Talk:Tuatara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article 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. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
To-do list for Tuatara: edit · history · watch · refresh
  • give a more complete classification - there is a gap between phylum and class
  • add details about brain and heart (referred to in the text but no detail given yet)
  • provide solid references for the anatomy section
  • When was S. guntheri accepted as a separate species?
    • rediscovery of old type specimen
  • format journal refs with DOI and PMID (PMID not needed if DOI provides an abstract)
    • but prefer whatever offers a free download
  • determine whether Brothers Island tuatara has an apostrophe, and use this spelling throughout
  • table of features believed to be ancestral to which taxonomic group (see talk page)
  • preferred food: giant weta
  • superficial similarity to agamids and iguanids
  • where are the eggs laid and incubated?
  • spellcheck when all is done
Graphics
Audio
  • what noises do they make? -> provide an audio sample
Sections to expand
  • Conservation
    • Zoos (good detail about space requirements here)
    • Captive breeding
    • mention Recovery plan versions 1 and 2, administrative aspects
    • Releases
      • Mainland releases: fencing
Determine the outcome of the following conservation plans
  • The 2001-2011 Recovery Plan, published in 2001, states that eradication of rats from [Little Barrier Island] is pending.
  • Another rodent eradication was carried out on the Rangitoto Islands east of D’Urville Island, to prepare for the release of 432 Cook Strait tuatara juveniles in 2004, which were being raised at Victoria University as of 2001.
Flag Tuatara is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

/Archive 1

Contents

[edit] IMPORTANT: Coins

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)

Cool, didn't realise. --Midnighttonight 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
I apologise. I was reading the version on the German wikipedia and saw they had the coin in there and thought it might be nice. I forgot about the peer review. Spare my life please? pschemp | talk 13:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
If the coin has be demonitised, is it still legal currency? If not, that may be a different issue we are dealing with. pschemp | talk 13:59, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
The same issue still seems to be there. Neither Section 30 of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand Act 1989 nor their guidelines on it distinguish between coins currently in circulation and those that have been demonitised. The rules also apply with equal force to foreign currency. Whether any of this affects Wikipedians living outside NZ is another issue. -- Avenue 15:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
After having reviewed the relevant document, my thinking on the license issues with the coin image is now that the coin can no longer be considered "currency" because it has been demonetised. The document put out by the Reserve Bank of New Zealand (RBNZ) on this matter (linked above) explicitly defines the application of the document:
A bank note or coin may be described as any physical document (or stamped piece of metal), that is, or is intended to be, used or circulated as a universal means of exchange between genuine purchasers and which is denominated into units of account (such as dollars).
However, the demonetised coin cannot be considered a current means of exchange between genuine purchasers, nor is it intended to be (or else it would not have been demonetised). Therefore I reason that the cited document no longer applies. However, I am not sure that fair use rights can be stretched to this article, and the copyright has not been explicitly released for any purpose by the RBNZ, which is what we would really need to happen. So it would seem that we still cannot use the image in this article - unless anybody else has further information? Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, my post above was made before I noticed yours. The wording of the statute is, in part, that no one can "reproduce ... any article or thing resembling a bank note or coin or so nearly resembling or having such a likeness to a bank note or coin as to be likely to be confused with or mistaken for it." That doesn't seem to distinguish between old and current coinage. I agree the guidelines suggest that the rule is not intended to include demonitised coins, but that would probably leave us worse off, since the permission given there would no longer apply. And our current "fair use" policy doesn't allow its use either. So I agree with your conclusion that we can't use the coin image here. -- Avenue 16:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The only addition I would make is that the document I cited (there seem to be several versions floating around...?) makes a distinction between images etc. and physical (presumably three-dimensional) reproductions. I would say that Wikipedia's use falls into the "image" category rather than the "article or thing resembling" category. But anyway, this is unqualified lawyering on my part. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:34, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, seems leaving it out is best. I wonder what de.wiki is using as a reason. I was under the impression that they are even stricter about images than we are. Should we let them know? pschemp | talk 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Do they produce sound?

Does the tuatara have a voice or any sound producing organs?

