# Talk:Solomon Islands skink

(requested by Mike)


### Taxonomy and etymology
title is a misnomer - it's all etymology.
 Done "Its common names refer to its fully prehensile tail ..." What common names?
Taxo is coming...
I'd like to see a bit more of the higher level classification, and what their closest relatives are. -- Philcha (talk)
Me too, it's a bitch finding that stuff where I can source it reliably.  Scincidae is not as well organized or researched as Iguanidae (my specialty).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


### Distribution and habitat
The map doesn't help to identify the speices' ranges. For this type of task I like Template:Annotated image - Opabinia has 3 in a row! But I think the map would need t obe changed to another bg colour, as blue is not good for readability.
"The nominate subspecies ..." - jargon.
I see no reason for 4 1-sentence paras. If necessary you can move the map up above the heading to compensate.


### Biology
 Done Re the measurements, Template:convert is nice because it does the arithmetic and handles the spacing per WP:MOS. OK, MOS should not be such a big deal for GA, but the temlpate's so hnady I even use it in Talk pages!
 Done "Like snakes, they "smell" by flicking their tongues and use of a Jacobsen's organ" is awkward and you should explain the jargon (e.g. chemical sensor in the roof of the mouth).
 DoneThere are 2 paras about dimensions.
Now just one.
Well one and a bit, but a sub-section explaining differences between the sub-species is good. -- Philcha (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to make "Diet" and "Reproduction" sub-sections of "Biology". Or perhaps "Appearance" and "Behavior", with the latter including reproduction, circulus and diet. BTW if you like such yucky stuff, have a look at Mollusca#A_.22generalized_mollusc.22 (the para opposite the radula image)  :-)


### Diet
*Pothos has a new genus name - botany's like that, if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd mutter darkly about textbook sales ... 

Should mention why Pothos (or whatever) is poisonous and to what (e.g. birds eat a lot of berries that are poisonous to us), and why these skinks are immune.
I'm not a botanist, I'll stick with what I know and come back to this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Googling for "pothos toxic" and then "pothos toxic skink" showed me lots of hits. Of course most are not WP:RS, but the same phrases in Google Scholar should give you what's needed. -- Philcha (talk)
Got one..and added a footnote!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Nice! Now I think the article needs to explain the skinks' immunity - is it specific to these species, to skinks in general, to reptiles in general - or is Pothos really only toxic to humans / mammals, like a lot of berries that birds eat?-- Philcha (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
I'll run this down, because I know that iguanids can eat it as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


