting it up here if anyone is really keen.
The last paragraph of "Spine and ribs" talks about the general evolution of amniotes, and doesn't even mention tuatara. I suggest completely removing this paragraph.
This sentence is too long and segmented, but I cannot find a way to fix it.
Finally, can we use common names for the species, and can we have them capitalised to go with the rest of the herpetology featured articles? Thanks -- liquidGhoul 05:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I think Tuataras are awesome. Too bad they only live in New Zealand. Are they endangered? Does anyone know?...I'm going to try and get one if i can. :)
Is that correct? There was such a thing 111 years ago? Is it possible that 1895 was a typo and that 1995 was meant? Hi There 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. I don't think the article should say "classified as endangered" because this very strongly implies an IUCN classification. According to the source cited, tuatara were protected in 1895. I have changed it to reflect this. I hope it's OK Foxi tails ( talk) 00:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
It is supported by the supplied footnoted source, but it is difficult for me to fathom how such a threatened and slow-breeding animal can be classified as Least Concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:5566:5F43:BD38:6C50 ( talk) 22:02, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a really troublesome passage:
So the way I read this is, the order Rhynchocephalia became a wastebin taxon into which putatively close extinct relatives of the tuatara were thrown. Williston was dissatisfied with the wastebin taxon and made a new taxonomic order, Sphenodontia. However, that would mean that Sphenodontia are a more exclusive order, rather than inclusive, as the text suggests. However, it may also be possible that the two orders over time came to be synonymously used, from my reading between the lines in the reptile encyclopaedia reference. We really need some more evidence (i.e. dead trees) to resolve this passage. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
{{cite book | last=Cree | first=Alison | year=2002 | editor=Halliday, Tim and Adler, Kraig | chapter=Tuatara | title=The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians | publisher=Oxford University Press | pages=210-211 | location=Oxford, UK | id=ISBN 0-19-852507-9}}
produces
Cree, Alison (2002). "Tuatara". In Halliday, Tim and Adler, Kraig (ed.). The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. pp. 210–211.
ISBN
0-19-852507-9.{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (
link)
I would like to see "In:" and "eds." in that sequence, does not currently seem implemented. Anybody know of a template that has this? Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've had a bit of a fiddle and the article is progressing nicely, though the last section on Etymology is a bit stubby..several other FAs such as the various cetaceans Blue Whale, Humpback Whale and now Common Raven sport a naming/taxonomy section which sits between the lead and the description. I would have thought this whole section could fit into the front of taxonomy - it sort of sits like a trivia section at the present. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
This is just so we know who to thank when this article gets nominated for FA. Feel free to add any significant contributors I may have missed (add your additions below my signature, and sign, thanks). I compiled this from memory and edit counts.
User:Tavilis, User:Avenue, and User:Gadfium who must have been watching this article for some time, and kept adding things to it.
I'm probably in there somewhere, too.
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Why does this article state: "The tuatara has been classified as an endangered species since 1895," while the taxobox indicates it is listed as "vulnerable", not "endangered"? Additionally, there are two extant Tuatara species, so it would not be an endangered species. This mistake (referring to the two species as a species) occurs throughout the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Skin and color
The sentence "The tuatara's greenish brown colour matches its environment, and can change over its lifetime, since tuatara shed their skin at least once per year as adults,[23] and three or four times a year as juveniles." was misleading. There is no connection between skin shedding and color change in reptiles. The "skin" being shed is actually the transparent outer layer of the skin, whereas pigment is primarily in living layers of the skin (although some reptile sheds do show traces of black markings). As a simple example, consider the color changes of the chameleon: They can change their colors drastically in a matter of minutes, with no shedding involved. I edited the sentence into two to change the misleading impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.68.103 ( talk) 23:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Scaring can be more prominent in a lizard that has recently shed. Not what you would call a colour change but possible the reason behind the original post. -- MC ( talk) 16:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
Seriously though, " Zealandia has shifted ~6000 km to the northwest and respect to the underlying mantle from the time when it rifted from Antarctica between 130 and 85 million years ago." The plates approx 249 million years ago and then 100 million years ago are illustrated at the Cimmerian Plate article. So the answer is, quite a ways, but it spent a lot of time near the south pole, which might indicate it's cold weather adaptations as opposed to others. However, this is speculation on my part and a source still needs to be found. pschemp | talk 23:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of this map, but it seems a bit outdated to me. In particular, I think readers in Auckland and Wellington would appreciate one that shows tuatara live on Tiritiri Matangi [6] and Matiu/Somes Island. Does anyone know of other current habitats that aren't listed in DoC's Recovery Plan (Appendix 1, pp 29-36)? -- Avenue 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone have ready access to this paper? It seems like it might help flesh out the Cultural significance section, and connect it with the rest of our article. -- Avenue 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