They do make sounds, but have no eardrums. See the Berlin Zoo reference. pschemp | talk 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Confusing text

From Classification:

Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha. Its origin probably lies close to the split between the Lepidosauromorpha and the Archosauromorpha, making it the closest living thing we can find to a "proto-reptile".
  1. Saying it is the 'only survivor' is nonsensical considering the Lepidosauria also includes snakes and lizards (numerous species).
  2. No extant reptile is any more like a "proto-reptile" than any other, they have all evolved their own distinctions in different ways, the Tuatara just as much as any (as in e.g. its temperature tolerance cited in the article). - MPF 10:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table needed

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)

[edit] Removed sentences

The tuatara's limbs are well-muscled, have sharp claws and partially webbed feet, and it can swim well. The tuatara usually doesn't chase its prey; instead it just sits and waits until a suitable prey passes by.
The tuatara has no external copulatory organs, and is like caecilians and most birds in transferring the sperm by partially extruding the rear part of its cloaca. It is still not clear if the tuatara evolved from reptiles which never had a penis from the start or if the ancestor of the Lepidosauria lost it at some point during evolution.

Samsara contrib talk 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments and suggestions

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:

  1. I don't think the intro is adequate. I think it would be important to describe them as lizard-like, and mention that there are only two species. Maybe that they're a "living fossil?" I'd make these specific comments myself, but think that the intro needs work beyond this.
  2. I'm not sure that the Taxonomy section should go first. For a general reader, the general description might be more interesting than the taxonomy to start off with. While I like the Taxonomy section, I'm concerned jumping right into the differences between Lepidosauromorpha and Archosauromorpha might scare away those without a background in zoology. I suggest starting with the general description then going into natural history (reproduction and ecology).
  3. I have serious questions about the factual accuracy of the "third eye" buisiness. Parietal eyes are in no way "famous." I'm not sure that the parietal eye is actually a vestigial real eye; this needs a reference. The parietal eye is NOT similar to a real eye, as it is difficult to even notice (and then only noticable in hatchlings???). This whole section needs a thorough fact check, and maybe an image, if available. I would NOT suggest the parietal eye article as a source, as the information content here seems even less reliable.
  4. I think there could be some more information on general natural history. Tuataras live in close assocaition with seabirds, inhabiting seabird burrows (and often eating their eggs and chicks). There's little info on diet (and what there is is in the "skull" section.) And tuataras can live 50+ years. That's pretty cool and worth mentioning.
  5. I would suggest "Natural history" instead of "Ecology and behavior", and I think Reproduction could be a sub-section of this section.

Hope that my comments are helpful and constructive. It's looking good so far, good luck!Pstevendactylus 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific jargon

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)

I think that the level of detail presented goes a bit beyond what is needed for an encyclopedia article.--Peta 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I think the info which seperates them from the rest of the reptiles is relevant, it just needs to be better expressed. Probably by removing some of it. --liquidGhoul 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
There was an idea at one stage of having a table or even phylogram showing which features are shared with which groups, and which are unique. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Areas

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.

Squamates and tuataras both show caudal autotomy (loss of the tail-tip when threatened) and have a transverse cloacal slit.

Is the highlighted section neccesary, and if so how can it be simplified?

The typical lizard shape is very common for the early amniotes; the oldest known fossil of a reptile resembles a modern lizard.

I removed the duplicate sentence of this in the next paragraph, but it contained a name. Is the earliest fossil reptile a Homeosaurus?

I have resolved this, it is the Hylonomus. --13:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
In tuataras, both eyes can accommodate independently ,

What the hell does that mean?

It is a part of the epithalamus, which can be divided into two major parts; the epiphysis (the pineal organ, or pineal gland if mostly endocrine) and the parietal organ, often called the parietal eye, or third eye, if photoreceptive. It arises as an anterior evagination of the pineal organ or as a separate outgrowth of the roof of the diencephalon. In the tuatara the parietal eye is similar to an actual eye, even if it is rudimentary. The organ is the remnant of a real eye inherited from some very ancient and remote ancestor.

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.

The stapes comes into contact with the quadrate (which is immovable) as well as the hyoid and squamosal. The hair cells are unspecialized, innervated by both afferent and efferent nerve fibres

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.

The tuatara spine is made up of hour-glass shaped amphicoelous vertebrae, concabe both before and behind.

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?

