# Talk:Gila monster

How much does a Gila monster wiegh, there ae refrences tat they can cosume up to 50% their body wieght, but no mention as to what that wieght is. (keg233)
Does the Gila monster have some ability to change the colours of its scales to avoid detection, something like (but less than) a chameleon? --Robert Merkel 12:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)
What *does* it eat? In the movie it eats people but something tells me that's not true in real life. (yes I am helpful) Hostile Hams 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think they change color, but I've heard the scales have bones inside them, rather like a shark's denticles or an ankylosaur's armor.. if that's true, what are they called? osseoderms?

Here. Andy Mabbett 10:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Can Gila monsters be found in Austraila (please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, PLEASE SAY YES!!!!!!!!) --Wack'd About Wiki 17:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Only in captive collections. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
And you need a zoo licenseNrg800 (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Australia doesn't allow imports with out permits, generally to universities, zoos, etc. There are no Gila monsters in the wild in Australia. The distribution is noted in the article. Mark (talk) 09:00, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
NO 12.42.0.194 (talk) 16:51, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

As of this version of this article, there was a reference stating ""Gila Monster," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. ⓒ 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.", and with the following version ([1]) the comment "Edited by Jihoon Baek" was added. I removed both and rephrased (see my diff: [2]) the sentence which was apparently added together with said reference to Encarta to avoid possible copyright issues (which, arguably, would not have been too big a problem with just one sentence).
--Florian Prischl 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

How about you go there and find out!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.121.79.79 (talk) 19:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This page says;
The Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) is one of the two known species of venomous lizards. (The other is the Mexican beaded lizard.)
Komodo dragon says
Komodo dragon is venomous, with up to 200 milligrams of venom ready for delivery at any given time; it is a member of a venom clade with many other lizards as well as snakes.
So, which article is right?

As far as I'm aware, the Komodo Dragon doesn't have venom, rather it kills its prey using a bacterial infection.--Victim Of Fate 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
In recent research Dr. Brian Fry isolated certain proteins in komodo saliva which are also found in many venomous snake species, but that is not its primary method of action. Other lizards have been found to have the same proteins in their saliva, including the commonly kept as a pet, bearded dragon, but they're not considered to be venomous. Though, in the broadest sense of the term 'venom', the komodo's saliva and its virulency could be could be considered so, there is nothing in the definition of the word that specifies what it must consist of, just that it is a toxin. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's other species of venemous lizards? I knew Komodo Dragon was.... --e. 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
--There are only 2 venomous lizards in the world. You are right, the Mexican beaded lizard and the gila monster are the only 2. The dragon has nothing to do with venom, but it does have a relative bite. Not even crocodiles or alligators have venom. 200 milligrams of venom is even more false. So therefore, the Komodo dragon is definitly wrong and the false information should be removed immediatly.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC) 

Strictly speaking, no. Certain proteins found in various types of venom have been isolated in the saliva of many lizard species (and snake species otherwise considered completely non-venomous). Individual proteins do not necessarily make a lizard venomous, those proteins by themselves may not even perform any significant function. It just means that saliva production, and the evolution of venom is much more complicated than was once thought and a LOT more research is needed to find out exactly what all the components do, exactly, and how they work together to produce their effect. -Dawson 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Auffenberg explains the Varanid aspects of the perception of venom here:
Lanthanotus borneensis - not venomous Mark (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

No, the Komodo Dragon is venomous. See http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-06/animal-fun-facts-does-komodo-dragon-really-kill-bacteria-filled-bite HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

They defecate. Their venom is modified saliva produced in a gland in their lower jaw. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I know this has long been answered, it just makes me laugh the stuffings out of myself. Crimsonraptor (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Your daughter got it wrong. gila monsters do have an anus, which they use to eat. They then defecate by their mouths.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.189.82 (talk) 07:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I have looked every place and can't find anything stating what the natural enemies of the Gila monster are, anybody have the answer?

