Talk:Pinta Island tortoise

message: Neccessary- maybe should be called by species namec] IF you need to tell me something - Like that's gonna happen 15:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree! This page should be renamed in Abingdon Island Tortoise, the common name of its subspecies, and the part of the last survivor "Lonesome George" can be placed into a separate section on that page. Peter Maas\talk 15:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

text: I dunno, so far it seems that George by himself accounts for that entire species and all information about it... Although the change is feasible, I don't think it's really necessary--Crazydrunkhobo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.108.185.112 (talk) 02:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

text: True, but the part of Lonesome George could be intergrated into the subspecies' article. Peter Maas\talk 16:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with User:Perlnerd666 and Peter Maas...the article should be titled Abingdon Island Tortoise and Lonesome George can be a separate header within the article.  Considering that there is species information, such as "Extinct in the Wild"-- and this certainly does not apply to George, but his species...User:Bob the Wikipedian75.16.244.219 00:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name change 

message: Hey guys, there are tons of better pictures of George on the net. Maybe we should get a new one, the one that's already there kind of sucks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.1.90.110 (talk) 19:11, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture? 

message: At the bottom of the external links section is the following sentence. "The Tortoise is no longer endangered because of a massive orgy at the New York zoo the endangered tortoise is safe."
Aside from horrid grammar, this seems to have no bearing on the External Links section, it needs citation, and it seems to have no factual content. Could someone either delete this sentence, or verify, cite, and move it to a proper location?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.204.188 (talk) 06:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: When you see obvious vandalism simply delete it and in the comments section note you are deleting possible vandalism.  No need to ask for a consensus if it's is as obvious as what you quoted!LiPollis (talk) 15:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact Check 

message: Reuters is reporting on 2008-07-22:  "QUITO (Reuters) - After decades of solitude, "Lonesome George" may finally save his species of Galapagos giant tortoise from extinction, his keepers said on Monday.
George, a Pinta island tortoise who has shown little interest in reproducing during 36 years in captivity, stunned his keepers by mating with one of his two female companions of a similar species of Galapagos tortoise.
Park rangers found a nest with several eggs in George's pen and placed three in incubators. It will take about four months to know whether the eggs bear George's offspring.
"Even if these three eggs are fertile and the born tortoises survive it will take several (genetic) generations to think of having a Pinta purebred ... even centuries," the park said in a statement. ... " Lonesome George may end bachelor days on Galapagos
I amended the line "Three eggs were collected and placed in incubators; it will take four months to know if they are viable. If the eggs hatch successfuly they would be hybrids, not purebreds of the Pinta subspecies. [1]", changing the word "hybrids" to intergrades.  Even though the rank of sub-species is on its way out of zoological usefulness, it is nonetheless true that hybrids result from cross breeding between different species, not within the same species.  Sub-species or trans-population interbreeding is called intergrading.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.210.61.254 (talk) 16:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New news on Lonesome George... 

message: I would like to move this page to Abingdon Island Tortoise it is currently a redirect and I cannot find any reason why it is listed by its scientific name. ZooPro 10:21, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: My vote would be back to Lonesome George, since it is the most notable --Michael C. Price talk 10:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That is true, ideally i would like two articles one on the species and one on the individual but they are unfortunatly one in the same. I might do one about the species in my sandbox and move this article to "Lonesome George". ZooPro 11:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Furthermore this article only provides information on the individual instead of the species. I think two articles would be better. ZooPro 23:45, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The trouble with "Pinta Island Tortoise" is there will soon be lots of them.GC News: Team of Veterinarians Prepare Hybrid Tortoises for Release on Pinta Island in 2010. --Michael C. Price talk 05:56, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abingdon Island Tortoise 

message: http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0074sy3/Lonesome_George_and_the_Battle_for_Galapagos/
In this programme it was mentioned that only the skeletons of males were discovered on the island in potholes.  This is somewhat peculiar because if the "recent" males died in potholes, then what about the older males or females?
The programme raises a question of how can it be that all of the surviving tortoises on the island were male.  One possible answer is that when all of the living tortoises had been captures, killed eaten, shipped off, etc that there would have been some eggs hidden in the ground still.  A single batch or two could be all of one sex because the incubation temperature can determine the sex.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.22.46.220 (talk) 01:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mystery of the Males 