### Reproduction
"Solomon Islands skinks reproduce by viviparous matrotrophy" - I have a degree in Classical Greek so I understood "matrotrophy", but it's neither wikilinked nor explained.
Sorry to be a pain, but "matrotrophy" wikilinks to live birth, which does not explain the term. I'd dunk "matrotrophy", as the next part explains the "placenta". -- Philcha (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I added a footnote, let me know if that's adequate.
Ultimately you're in charge, but IMO the footnote is not hugely clearer and "matrotrophy" is unnecessary. -- Philcha (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
"the female provides a placenta not unlike like that of a mammal with a gestation period of six to eight months"
 Done does the gestation period go with "mammal" or "placenta" or "female"? How about "... the young are born after a gestation period of six to eight months", which also explains "gestation period"?
a placenta? A true placenta? See Fox, D (1999), "Why we don't lay eggs", New Scientist
Yes.
I doubt if it's a placenta in the mammalian sense. The mammalian placenta is produced by the embryo, hence cutting the cord after birth; it penetrates the wall of the womb (do skinks have one?) and absorbs oxygen & nutrients (but not blood and hopefully not antibodies!) from ma's bloodstream, and dumps wastes into it. Several non-placental animals, including viviparous sharks, produce food-supplying structures in the birth canal, but these: are part of ma; AFAIK don't supply oxygen (AFAIK!); do't absorb wastes from the young. -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I honestly don't know if they have a womb in the sense that mammals do.  I've never cut one open.  Literally all of the literature concerning this topic refers to it as a placenta, I'll keep digging, someone is translating some other German sources for me...maybe I'll find it there? That or I'll fire an email off to one of the Doctors who wrote the original articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
"The neonate is of a large size"
 Done "neonate"
how large? OK, you give the vital stats at the end, but why not up-front? Can you add a comparsion to the size of the respective mothers? Then your "a human mother giving birth to a six year–old" will be in perspective - BTW that phrase is a great find!
Just moving the sizes didn't finish the job, in fact it's confusing as it now looks like "disparity" refers to the difference between the young of the 2 species. I think a table might be good, with a column for each species and rows for sizes of mother and newborn; caption "Large size of newborns relative to mothers" and repeat the ref at the end of the caption. See for example Small_Shelly_Fauna#Evolution_of_skeletons_and_biomineralization, where the tabl e cleared up something the GA reviwer found confusing but where the sources seqgue between "skeleton" and "biominerlaization".
"Individuals have been documented to stay within the group for several births without being expelled." Eh? Do you mean mama doesn't kick the kids out when she gets preggie again?
Nope
Then I think you should be more explicit. In many species, including many maternally devoted mammals, ma kicks the kids out when she gets pregnant, or even when she starts coming into season. Great ape mothers stay "unavailable" for several years to avoid kicking the kids out before they're ready. Humans are very unusual in their capacity to rear several seasons' worth at a time - I didn't realise skinks were unusual in a similar way. It's a selling point for the article, milk it! -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
"Some individuals will remain in the group in complete harmony for longer periods." How long?
It varies, part of the problem is the majority of the written documentation is on captive animals.  I'm reading more tonight, but I think some of the long-term individuals stay because they're in the same cage/habitat.
 Done I suggest "This protectiveness of young is a rare occurrence in reptiles but is shorter in duration compared to protective behavior exhibited by a typical mammal"Good one
 Done "The Solomon Islands skink was listed as such because of the large numbers of lizards being exported, the small region to which the skink is native, and combined with its low reproductive rate, leave it vulnerable to overcollection" ??? How about "The Solomon Islands skink was listed as such because the large numbers of skinks being exported, the small region to which the skink is native, and its low reproductive rate, leave it vulnerable to overcollection"?
 Done "Consumption for food by natives and excessive export has also affected wild populations" duplicates the export bit. I'd drop that then combine the "jungle tucker" with logging - they have the same ref.
 Done I just noticed there's even more about export. I'd consider placing "jungle tucker" and logging up front, then combining all the export stuff.
Will do.


### In captivity
"The Philadelphia Zoo has bred these skinks over multiple generations" - how about "The Philadelphia Zoo has bred N generations of these skinks" - with value of N?
An excellent suggestion, when I get the exact number and a source I'll put it in!

 Done "These skinks" in 2 successive sentences and then "Corucia" - I'd forgotten the genus name. I sugges you go back through the text and use the genus name about every 3 - 5 sentences. And it shoudl be italicised.
Fixed, that's one of the gremlins trying to help, he means well but doesn't understand wiki.
*" which can be a useful marker for tracking digestive passage in individuals" sounds like and ad for one of these "probiotic" yogurts - "aids digestive transit". What does it really mean? 

I just pulled it.
Hope I haven't been too nit-picky! -- Philcha (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

All good and valid points, thanks...I didn't add that last bit, about the "marker", I'd remove it but old kid keeps putting it back.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Tell your helper that the point needs a ref and more reader-friendly wording. With a bit of guidance such editors can be very useful - Wikiproject Chess has one who, after a few gentle hints, became very productive and recently got a Barnstar for his contributions. -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