Your question should be referred to the Wiki Help Desk, as it does not pertain to improving the article. However, they only have one 'natural' enemy - man.  They are brightly colored to warn other animals that they are venomous - and coyotes give them a wide berth, and rattlesnakes are not known to prey on them. HammerFilmFan (talk) 10:25, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Editor User:Arpingstone reduced this image size to the default thumbnail (180px). Unfortunately, this image is a bit dark and low-contrast,and at the default size is almost unusable. The original photo is quite nice -- see Image:GilaMonster.jpg , and it shows up well at the same size as the first image on the page.  Thus I feel this photo "calls for a specific image width to enhance the readability", as specified in WP:MOS#Images. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the thumbnail was a small pic that could be clicked so that the reader could enjoy a larger pic? So why shouldn't the pic in the article be at default size and interested readers can readily click on it to get a larger one? I have 300 px set up in my Prefs so that pic looked fine to me. If a size had been "hard-wired" into the code, say 300px, then it might be too large for lores screens. As you know, it's WP policy to usually remove px values and this doesn't seem a special case. Having said all that, I'm not bothered if a special px value is put in, but make a comment in the code that there's a reason or editors will keep removing the px value! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment -- advice taken. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I've found a much better picture on Commons so the above discussion is now (hopefully) redundant - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

review above

What happened to the Zoos with Gila Monster section?  Nrg800 (talk) 11:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I guess there's no peer review started so I'll just put my comments here. You can paste them into any review you do start.

It was mistakenly believed that the Gila monster did not have an anus, when in fact the cloaca is concealed by scales. It was once believed that its waste contaminated its mouth and teeth, producing venom and "fetid breath"
This paragraph is short and just begging for elaboration.
I've moved it down to the "relation with humans" section.
The Gila monster feeds primarily on bird and reptile eggs, and occasionally upon small birds and mammals.[15] Frogs, lizards, insects, and carrion are also consumed.
These sentences could probably be combined, I just didn't want to introduce any errors. Try: The Gila monster feeds primarily on bird and reptile eggs, and occasionally upon small birds, mammals, frogs, lizards, insects, and carrion.
Combined.
The Gila monster eats infrequently, but when it does feed, it may eat up to one-third of its body mass.
Be specific here, how infrequently?
Added.
Its sense of smell is so accurate that . . .
Would "keen" be a better word here or no?
Changed.
I am pretty sure the Wikinews template should be in the external links or further reading section.
It would be better off in the section pertaining to drug research, in my opinion.
A few authoritative external links in their own section at the end would be a good addition.
I don't see a great need to do so. If the web site is authoritative, then I will use it as a reference.
Any "see alsos" that might work for this article?
I will look for some.
Go through and look at your wikilinks. Make sure there aren't links to common terms that don't really add to or help provide any context for the article. Terms like sausage, bead, and tongue probably needn't be linked.
Done.
I did a few minor edits too, I haven't really gone through all the sections with a fine toothed comb yet but the above and what I tweaked were just some of the things I noticed as I read through. Hope this helps. I'll probably stop back by at some point too.--IvoShandor (talk) 13:18, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, the peer review page is at Wikipedia:Peer review/Gila Monster/archive1. The page was moved while the peer review was going on, and it still links to the old page. bibliomaniac15 16:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

And if so, what do they taste like? Similar to gator I'd imagine...

You have just volunteered to do some research.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.146.193.37 (talk) 09:18, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I was hoping that this article would explain its strange name. It's small, it's not very dangerous, it doesn't look especially weird, and there are no major legends or myths about it, so why is it called a "monster"? Why not just "Gila lizard"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.241.179 (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC) 
Probably because it's venomous. Eligius (talk) 01:38, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

My Uncle says the Gila Monster does not urinate or deficicate and that is why the poison is so toxic.  Is that true?

No, only an idiot would believe such nonsense.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
______________________

No, that is a myth that dates back to the 1600's
Mark (talk) 08:49, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

they are black and orange  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.227.11.17 (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC) 
The coloration is mentioned only in the context of aversive adaptation. Photographs  show a variety of different combinations. Should not the topic be addressed in a more comprehensive way? For instance, are the various colors endemic to particular regions? `Orthotox (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The lizard used in the Giant Gila Monster movie was a beaded lizard. While a relative of the Gila Monster, it was not one.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.230.106.236 (talk) 18:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC) 

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gila monster. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080808135343/http://www2.philadelphiazoo.org/zoo/Meet-Our-Animals/Reptiles/Lizards-and-Snakes/Gila-Monster.htm to http://www.philadelphiazoo.org/zoo/Meet-Our-Animals/Reptiles/Lizards-and-Snakes/Gila-Monster.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/117402158_Movie_review___Rango_.html
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gila monster. 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:

Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5x1JU28EN?url=http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/117402158_Movie_review___Rango_.html to http://www.northjersey.com/arts_entertainment/117402158_Movie_review___Rango_.html?page=all
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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:10, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Under the Drug research section. 