The real ribs are remarkable too, as small projections, pointing and hooked little bones, are found posterior of each rib (uncinate processes, also seen in birds). The only remaining tetrapod with both well developed gastralia and uncinate processes is the tuatara. Crocodilia have only small and rudimentary cartilaginous remnants of the uncinate processes.

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.

They can maintain normal activities at temperatures as low as 7° C, but prefer temperatures of 16–21° C, the lowest optimal body temperature of any reptile; temperatures over 28° C are generally fatal.

This sentence is too long and segmented, but I cannot find a way to fix it.

This just required a clear head. --liquidGhoul 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

It seems to me that most of these passages are necessary to show the notability of the genus/order/etc. but could be phrased more descriptively. In some cases, only a graphical illustration will help (e.g. stape/hyoid/squamosal/quadrate). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
So an illustration showing the differences between say a lizard and tuatara? --liquidGhoul 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I've striked out the things you have dealt with. Thanks Samsara. --liquidGhoul 10:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and with arrows indicating the names of bones. It will probably take some digging in libraries to find a source for such a drawing of the tuatara skull. Alternatively, one could try a natural history museum - they may have one on display. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Do you live near the British Museum or Natural History Museum? My local museums are crap, yours are the best in the world :(. --liquidGhoul 11:00, 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.  :)

[edit] Classified as endangered since... 1895?

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)

Seems unlikely since Lutz says that S. punctatus was removed from the list in 1996, i.e. downgraded to low risk/least concern. S. guntheri is vulnerable. However, the IUCN was founded in 1948. S. guntheri was apparently first listed as endangered by one Groombridge in 1994 [1], but S. punctatus was considered "rare" by the same author in 1982.[2] So either Groombridge chose not to assess S. guntheri in 1982, or did not recognise it as a separate species. While it's clear that S. guntheri was first described as a separate species by Buller in 1877, I'm not sure whether this is equivalent with it being officially recognised. I am not familiar with the processes involved, if any. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy

This is a really troublesome passage:

[Albert Günther] proposed the order Rhynchocephalia (meaning "beak head") for the tuatara and its fossil relatives.
During the years since the inception of the Rhynchocephalia, many disparately related species have been added to this order. This has resulted in turning the rhynchocephalia into what taxonomists call a "wastebin taxon". Sphenodontia was proposed by Williston in 1925. Now, most authors prefer to use the more inclusive order name of Sphenodontia for the tuatara and its closest living relatives.

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)

My understanding is that most modern taxonomists either use one or the other to refer to the order. However, a few (outdated?) sources found via quick Google search seem to use Rhynchcephalia as an order and Sphenodontida as a suborder. For example this site [3], which cites (Olmo and Odierna, 1982) as its source. Either way, the text should in fact read more exclusive rather than inclusive.Dinoguy2 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but now it's too inclusive. See Sphenodontia which it contradicts. Dysmorodrepanis 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

{{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: The new encyclopedia of reptiles and amphibians. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 210-211. ISBN 0-19-852507-9. 

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)

[edit] Style

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)

[edit] Main contributors so far

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:Rhynchosaur, who may also be responsible for various anonymous edits that occurred at the same time: [4] [5]
  • User:Robinh,

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)

[edit] Problems with accuracy?

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)

Yes, the taxonomy is actually a bit of a sticky point. One of the subspecies does not have a name, for example. That's not because we don't know the name, it actually doesn't seem to have one (at least as per the 1990 paper by Daugherty et al.) I also somewhat regret that we actually have an article for *one* of the species (and the rarer one at that!) - here is an example photograph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scruffy/433185414/ I think for the moment, the best thing is to keep most of the information in this article, maybe even merge back the stubby, pictureless Brothers Island tuatara. As for the inconsistencies in the text, I'll look into it. Thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How far did NZ move?

This much!