message: Please pick the correct tense (was vs is).
Paragraph 2 "George was penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Reproduction attempts Section "George is penned with two females of a different subspecies..."
Also dictionary.com doesn't recognize purebreed as a word, throughout this article we see "purebred", "purebreed", and "pure breed".
206.47.249.252 (talk) 13:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also "was and is".  And "pure-breed". --Michael C. Price talk 16:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense & Spelling 

message: I came across this new news article about Lonesome George. It says that he is supposedly "nearly 100" years old, and states that they have found some potentially better (more compatible) candidates for mating.
See here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8274521/Will-Lonesome-George-finally-find-a-mate.html Alhanalem (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean you don't know how to generate the reference for the article?  If so, does this help?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

text: No, i'm more referring to how this information might be integrated into the article.Alhanalem (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have added a sentence or two in the article. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: New news article- Not sure how to implement

message: "Researchers have identified one male tortoise from the Volcano Wolf region of neighboring Galápagos island of Isabela which has half his genes in common with George's subspecies"
So humans have 98% the same genes in common with chimpanzees,   but the Pinta Island tortoise George has only half his genes in common with the Isabella Island tortoise which is thought to have a Pinta Island parent ???  I call B/S on that.Eregli bob (talk) 04:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume it means that he has half of the genes that distinguish one sub-species from the other - which is what you'd expect for a cross-bred tortoise.  But you're right.  Humans share more than 50% of their genes with bacteria - and a giraffe would have "half his genes in common with George's subspecies" if we were to read it literally.  The article should be much clearer on this point. SteveBaker (talk) 14:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only half the same genes ? 

message: Goodnight sweet prince.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.38.69.118 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Lonesome George - as reported by El Comercio & El Universo (papers in Ecuador). 

message: My computer is apparently not hip enough for Flash player 10, so I can't watch the video and be sure this makes no sense. Confirm? Deny? InedibleHulk (talk) 11:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any reason a page from 2008 is used to source a 2012 death?  

message: Or something similarly titled. Per WP:LEDE, all lead info should be detailed in the body of the article, not just hinted at. As it stands, it starts by talking about goats and revegetation. A reader skipping the lead may (and did, in my case) wonder "What goats? Grass was missing?" It's easy enough to check the lead, but it shouldn't be necessary. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Propose "Decline" section.  

message: George recently died, but how old was he? Mazarin07 (talk) 13:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: About 100 according to some sources. Some toroises like Adwaita lived to over 200. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Farewell George, Taken from us far too early. Thank you for all those appearances on One Foot in the Grave (It was you wasn't it) Richard Avery (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  R.I.P. 