 "The saliva of the Gila monster contains many chemicals which can be deadly. One of these has been shown to affect memory. Several companies have been researching the abilities of this chemical to help..."

The supporting sentences don't really come in line with that oddly worded first sentence. I'd edit but I'm not sure what the intended idea is.
-rudyard (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I concur with you on this. The tone is vague, not very encyclopedic, and above all, it's not cited at all. I went ahead and removed it for now. bibliomaniac15 22:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

I have put a lot of work into the article to bring it up to current knowledge and up to date references. In doing so, I took great care to preserve as much of the content as possible. Please visit my talk page at MonsterDoc (talk) to see what happened to my edit. The user Viewmont Viking has undone all my work. I contacted him on his talk page, but he did not react and shortly afterwards deleted all comments on his talk page, except for his own.
To get to Viewmont Viking complaint about my book "The Gila Monster - Heloderma suspectum": This book was published by the respected publisher Chimaira in Frankfurt, not Hollywood Import & Export Inc, as Viewmont Viking incorrectly claimed. It is an accepted source of extensive information about Heloderma in the English-speaking world as well. Hollywood Import & Export Inc only appears to be the distributor for the USA, but incorrectly calls itself the publisher on Amazon.
Whenever my book is given for a cite, it is for new, unpublished facts. For me, Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.
I ask you to review my last changes from November 19th (MonsterDoc) and then approve the page. After that, I would like to continue making minor additions and providing pictures of teeth, skin, moult, and a cladogram. --MonsterDoc (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi @MonsterDoc: if this work you are wanting to cite in the article is written by you, then - if you haven't done so already - I would advise that you read the relevant policy at WP:SELFCITE. Furthermore, could you please provide a link or a diff to the edit you want reinstating, as you made multiple edits to this article on 19 November. With regards to your issues with @Viewmont Viking, that is something you should discuss with them - and I invite them to take part in this discussion here. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  14:31, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for your very quick reply, great. Here the link to my last revision by MonsterDoc. I am looking forward to a discussion with W. Vicking - I told him already that I want to follow  Wickipedia rules and do not want to offend anybody. I am aware of the immmense work of former contributers. --MonsterDoc (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Hi @MonsterDoc: thanks for that reply! I had a quick look at the edits you made and which were reverted by Viewmont Viking, and there seems to be a large amount of text which was changed. Therefore, I suggest that the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle is followed, and that you both discuss it here, as personally, I'm not sure why they were reverted, and so I personally don't want to put your edits back before Viewmont Viking can give their opinion. I will leave them a note asking them to contribute to the discussion here. If you need any more help in the meantime, you can , or just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks.  Seagull123  Φ  12:16, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear Seagull123. Thank you very much for your support and comment. It is more than a week by now that Viewmont Viking did not get in contact with us into the discuss cycle about his BOLD revert on Gila monster. I now want to ask you to get my changes reviewed and make, please, your corrections e. g. to my “German English”. Then, please, revert the BOLD officially and put Gila monster online again. After that “Drug research” and “Life cycle” still have to be brought to present knowledge. I plan to add some impressive, informative photos, similar to the German Edition Wikipedia “Gila Krustenechse” (70% MonsterDoc). Please, let me know if this could be a way to proceed. P.S. is there a possibility to protect Gila monster against future “vandalism”. Sincerely, --MonsterDoc (talk) 12:37, 8 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi again @MonsterDoc. To address your reply: if you want this page to be protected, please go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection and read the instructions there. In terms of your requested changes - I am not an expert on this sort of topic, so I personally am hesitant to make any such edits myself; but because @Viewmont Viking hasn't joined the discussion here, and so hasn't elaborated on what they mean by "POV" - I would suggest that you could go ahead and do those edits again yourself - as long as they are well-sourced, of course - per the "Bold, revert, bold again" suggestion at WP:BRB (Don't stop editing, and don't discuss. Make a guess about why the reverter disagreed with you, and try a different edit to see whether that will be accepted. It's often helpful if your next effort is smaller, because that may help you figure out why the other editor objected to your change). If you want other editors to give a look at the edits you make and give their opinion, you might like to ask a relevant WikiProject - such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles - I'll leave a message at their talk page asking them to look at this discussion.  Seagull123  Φ  17:15, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear  Seagull123  and Heloderma friends. The new edition of the Article Gila Monster (last revision by MonsterDoc) now has been pubished again. I ask you for comments. I will wait for a week, after that time I plan to do final work on the sections "Drug resaearch" and "Life cycle". Appropriate references will be included. I'm looking forward to an interesting collaboration. --MonsterDoc (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi again @MonsterDoc, just to let you know I'm setting the {{request edit}} template to "answered".  Seagull123  Φ  15:15, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Dear  Seagull123,  Have a Merry Christmas with all of your family--MonsterDoc (talk) 15:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Did my best, Few comments TOXICITY melking a Gila gives up to 2 ml of vernom - I have been melking myself Gilas   "DIET"  we are talking about COMMON food - they might feed by accident on an insect Frogs, Turtel eggs and Carrion are old missbeliefs that are carried on. If possible Waiting for comments and discussion before changes--MonsterDoc (talk) 20:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Will make final check of references  Pictures will be inserted within a few days--MonsterDoc (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Dear Seagull123 I want to announce my completion of GILA MONSTER. I hope a lot that this newedition will be well accepted or even become a reference for Heloderma suspectum. My EGO wants to know the e. g. percentage of input I made. Are there any internal statistics available you can offer?  NEXT I intend to start to do some work on the page Heloderma, but only for "basics", hopefully inspiring other authors to continue to make it also a reliable source of information for all of the 5 heloderma species.  Thank you again for your cooperation and support.--MonsterDoc (talk) 17:42, 9 January 2021 (UTC) What about a new peer reading of Gila monster and official rating to get it back to its former "position" --MonsterDoc (talk) 17:48, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Cite of a reliable sounding source "Gila Monster Fact Sheet - National Zoo|" from 2006 because of missing any cite and no updates, therefore presenting numerous overcome information, e. g. obsolete taxonomy now, since 2013 five valid species of Heloderma. H. susp.hatching occurs after 5 month not after 10!Hatching is in October not in spring, uncommon questionable prey,logelivity in captivity is about 30 years , survivers in the wild up to 35 years. "Spend 98 % underground" it is about 90 % " make frequent searching for food unnesssary" they are less active to save energy,!!! etc.--MonsterDoc (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