### Points that perhaps should be covered
It struck me after I'd switched off my computer that there's nothing about how the skinks got to these islands.
Is there any evidence of island speciation? I read something last year (? New Scientist) about a species on a Mediterreanean island that split into 2 species in a very few centuries. It would be another chance to add a "Wow, that's interesting" sizzle. -- Philcha (talk)
Back in 1992-93 when I was living in Florida, I was part of the "reptile circuit".  I remember standing in a barn on the West Coast of Florida after a Solomons shipment had come in, noticing that the new skinks being brought in had the same size and shape of the skinks I was keeping, but the colors were vastly different.  Some had hades of blue, some dark chocolate brown, etc.  I was younger and very concerned with "subspecies" and which island this one came from, etc.  The importer told me "They're all the same species, so pick what you want." And that was the end of that one.  I wish I would had more time and money back then to have bought as many varieties that I saw for my own studies(I was more of a snake guy, though).  There is much speculation in the literature about speciation etc, same as with Cycluras, but all it does is remind us of how much we still have left to learn.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

its - belonging to it; it's = it is -- Philcha (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
"Formerly regarded as a monotypic genus(Corucia), there are currently two recognized subspecies of the Solomon Islands skink: the Common Monkey-tailed Skink (Corucia zebrata zebrata) and the Northern Monkey-tailed Skink (Corucia zebrata alfredschmidti)" is a painful case of dangling participle. Also I suspect the existence of 2 sub-species does not save Corucia from monotypy. -- Philcha (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Corucia zebrata does not produce urine.  Their wastes are fecal matter, solid urates and excess water.  If the animal eats pothos it may ejest waste in a red color.  However this is trivial and is only sourced in the Satter reference as fecal matter turning red.  The one source stating it is urine, is not a published peer-reviewed scholarly source.  It is a decently written thesis self-published by the user on various animal forums.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