message: Should the taxobox list this tortoise as Extinct in the Wild or as extinct? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because of another possible specimen in a zoo(not in the wild), per  Pinta_Island_tortoise#At_Prague_Zoo Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that last go-round was my mistake.  Got lost in the to-ing and fro-ing Crispmuncher (talk) 16:20, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The official listing for C. nigra abindoni is EW from the IUCN, which is generally what we use, although that has clearly changed now with the death of Lonsome George, it will take some time for the IUCN to update this. They meet only every year and do not cover all species each year. Last time the TFTSG discussed the status of Turtles was in 2009 they do sections of it at a time. I am sure when they next get around to this group they will update the status. Listing it as Ex would be of no harm though in my view. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 16:40, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: No source to say it's extinct according to the IUCN 2.3 system so it really shouldn't be changed in the infobox per WP:V. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Using any specific source is by definition a lagging indicator in that it takes time for the source to be updated.  We have plenty of sources describing Lonesome George as the last of his kind, plenty of sources that state he has died and indeed plenty of sources confirming the extinction.  That you choose to consult an out of date reference does not alter that. Crispmuncher (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The IUCN source states that it "needs updating".  CNN states that the last of the pinta island tortoises died.  If nobody has any objections, or a better source, I'll add the CNN citation in addition to IUCN one.  On a related note, the source also stated that "at least one first-generation descendant of the subspecies has been found".  Should that be added? Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobo specifically refers to the IUCN Conservation status. No source gives that as EX-extinct and it is orignal research to state otherwise. It's true that Wikipedia can be out of date because of lack of relevate reliable sources but if you are unhappy with that then take it up on the policy pages. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I encourage everyone to read Pinta_Island_tortoise#At_Prague_Zoo and the resulting reference to see why the IUCN status may not change as a result of Lonesome George's death. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is from Skeptic magazine which makes me a bit wary.  Doesn't that make it a fringe theory?  There is a wide range of reliable sources that state that the tortoise is extinct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Show me a policy page mandating use of the IUCN listing. There isn't one as far as I can see. There a reference to the list under the taxobox documentation but that reads as being purely informational as opposed to definitive or even advisory in nature and in any event that is a guideline, as the heading states, "Use common sense when applying it." The Prague Zoo case does not alter anything: it has not been confirmed as one and is not a new development. The fact that published reliable sources discount it means that we do to. If updated, published, reliable sources describe the species as extinct we do too. No such source offering a contrary position has been offered so it is doing anything else that is original research. Crispmuncher (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The IUCN Images like the one on the right are for use by the IUCN references used by the  from the documentation Template:Taxobox/doc. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:39, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When the status is changed to "EX" for example the :Category:IUCN Red List extinct species is added, this is original reasearch when an IUCN source is not used.. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:47, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where does Wikipedia:No original research state that when CNN states that a species is extinct, and we say the same, that it is original research?  You have repeatedly stated that this is original research, what leads you to believe that? Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: When it is said via the taxobox that "IUCN says this is extinct" but the cnn source says "we say it's extinct", it's a case of referring 'to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist' that is original research. 18:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I specifically referred to the template documentation above: it doesn't state anything of the sort. It cites the IUCN  list as a possible source of information, nothing more. Even if you interpret that as definitive which seems to be stretching things, the common sense provision  and IAR kick. We have reliable sources that the subspecies is extinct. That is enough.  Crispmuncher (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The taxobox used the IUCN graphic and adds the IUCN specific matching category, i.e :Category:IUCN Red List extinct species. The source required is for an IUCN one. The IUCN statsu could be published in many sourced but two places normal for turtles, is on the IUCN website http://www.iucnredlist.org/ or from there published material http://www.iucn-tftsg.org/wp-content/uploads/file/Accounts/crm_5_000_checklist_v4_2011.pdf. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I have to take into account the way the IUCN Status box works, Suncreator is right, in that section it must remain as per the official list of the IUCN, keep an eye on it they may change it quickly as its a fairly simple change. Hybrids only are still extinct, as they only consider pure form, and it takes some 200 generations to breed out impure genes, which would take 400years to do with Galaps. I think mention in text we can make the statement that the status has changed with Lonesome Georges death, but the IUCN Box needs to say what the IUCN says, which is EW. I am not reverting it myself because this is bordering on an edit war. However, my recommendation is to change it back to EW and then protect it for a while. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the topic of edit warring, I put in a request for page protection; however, I'm not sure if that is the best solution.  This is likely to be a highly edited page.  I wouldn't be opposed to blocks for edit warring to anybody who changes the status before this is decided. I am adding an RfC tag to this.  Personally, I find it ridiculous for Wikipedia to list this as Extinct in the Wild rather than Extinct in the face of a large number of reliable sources, especially when IUCN self-identifies that it is outdated. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would leave it unprotected else it will be protected incorrectly. The Main page has now been adjusted to remove the claim about it being extinct so I expect less edit warring going forward. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would like to leave it unprotected, but there have been 50+ edits today already on this page, and clearly not agreement. I am sending a request to the IUCN to update their status, I am a member of this organisation, but I dont have anything to do with the Red List website. Under the circumstances they may do it. In the meantime I feel the IUCN Redlist section of the taxobox should agree with the IUCN redlist. We can always add text to the main article to discuss the changes. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: SunCreator, I find you to be the most significant POV pusher on this page right now.  You most recently removed :Category:Extinctions since 1500.  I understand that you disagree with the Conservation status due to the outdated IUCN material; however, its extinction has been stated by numerous reliable sources.  Please refrain from modifying extinction information prior to a decision on this RFC.  As you may note, I have made no edits to this page as a result of the discussion taking place here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 17:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just an addit, the reason the IUCN redlist identifies this subspecies as outdated is because they have not been assessed since 1996, not because Lonesome Georges is now dead. The tortoises are in need of review, but this takes time, The Redlist is dealing with a lot of species and there are only so many of us with the data to write the accounts. I have made requests for them to consider updating this category. But this will take a little time. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I certainly understand that it will take some time, but I see no reason for Wikipedia to include information that is incorrect while we wait for IUCN to update its information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I am sorry you think removal of WP:OR is POV pushing. If you look on :Category:Extinctions since 1500 you can see this is for World Conservation Union now IUCN extinctions something there is no current source for. Same goes for :Category:IUCN Red List extinct species but it is all tied into the workings of the . Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I just recieved an email from the Chair of the IUCN TFTSG (Tortoise and Freshwater Turtle Specialist Group. Lonsome George died just 4 days after the deadline for the Red List 2012.2 update. However, they are having a meeting on the Galapagos Tortoises in two weeks and its likely that a proposal to change the status will be drafted there. It will however take several months to get through the IUCN process. Contrary to what they have done in the past, they are seriously considering not listing the subspecies as extinct because of the individuals carying marker genes for the Pinta population that were found on Volcan Wolf. So they may not get an EX listing in any case. I did mention to them the difficulties this was causing to us and the Chair of the Committee's response was "For now, it would be nice if Wikipedia contributors would stick with the published Red List and not pre-empt its assessments, only make some casual annotations in the text. ". I am not going to post an email on here but if anyone would like to see the full response I will send it to you individually, please feel free to ask. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Great work User:Faendalimas!. Response as expected from the IUCN. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Still fails the IUCN graphic and IUCN category and attributes the IUCN for something they have not said and may not even agree with. May I suggest the extinct issue it kept to the text and the taxobox is left alone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually I agree, because you've removed the status_system  with "| status_system =" Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As per what I wrote above, we cannot pre-empt the IUCN. I am fine with this as long as the IUCN is not mentioned. Some explanation as to why the IUCN status is not being used here may need to be somewhere obvious, otherwise others may just edit it back. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you think of my modification to  with the hidden note?  In addition, should the article mention that IUCN does not label it as extinct?  A possible solution could be to to label it extinct in the lead per a source and use  to mention the IUCN dispute. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest "Please do not replace the IUCN Status information until a status reference for the IUCN Status is provided, some sources state that this tortoise is extinct, IUCN does not". Tagging as disputed will be required somewhere in the article especially given the IUCN reply above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The "|status = EX" could say anything for example "|status = Extinct but possible remaining individuals, see text</sup>" Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the article with a note after the section that it is believed to be extinct.  I'll also be removing the IUCN information from the taxobox for the time being because it is blatantly false to state that the IUCN states it is extinct if it doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'blatantly false' You've final seen the light!   Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is blatantly false to say that the species is extinct, in fact, the material presented in the article doesn't convince me that the species isn't extinct.  Reliable sources state that the species is extinct so I believe the taxobox should as well, in the form I mentioned earlier.  The other remaining option would be to replace it with PE; however, I feel that it would be a step in the wrong direction because of the way the parameter formats the response.  Sadly, the taxobox doesn't allow us to create a custom message like "possibly extinct".  My blatantly false statement is towards referencing it to the IUCN. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want you can say "| status = Possibly extinct". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, I tried it earlier in a preview and it didn't work.  Perhaps custom parameters don't work when  is filled. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. Custom parameters don't work when  is filled. It's from such things that I've come to understand that the IUCN part is intergrated into the taxobox (when a  is given). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Extinct in the Wild? 