KRISTINA M. RAMSTAD, N. J. NELSON, G. PAINE, D. BEECH, A. PAUL, P. PAUL, F. W. ALLENDORF, C. H. DAUGHERTY (2007) Species and Cultural Conservation in New Zealand: Maori Traditional Ecological Knowledge of Tuatara. Conservation Biology 21 (2), 455–464. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00620.x
Can anyone get access to
FREEMAN AB, FREEMAN AND. 1995. REDISCOVERY OF AN ORIGINAL TYPE SPECIMEN OF SPHENODON-GUNTHERI BULLER IN THE CANTERBURY-MUSEUM, NEW-ZEALAND. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 22 (3): 357-359 SEP 1995
Thanks,
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I'm merging that article, and the reference wasn't used to add anything that isn't already present in this article, I'll quote it here:
"New Zealand Frogs and reptiles", Brian Gill and Tony Whitaker, David Bateman publishing, 1998
If anyone has that reference, obviously you're welcome to contribute! The original contributor, User:Kotare, did not reply to my query about it, although (s)he has been online. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC):
Don't have time to look this up myself at the moment, but I noticed both authorities for the living species in the taxobox are given in parenthesis. This means that they have been re-named or re-classified since original description, but this is not explained in the text (I've found references to S. punctatum rather than S. punctatus, maybe it has to do with this issue?). Anyway, if anybody has refs for a more detailed taxonomic history, it might help. Dinoguy2 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
User:ArthurWeasley has been kind enough to fashion a drawing of a tuatara skull for us.
I believe he would take some suggestions if there are any. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
If a period piece is ever needed:
Spamsara 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
This section is exactly same as from the reference:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.48.158 ( talk • contribs)
I've uploaded a higher res map of NZ as suggested by Avenue: Image:Nz large simple downsampled.gif Separa 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Removed the following:
Separa 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
Might be interesting:
Source: http://www.historic.org.nz/magazinefeatures/2006Winter/2006_Winter_Discovering%20D'Urville.htm
Also this bit from the same source, although it sounds ethically questionable in terms of Maori culture and animal rights as we see them today:
82.71.48.158 ( talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Samsara ( talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Anyone know where they are located besides New Zealand? I found one in Africa on a trip, in Nigera. I wonder if this is possible? User: Demonteenager
Please don't move the page Demonteenager> TheLightElf ( talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What happened to the newer picture on it? I thought it was a better shot then the current one. IF anyone has it...please put it back up there. Anyoe else aggre? TheLightElf ( talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
New Scientist released an article about a record speed of evolution found in the tuatara. Since I don't know as much about the animal, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to put something on the page about it. Xe7al ( talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
There is clearly a resistance to using the word " reptile" in this article, and I understand why, since reptiles are paraphyletic. However, the lede should be accessible to the general public, and I believe that most people have an intuitive understanding of what a reptile is, but far fewer have such an understanding of "amniote". I note that the articles on lizard, snake, and turtle all start with "X are reptiles", and crocodile also has such a sentence in the first paragraph. I think the attitude should be reserved for the reptile article, and kept out of this one.- gadfium 05:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
When I read the article yesterday, I saw that tuatara are related to snakes and lizards. However there was no explicit statement that they are reptiles, hence I was unsure. I looked at the " Reptile" article, and the representative picture is a tuatara! So I added the statement. Axl ( talk) 09:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is "amniote" a more helpful description than "reptile"? Axl ( talk) 09:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Reference material for this discussion: Phylogenetic nomenclature#Lack of obligatory_ranks. 87.165.194.242 ( talk) 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I will personally say now that Wikipedia guidelines encourage people to use common terms, and that banning a commonly used word with a a fairly uniform meaning just because it does not refer to a formal, rigidly defined scientific concept is asinine. Saying that the 'Tuatara is a Reptile' is not equivalent to saying that Class Reptilia is a good, commonly accepted Monophyletic class, anymore than saying that 'a Lungfish is a fish' is disputing that they are probably more closely related to amphibians than they are to sharks. Saying that the Tuatara is a Reptile does provide more information than 'the Tuatara is an Amniote', because the word Amniote means nothing to most people. JamesFox ( talk) 21:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
yeah, the hemming and hawing here on how tuataras should not be represented as reptiles is not very convincing. for those defending this: i consider myself a cladist too (yes, birds are pretty much glorified reptiles), but that doesn't mean we should turn wikipedia into a compendium of cutting edge scientific articles. it's an encyclopedia for popular consumption; it should represent the current state of the science, and not what a particular cadre of editors -- or even researchers -- argue. sure, mention and/or explain the debate but, paraphyletic or no, the layman will point to most any scaly, air-breathing tetrapod and say "reptile". consider them in a more narrow fashion if you wish (i know archosaurs and squamates better, myself); but wikipedia's really not for trend-setting, as i see it. (also posted, more or less, at Talk:Reptile.) - Μετανοιδ ( talk, email) 04:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, the avoidance of "reptile" is just silly, for several reasons.