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)

What we're trying to explain is a difference to their ancestors. You may find it difficult to be the ancestor of someone living on a different tectonic plate. Just a thought. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, if a source can't be found, how about "Tuatara show cold weather adaptations that allow them to thrive on the islands of New Zealand; these adaptations may be unique to tuatara as extinct sphenodontians lived in the much warmer climates of the Mesozoic."?
Alternatively there is "Tuatara show cold weather adaptations that allow them to thrive on the islands of New Zealand; extinct sphenodontians lived in the much warmer climates of the Mesozoic." pschemp | talk 14:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a small alteration: "Tuatara show cold weather adaptations that allow them to thrive on the islands of New Zealand; these adaptations may be unique to tuatara since their sphenodontian ancestors lived in the much warmer climates of the Mesozoic." Sound good? Put it in! :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Works for me. Done. pschemp | talk 14:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Map seems outdated

"Current" distribution of tuatara (in black). Dots may represent up to five islands.
"Current" distribution of tuatara (in black). Dots may represent up to five islands.

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)

Matiu/Somes Island is shown on p. 10. Where is Karori, though? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Good point. Karori is a suburb of Wellington, so we wouldn't need to show Matiu/Somes as a separate dot. -- Avenue 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Now that I look more closely, the coastline around Wellington looks odd too. I know it's prone to earthquakes, but ... -- Avenue 02:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I had to remove the cities and city names to fit in the islands. If you have a clean map, please upload it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
Done. Separa 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recent paper on Maori knowledge

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

Nice find. I may have access to it. I'll check later. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for paper

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)

I had no trouble downloading it from here. -- Avenue 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference used in Brothers Island article

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):

Yep, the second sentence is definitely supported by the same reference ( pages 22, 23, 24). Hope that helps. And yeah sorry for the delay and I know I've been on a bit but trust me there are (personal) reasons.. it wasn't just laziness. Cheers Kotare 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
It was good of you to reply. I added it to the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomic history?

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)

You'll have to look into that yourself if you want more detail included. I don't think that a taxonomic history is really required for the article to be comprehensive, and to be honest, I won't be working on that. I feel I've put enough effort into pulling the rest of the article together. You have to stop somewhere, you know? Having said that, if you want to include more information about that, great! Two pointers I can think of: 1) Could the old genus name Hatteria be anything to do with it? 2) You could check the edit history for who originally contributed that information, and determine if they knew what they were doing when they placed the parentheses. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skull drawing

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)

Gosh, it's great! I don't know if it's possible to show the interesting alignment of teeth in a drawing like this, I looked at the source pictures and they didn't show it either. We've got a picture of a tuatara with flesh showing the overbite, so I would think that is sufficient. Great work and *much* thanks to Arthur. That makes me love wikipedians. pschemp | talk 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
I'd thought of the possibility of getting an illustration of the dentition, but I don't have a good model for that. Have you seen anything that could be used? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image material

there
there

If a period piece is ever needed:

Spamsara 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

This section is exactly same as from the reference:

"Tuatara" was the Journal of the Biological Society of Victoria University College and later Victoria University of Wellington. It was published between 1947 and 1993; the 82 issues report on important New Zealand biological research, and feature articles and illustrations on a variety of topics from botany and zoology to marine ecology and biodiversity. A full digital archive is available here courtesy of the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.48.158 (talk • contribs)

[edit] More precise map uploaded

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)

[edit] External link dump

Removed the following:

Separa 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Webber

Might be interesting:

A coastwatcher of a different sort was Ross Webber, who lived alone from 1957 to 2005 on his 38-hectare Puangiangi Island, one of the three Rangitoto Islands off north-east D’Urville. Rarely without his pair of finger-worn binoculars, his reporting resulted in the thwarting of several attempts to steal tuatara off Stephens Island.

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:

During World War I, a reluctant conscript hid out at what is now called Deserter Bay, a most secluded spot off East Arm. After World War II, it was revealed the Japanese had drawn up plans to use Port Hardy as its southern naval base. A quiet place maybe, but never short on intrique.
New Zealand military experts early identified Cook Strait as being the likely invasion gateway. Starting in 1942, a radar station was built in great secrecy upon Stephens Island. Barracks were constructed, on the long floor of which tuatara were raced. Locals could not help but notice the daily semaphore lights twinkling towards Patuki. Coastwatchers set up in isolated bays. Local members of the Women’s Division of Federated Farmers made sure they stayed well fed.

82.71.48.158 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly useful

  • Wright, Kevin DVM. 1994. "Tuataras." Vol.2, No.1. Reptiles magazine. Fancy Publications. Irvine, California.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Location

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

If you mean you found it in the wild, you're almost certainly mistaken. They haven't been introduced to any other country, and Nigeria is especially unlikely since tuatara are adapted to a mild climate (temperatures over 28°C are generally fatal to them). -- Avenue (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
To discuss the superficial similarity to various lizards is still on the todo list. 87.165.243.64 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Don't move the page.