"It is an extravagantly, synthetic blueprint of the protein exendin-4..." WTF does this mean?!?!? I might assume there's a technical biological usage of "extravagantly synthetic", but there's a comma between the two. There should not be, since "synthetic" is an adjective and "extravagantly" is an adverb. Is there a specific meaning for "extravagant blueprint"? I'm going to correct the minor punctuation issue, but someone should spend a little bit of time explaining what is meant by using the term here, or perhaps a link?
At first look of this article it is a great article, it includes a breadth of categories and has a lot of information in each category and even includes a gallery of photos of the lizard at different ages. The strengths of this article lie in the depth of the information in each category including history, diet, and venom. Something interesting I learned about this lizard is that the venom of this lizard is almost equal to that of the western diamondback rattlesnake. Three categories that could be added to this article are social behavior, physiology, and enemies. Social behavior is very important to include, knowing how this lizard interacts in groups and whether there are social hierarchies within the groups. Physiology was referenced in the paper but it only had to do with their skin; I think there should be a more comprehensive physiology section that goes over all of the lizard's senses and how it utilizes them in day to day life. Enemies would be an important category to include since the article did not reference whether this lizard had any predators or not, that is very important to know since then you could talk about anti-predatory behaviors and potential group anti-predatory behaviors.

I'm pretty sure that Gila monsters are not 3000 feet long. Serpentnight (talk) 14:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)