If this was the turtle article, I could see the issue, because frankly their taxonomy will not be resolved until we find transitional fossils linking them to another group. But to dispute the application of 'reptile' to a sister taxon to the clade representing the lion's share of reptile diversity is ridiculous. Mokele ( talk) 17:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
I believe the idea was that the diagram would be labelled using the other one as a template, rather than replacing the high quality complete version with a more cruddy attempt that is missing the lower jaw, i.e. the unique dentition. It shouldn't take too much time to do this. Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm seriously concerned about your editing, especially when you put the coin image back in....note the discussion about why it can't be in there is the first thing on this talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the history of this article before you edit more. I'm not convinced that your content changes are helpful. (though most of the formatting ones are fine) But then again you delinked a red link for the southland museum and art gallery when we had an article on WP for it already under a different capitalization...its pretty obvious you didn't make a thorough effort check to see if we did. Please be more careful. breathe | inhale 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
apparently a 111-year-old male just became a father.-- Jrm2007 ( talk) 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know how long they can live for? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadCarbon ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm tempted to restore "Lizard Love: 110-year dinosaur descendent (sic) to become daddy". CNN. as a reference in the image caption, but tuatara are not dinosaurs, and it's also the article that has the unverified 200-year claim, so I'm now thinking I'll leave it out unless others can point to some benefit. (Meanwhile, it seems CNN have fixed the spelling mistake, assuming it was ever there.) Papa Lima Whiskey ( talk; todo) 18:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
I've got a couple of photos I took last year when visiting NZ. The first one is of a display case that doesn't really work as a photo, but has some information on it that might be useful. They're not great (bad lighting), but feel free to put them in if they fit. KeresH ( talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, you guys. Here we are again, debating on the merits of "reptile" or "higher animal." Seeing the reverts being tossed forth on both sides, I've started this section to hopefully start some discussion on this issue and make some consensus. If reverts continue to happen, I will protect the page. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, one thing that should be indisputable here: "Higher animal" is among the worst possible options. It has no scientific or taxonomic validity, it's completely uninformative, and it perpetuates the ancient misconception of a "scala naturae". If we're going to have this debate, "amniote", "sphenodontian" or even "basal diapsid" should be used as the alternative to "reptile" by those who have a problem with paraphyletic taxa, but not "higher animal". Mokele ( talk) 23:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Mokele, if as you say, Sauropsid is "no different than" reptile, you shouldn't have any problem with it. It is of course different than reptile but you can't seem to find a logical point of view. Sauropsid is an excellent choice as a result for this debate. It is monophyletic, it is more descriptive than reptile, it wikilinks to reptile where the difference is explained for the common man, it helps educate people that reptilia has some serious problems when it comes to modern biology, it is supported in the literature and it follows Benton's taxonomy, which is what all the other "reptile" articles use and what the Tree of Life Project decided to use. Other people here have worked to find an acceptable solution. You have just blindly and stubbornly reverted and that's not appropriate behaviour. pschemp | talk 16:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Is it standard policy to deliberately select the most obscure possible wording for an intro, when a common and easily understood equivalent exists? Mokele ( talk) 22:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I think we need to roll this back and take it from the top. Tempers are flaring, including mine, over what should be a simple matter, and for my part, I apologize. I realize I'm not exactly the easiest person to deal with, but let's try to clear the air and resolve this. And for what it's worth, it's not just us - this entire discussion has already taken place once. So, why don't we try to lay things out and decide once and for all. I think part of the problem is we've lost sight of the underlying issue, namely the importance of easy understanding vs. accuracy. Nobody here disputes that there are a myriad of terms which can refer to the tuatara: "reptile", "amniote", "diapsid", "basal diapsid", "sphenodont", "Sauropsid", etc. I further think that we've resolved the issue of paraphyly being a problem - we're using ITIS classification, and "reptilia/sauropsida" is recognized in both ITIS and the scientific literature, regardless of the paraphyletic nature of the clade. This, IMHO, leaves only the issue of communication. Which term is best for the intro? Personally, I favor reptile for the following reasons:
Ok, let's try to resolve this thing without killing each other. What term do you favor, why do you think it's preferable, and what impact will it have on the article regarding clarity, accuracy, and information content, especially considering that this is an introductory sentence. Mokele ( talk) 22:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Dinoguy, the claim that ordinary people are too uneducated to understand Sauropsid is both wrong and a disservice to the readers of the encyclopedia. This is exactly what wikilinks are are for, so people can click on terms they want to learn more about. No one is arguing that Tuatara aren't reptiles. The problem is that the definition of reptile is not the most useful term due to its mish mash of inclusions. Sauropsid on the other hand is more specific, and thus more useful. If just the term reptile is used, no casual reader will ever be prompted to dig deep enough to realize that there are serious problems with the old class due