Please don't move the pageDemonteenager> TheLightElf (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Other Picture?

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)

[edit] To be used for labelling and maybe as additional information

[edit] Record Speed In Evolution

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)

[edit] Reptiles

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)

I disagree. Maybe list both and at the very least clean up and fix amniote so the confused unwashed masses can get a clear understanding of it and not be treated to an article that looks like crap from the lede on this one. Then purge the tuatara pics from the taxo box on the reptile page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, why don't we clean the other one up first then? As I said in my comment below, if not including the term "reptile" and explaining why it's rubbish is going to lead to perpetual edit wars, we may have to discuss it, even though doing so is outside the scope of the article, meanwhile cursing the people who promised us stable versions and never delivered. PS: I saw your comments here and at PR after I reverted, so excuse the edit summaries. I see now that you do understand what the problem is. 87.165.243.64 (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
re Gadfium: You're committing a logical flaw when you say that because the other articles use "reptile", this article must do so. 87.165.243.64 (talk) 15:33, 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)

Because "amniote" is biologically meaningful. "Reptile" is a polyphyletic taxon, which is a technical term for "ill-defined". It means it refers to a branch on the tree of life with some bits conveniently left off. Reptile is a term that stems from a time when it was not appreciated that birds (Latin "Aves") belong in the same group as squamates, crocodilians, etc. To continue to use it is to promote ignorance, and defeats the very purpose of an encyclopaedia, which is intended to be a source of learning, and to increase understanding. It is my point of view that this explanation does not belong in the scope of this article, but it seems we have no choice to include it in every single article about an animal formerly referred to as a "reptile", to ensure that this circumstance becomes sufficiently widely known to avoid edit wars in future. If people are unhappy with the term amniote, calling it a diapsid is a good alternative. Diapsida is another monophyletic taxon that contains a smaller (sub-)branch of the tree. 87.165.243.64 (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, good luck with your article. I need to go feed my reptiles. You might want to straighten out the Berlin Zoo[7], those dumbasses call them lizards.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've removed mention of both amniote and reptile to mention tuataras as sphenodontians. bibliomaniac15 19:25, 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)

"Diapsid" is no more helpful to me than "amniote". I would like to think that I am I representative of the "general reader" when reading this zoological article. The anonymous users above bemoan the lack of education among us general readers. I would have found the term "reptile" helpful. Axl (talk) 15:01, 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)

It seems to me that this argument could easily have been avoided if everyone here had agreed to follow a single taxonomy for reptile/amniota articles. Two years ago we had a discussion about this on the WP:AAR talk page, the result of which was the decision to use the AMNH taxonomy for amphibians and ITIS for snakes. I don't know about the amphibians, but the advantage for the snake articles has been that all such taxonomic arguments have been short. For instance, if anyone were ever to start up a debate about whether snakes were reptiles or amniotes, all we'd have to do is look to ITIS and see that it considers them to be part of the class Reptilia. Why not do the same thing here? --Jwinius (talk) 23:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Skull diagram - use complete version please

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)

If you need to go back to the original, it's here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by using a template. Templates and images are two different things. Another image could be uploaded. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
You use the labels on the flawed version to make labels for the good version. 87.165.224.137 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bibliomaniac

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)

I've restored the map to the conservation section, as it adds significantly to the encyclopaedic value of the section. I've not modified the map at the top, but I'll put it to the masses that a lot of people may find it helpful to know where New Zealand is. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Unwashed mass that I am, I prefer to know where they are on a world map. Maybe one that is focused on Australia and the pacific would work so people would have a good point of reference, yet the dot wouldn't be "so small"(to address that complaint). breathe | inhale 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry about the coin image. I did not check the copyright status. bibliomaniac15 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I think it would be best if I stayed away from the article. I don't feel like I'm doing my best with this, since this is an unfamiliar article to me. I'll still watch it and copyedit when needed, but I'll withdraw from working around for now. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Good work on the ref formatting btw. That's really helpful. breathe | inhale 06:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)