In order to compromise, I have included the material about pothos turning the skink's feces red as a footnote. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Here are my issues with the edit:
Lizards do not produce urine.  Their excrement is :feces, solid urates (usually chalky white), and excess water.
The one trusted source used in the article which mentions the red excrement is Satter (2007) published by the SouthWest Herpetological Society.  In that source the author states that consuming pothos turns the animal's feces red, but nothing about the solid urates or even the excess water turning red.
The editor is attempting to use a spurious "thesis" as a source.  Actually there are two of them: under the last name of Schnirel.   While both are reasonably coherent and well-written, they do contain factual errors in addition to questionable logic.  Neither have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, by a zoological institution, or even a herpetological society and are little more than well-written  posts on internet forums.
Rather than engage in discussion, the editor inserts the controversial changes to promote Schnirel's writings at the sake of the work of real herpetologists.  He even went so far as to delete references to Dr. Kevin Wright (Veterinarian and Curator of Reptiles at the Philadelphia zoo with a personal fistory of working with the species for close to 30 years) and Dr. Gunther Kohler (who described the subspecies for the first time and is responsible for naming 5 other species in the past 10 years).  When asked to discuss, the editor logs out and edits as an IP address.
All that aside, the information in question is trivial at best, it does not advance the reader's knowledge of the species and I don't see it as worthy of anything above being a minor footnote to hobbyist reptile keepers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
This diff is by an anon IP but looks very like an old "friend". Time to ask an admin for a checkuser? -- Philcha (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, how's this...my skink ate pothos on Sunday and not 15 minutes ago evacuated the contents of her cloaca on my shoulder.  The solids were brownish green, the urates were white, but the water was brownish red.  How exactly do i source that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, Mike, that's clearly WP:OR :-)
However at present the article has nothing about red s**t. If the "old friend" or an anon IP re-introduces it without WP:RS, I suggest looking for admin remedies, i.e. blocks. -- Philcha (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Solomon Islands skink/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi! I'll be reviewing this article for GA status, and should have the full review up shortly. Dana boomer (talk) 15:15, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 
The lead should not include information that is not expanded upon in the body - it is supposed to be a summary. This is most obvious with the taxonomy-related information. The Taxonomy section does not have anything detailing the 1997 split of the subspecies, nor does it give any further information to explain "Further study may discover different subspecies or elevate some populations to full species status." If this is just a generic fact that is true of any genus, then it doesn't really need to be in the article; if there is ongoing research and speculation on the naming of new subspecies/species, then this should be detailed (and sourced) in the article.
fixed
Not completely. The taxonomy information on the 1997 split, etc., still doesn't appear in the body. This needs to be described and expanded on in the Taxonomy section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Think I got it now.
Distribution and habitat, "epiphytic" Link/explanation?
fixed
Biology, "Males appear to have a". Why "appear to have"?
fixed
Biology, "Like snakes, they "smell" by flicking their tongues to gather scents and when the tongue is retracted it touches it to the opening of a Jacobson's organ at the roof of its mouth." This sentence switches from plural to singular.
fixed
In the Biology section it says "adults can reach 72 centimetres (28 in) in length when fully grown.", but in the Subspecies section it says they average 11-13 inches, depending on subspecies. Then in the Reproduction section we are told that they are 11-15 inches in length at birth. These are big differences, and make it sound like one subspecies actually shrinks between birth and adulthood.
fixed, some lengths were nose to tail tip others were nose to tail base, and someone helping out made them metric...i should have caught that earlier.
In the Distribution section, abbreviated Latin names of the subspecies are given, but in the subspecies section the full Latin names are given again. The full names should be given the first time, and then abbreviated names used thereafter.
fixed
Better, but now the only place with the full names is in the lead. Please see the first comment in this section regarding the needed expansion of the taxonomy section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
fixed
Reproduction, "Rare among reptiles, the Solomon Islands skink reproduces by viviparous matrotrophy:". This could be read two ways: the SI skink is rare among reptiles, or that viviparous matrotrophy is rare among reptiles. I think you mean the latter, but clarification would be nice.
fixed
Threats, "Consumption for food by natives has affected wild populations" Has this relationship between the skink and the native population existed for a long time - i.e., before skink population records began to be kept? Has consumption increased? Are they consumed as a general foodstuff or for ceremonial purposes/in times of famine? If there has always been a similar level of consumption by the natives, why are we thinking that it is a threat to the survival of the species now?
Clarified.  There's a three-fold problem: rapid deforestation of certain islands (at a symposium by DR Richard Funk, he said the trees were cut down to supply disposable chopsticks to Japan), demand for the pet trade, and bushmeat.  They are no longer legally able to be imported into the US, I think they still flow freely through other countries, though.  I cannot say if this has helped, as less animals are being bred Ex situ.  There are no local breeding or conservation programs.  As for the natives eating them, this varies from island to island.  On some its a dietary staple, on others they won't go near them.  There's really not enough in the published literature to go into a greater level of detail than its all part of the problem with the skinks, the Solomon Island Boas, and their native Mangrove monitors which are the most docile lizards of that genus I've ever worked with.