to advances in evolutionary biology. It's not like the term Sauropsid was invented yesterday, or even 20 years ago. Its been around for a long time. Wikipedia is here to capture the sum of human knowledge. If class definitions are changing, such as the old Reptilia, our information should reflect that. Ignoring such things is making the assumption that readers are too stupid to understand current issues, and that is quite wrong. pschemp | talk 04:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh and I am the average reader because I don't have a degree in Biology. So you can all stop trying to guess what the average reader would or would not be confused about. I am not confused at all by the term Sauropsid. Rather I find it intriging and useful. I also find the assumptions that anyone without a degree is unable to understand what is going on without using the word "reptile" to be insulting. All anyone wil even half a notion about what a reptile is has to do is look at the picture and the answer is clear. During the time this article used the word amniote, there was no giant influx of confused average joes, wandering lost in the forest of articles becouse the term reptile wasn't there. That's proof of the average reader's behaviour. (And contrary to your belief Mokele, there is no requirement on WP that people have degrees in specific subjects to edit them. Nor does having a degree make your opinion count more. So don't even go down that road.) pschemp | talk 05:32, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One other point needs to be addressed: consistency. As far as I can tell, every single other article on Wikipedia uses "reptile" instead of "sauropsid", and none of the other pages on the reptile orders use the term. Why should tuatara be singled out? WP:Consistency clearly favors "reptile" as is, and frankly, I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to justify changing every single instance of "reptile" in Wikipedia to "sauropsid". Mokele ( talk) 13:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
One key issue here is the validity of "reptile" as a term. Given that it continues to be used in the scientific literature, unless a peer-review article to the contrary can be cited, the claim that "reptile" is somehow outdated, inferior or otherwise undesirable is without basis. Mokele ( talk) 00:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
How about we put this to a more general vote over here? -- Jwinius ( talk) 00:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Mokele, your new intro looks okay, but is it still consistent with the reference that follows? If not, remove it and preferably replace it with your own reference. Also, don't forget the taxobox. -- Jwinius ( talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
In line with the new, apparently agreed-upon taxonomy in WP:RAA, can we get a bot to change Class (Reptile|Sauropsida) fields to Class: (Reptile|Reptilia)? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 23:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
What exactly does this mean? Did BBC news also get the image from flickr?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How long can Tuataras get? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.15.193 ( talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing Sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I went through the article and made various changes, please look them over. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good Article. Altogether the article is well-written and is still in great shape after its passing in 2007. Continue to improve the article making sure all new information is properly sourced and neutral. It would be beneficial to update the access dates for all of the sources. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 ( talk • contrib) 00:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
In the intro to the article it should be mentioned the morphology behind their classification separately from other diapsids as well as a SHORT etymology of the name. Other anatomical features and extant information such as During routine maintenance work at Karori Sanctuary etc should be shunted down to it's proper section in the article. Intro should not be larger than other sections in the article... 99.236.221.124 ( talk) 07:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
"The tuatara has been protected by law since 1895[9][10] (the second species," I believe this should have been 1985 ?????? Jimbellofbelmont ( talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Amandajm ( talk) 02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
can you please add a pic of the Brothers Island Tuatara please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.225.116 ( talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
1. Is there documentation on the process in which the rats were eradicated? 2. While they are of course currently protected, is there any pet-store trade going on for these animals? Perhaps bred in captivity? HammerFilmFan ( talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
S. guntheri was sunk back into S. punctatus back in 2010. Two of the authors of the 2010 paper were on the orig 1990 paper which separated them; abstract - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10592-009-9952-7 . 203.158.40.95 ( talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Either "the single species of tuatara" or "the two extant species" has to go. Which is it? Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 20:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Can someone fix this intervening in the Taxonomy block? Phylum: Arthropoda Class: Insecta Order: Hymenoptera Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.152.14.74 ( talk) 18:55, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
"...the family has several characteristics unique among reptiles." These characteristics are not spelled out clearly. Kortoso ( talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says, "The tuatara is considered the most unspecialised living amniote; the brain and mode of locomotion resemble those of amphibians and the heart is more primitive than that of any other reptile.[20]" what is it about the tuatara's "locomotion" that resembles an amphibian's? This quote mentions the difference, but I can't find a description of it. Did I miss it? Leadwind ( talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
"Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara."