Better, I suppose. It would still be nice to get some further information on how each of the three has affected the species and if consumption has changed over the years so that it went from apparently a beneficial relationship (they didn't die out previous to this, even though I'm assuming natives have been eating them for hundreds (at least) of years) to a harmful one (now they're dying out). However, this is probably above and beyond what is needed for GAN. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I'll see what I can find, the deforestation seems to be the key thing, the pet trade issue has shrunk with the closing off of export, but that leaves the bushmeat issue as a bigger threat now as there's no large scale captive breeding programs that can make a difference and there's less forest.  As intriguing as these lizards are, they're not as glamorous as Marine iguanas, etc.
Threats, "in 1992 Corucia zebrata was listed as a CITES Appendix II animal," Has this helped at all?
not really, as CITES 2 still allows animals to be shipped with a permit so they are still being sent to Europe/Canada/Australia/etc.  The US has a different import restriction, which means that animals that were once $75 a piece at reptile shows now pull in $1500 - $3000.  They're still common pet trade animals in other countries.
In captivity - This section turns into a bit of a "how-to raise skinks in captivity" manual for the last few sentences. This should be turned into something more encyclopedic. Wording such as "must be provided" and "should not/should be" is the main problem here.
I deleted it
Hmmm, not sure if that was beneficial. I think that something of the sort would be useful, just with different wording. Something like "Zoos sometimes find SI skinks difficult to maintain properly, as they require a large vertically oriented enclosure with a closely controlled climate." would probably be appropriate. At this point we have a very short, one sentence section, which if not re-expanded should probably be combined with the previous section. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
I put some of it back, in all honesty they are not a difficult animal to care for and what was there was probably a vestige from when this whole article read more like a care sheet for pet owners.  They're not so specialized that they exclusively eat one plant or live only in one tree, etc and the heat/humidity/caging requirements are easily met by even entry level keepers.
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
If a source is the same for multiple sentences in a paragraph, such as the second paragraph of the Subspecies section, it is not necessary to repeat the reference for every sentence. I feel that doing so clutters the article and makes it harder to read; it is, however, an individual editor decision.
fixed
References are not needed in the lead, except for quotes and extremely controversial statements. However, having them is again an individual decision.
fixed, we had a troll-type that was inserting "Common names" such as "tiger skink" and other nonsense a few years back in the lead, i moved that source and the other back down where they belong.
Is the article in ref 6 in German? If so, it should be noted.
Fixed
Ref #7 (Reeder) is a dead link. This can either be fixed or just removed, as it's a courtesy link to a paper publication.
Fixed
Taxonomy, "However, the subspecific status of Köhler's specimens has not been universally accepted, as they may simply be a variant insular population." Source?
deleted
If this is true, it is something that is important to include in the article; it just needs a source, because it is scientific opinion. Have studies been done? What scientists disagree with Kohler's interpretation? Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
There was talk of a paper coming out by an Australian team maybe 4 years ago and it was supposed to address this(and other things), not so much to say it was not a valid subspecies, but in fact its own species.  To date, I have not seen it published, so for now its probably best to leave it out.  Although, along a similar line...numerous captive breeders have had difficulties with viable offspring (self included) between animals from different islands.  I put my experience in the peer review section on the talk page to explain it and detailed the only published source I could find relating this in the article(Balsai 1995).  A better study is needed to see if there are in fact different species/subspecies from island to island, but my unprofessional opinion tells me its something like the situation with Galapagos Tortoises and Lonesome George.  A mitochondrial DNA test could confirm this, however, I doubt we'll see anything unless the politics in the region changes.  That's why I had high hopes for the Aussie paper.
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
A few areas, especially Taxonomy, need a bit more expansion. Details above.
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars, etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Overall a nice little article, but needs a bit more fleshing out in a few spots, plus a few prose and reference questions. I'm placing the review on hold to allow time for these to be addressed. Dana boomer (talk) 16:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I got a few of these, I'll get to the rest later today.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Overall looks good. However, there are a few areas that still need work, and I have clarified further above - a couple of places in the prose section and one referencing issue. The needed Taxonomy expansion (and related reference comment) is the biggest issue at this point. Dana boomer (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Allright, everything looks good, so I am passing the article to GA status. My final comment would be to consider continuing to expand the Taxonomy section with more information on why and how they decided to split the species into two subspecies. Perhaps the articles in the further reading section would also have further information on the initial description of the species, which could also stand to be expanded. However, this goes above and beyond the "broadness" criteria required by GAN, so I'm not going to require the work be done before I pass the article. Nice work! Dana boomer (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll keep all those in mind the next few months when I get ready for FAC!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

This article has a very well detailed account about the lizard, but is a little lacking in the details about their behaviors. The lead is especially great at laying out details of the lizard, but some of the information mentioned there is not discussed anywhere else in the later sections. It mentions they have social groups in the lead but then doesn’t really expand on it in the article. Information regarding how they behave in group environments and what benefits it brings them or how they compete for resources would be good. It also doesn’t mention what common predators there are for the lizard, it just talks about how humans have caused their populations to be damaged. Maybe some more detail about natural predators that they have in the wild would be helpful. It also mentions they are aggressive towards those not in their family, but doesn’t go into detail on what behaviors they exhibit to display their aggression. Do they simply show displays of aggression to scare each other off or do they actually have fights over territory? Emshen526 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)