Is this definitely right?
The Malagasy three-eyed lizard, Chalarodon madagascariensis, has a developed parietal eye that isn't covered by scales (see
)
Chalarodon ( talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Dinobass ( talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the clarification of "developed" vs "pronounced"... but I think that the objection stills stands. The eye in C. madagascariensis has a lens and a retina, according to Brandt and to a number of flickr users (who are probably referencing the guide). Not sure where Brandt gets their cite from, but I think it may be premature to suggest that either eye is more developed than the other in the absence of a comparative study. There's relatively little literature on C. madagascariensis at present.
Chalarodon ( talk) 09:27, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
The species section needs a complete rewrite as it starts with the assertion that there are two extant species, despite earlier mentions in the article that recent work has merged the two previously named "species". The section then concludes by informing the reader of the merger, thus contradicting the rest of the section while agreeing with the previous sections of the article. I imagine that this would be rather confusing for the average reader. I have not looked over the entire article, so there may be other instances of this confusion in other sections as well. -- Khajidha ( talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
“The tuatara Sphenodon punctatus has been protected by law since 1895.[11][12] A second species, S. guntheri, was recognised in 1989[6] but since 2009 its use has been discontinued.[13][14]”
The use of what? The species name? The law? The law in relation to the second species? This should be clarified. -- X883 ( talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tuatara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
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) 19:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I have a question: There's stated that there are two living forms of Tuatara (formerly considered subspecies) confined to islands, however even the IUCN states that tuataras used to live on mainland New Zealand before it's extirpation. But considering the geographical forms as subspecies, does this means there was a mainland form/subspecies endemic to North and South islands that went extinct by introduced predators (the discovery of a third extinct form could be an important item in this subject) or one of the extant forms is the relict population of the mainland subspecies? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.230.97 ( talk) 02:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi! I've written a page for the tuatara tick, Amblyomma sphenodonti. I'm wondering if a section could be useful here on its tick. There are other diseases too... Markanderson72 ( talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
the reader should not have to go to the link to find out which of several West Coasts in the world is intended! -- 142.163.194.149 ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
If there are things that make their genome unique from other animals, then by all means, list them. However, it seems like a lot of the information included is overly technical and unnecessary for a basic encyclopedia article. -- An anonymous username, not my real name ( talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia:, is Sphenodon diversum considered a synonym (or has it been assigned to another genus)? The article currently mentions it as if it is a distinct species. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There was a recent edit and subsequent removal of a list item in the popular culture section of this article. See here. The comment given by User:Elmidae was "irrelevant". What's the thought there? It seems appropriate for that spot in the article and was cited but I'm hesitant to revert it back in case there was some other reason. Maybe I'm biased on what falls under popular culture. For reference, I'm looking at the page Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and that list item seems somewhere between a good example and a poor example. Thoughts? - Procyonidae ( talk) 20:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
The ref in the article: [1] has multiple identifiers in it, but there is a disagreement between them on the publication date. Currently, the article is using the date that Springer via DOI provided, which is July 3, 2009. But the other two links from Griffith via HDL and Semantic Scholar have the date listed as June 1, 2010 or just 2010. Which of these sources is the most reliable here and thus should have the date it provides be in the reference? BhamBoi ( talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
References
While looking for something else I came across this statement in the Evening Post editorial of 10 May 1870 [12] - one or two specimans (Tuatara) were caught many years ago at Mākara NealeWellington ( talk) 06:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned, if only briefly, that tuataras were formerly hunted and eaten by Maori people (who also hunted and ate moas)? 98.123.38.211 ( talk) 01:45, 17 July 2024 (UTC)