message: I propose that we list the Pinta Island Tortoise as extinct without including the IUCN information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Still fails the IUCN graphic and IUCN category and attributes the IUCN for something they have not said and may not even agree with. May I suggest the extinct issue it kept to the text and the taxobox is left alone. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Actually I agree, because you've removed the status_system  with "| status_system =" Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As per what I wrote above, we cannot pre-empt the IUCN. I am fine with this as long as the IUCN is not mentioned. Some explanation as to why the IUCN status is not being used here may need to be somewhere obvious, otherwise others may just edit it back. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What would you think of my modification to  with the hidden note?  In addition, should the article mention that IUCN does not label it as extinct?  A possible solution could be to to label it extinct in the lead per a source and use  to mention the IUCN dispute. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Suggest "Please do not replace the IUCN Status information until a status reference for the IUCN Status is provided, some sources state that this tortoise is extinct, IUCN does not". Tagging as disputed will be required somewhere in the article especially given the IUCN reply above. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

text: The "|status = EX" could say anything for example "|status = Extinct but possible remaining individuals, see text</sup>" Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have updated the article with a note after the section that it is believed to be extinct.  I'll also be removing the IUCN information from the taxobox for the time being because it is blatantly false to state that the IUCN states it is extinct if it doesn't. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 'blatantly false' You've final seen the light!   Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:32, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it is blatantly false to say that the species is extinct, in fact, the material presented in the article doesn't convince me that the species isn't extinct.  Reliable sources state that the species is extinct so I believe the taxobox should as well, in the form I mentioned earlier.  The other remaining option would be to replace it with PE; however, I feel that it would be a step in the wrong direction because of the way the parameter formats the response.  Sadly, the taxobox doesn't allow us to create a custom message like "possibly extinct".  My blatantly false statement is towards referencing it to the IUCN. Ryan Vesey Review me! 19:43, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want you can say "| status = Possibly extinct". Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's odd, I tried it earlier in a preview and it didn't work.  Perhaps custom parameters don't work when  is filled. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That's correct. Custom parameters don't work when  is filled. It's from such things that I've come to understand that the IUCN part is intergrated into the taxobox (when a  is given). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:53, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sub-proposal

message: Need a taxonomist here.  There are apparently individuals that are a cross between Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni and C.n.becki.  These individuals are, one must assume, likely to be fertile.  Presumably they are equally members of both subspecies, and therefore fully members of neither.  In which case: what are they?  As I understand it, a new subspecies cannot be declared to have emerged overnight, so are they simply C.n x, or C.n abingdoni x becki, or C.n ssp.?  If they then reproduce within the local population, which must be assumed to be overwhelmingly C n becki, what are the offspring to be described as.  Eventually, I guess, we end up with C n becki animals with a small admixture of C n abingdoni DNA.  If the genetic material of C.n abingdoni continues within the same species, can the subspecies be genuinely declared "extinct", or is it regarded as somehow "subsumed".  As you will guess, this is not my area of expertise.  Kevin McE (talk) 18:44, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will respond to this as not only am I a taxonomist but also one who has had to work on similar cases. Officially any hybrid no matter how minor is C.n abingdoni x becki, if known the male is listed first, if not known do them in alphabetical order. If you look at my response to the above, the IUCN are considering wether or not to recognise the continued existence of this subspecies in the Volcan Wolf (G. n. becki) population, so I am not sure at this time if they will be declared extinct at all, but they will remain as EW as there are no populations of G. n. abingdoni on Isla Pinta anymore. Also if the populations that have the genes are breeding then the populations are declared as F2+ an F2 generation is the production of young with hybrid parents. Whereas F1 is more like the classic Mule which is sterile. It is a significant difference as it rules out the sterility factor. Hope this helps, Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  So if there are C.n abingdoni x becki individuals, even if their C.n abingdoni forebear has died, can C.n abingdoni be declared extinct?  Is there some sort of "subsumed" category/status? Kevin McE (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: In the past the IUCN has not considered hybrids as valid or useful members of a species, this was the case with the Asiatic Lion where almost all captive individuals in the breeding program were discovered to be hybrids. However, I got word today from the IUCN (see my comment further up) that they are considering not declaring this subspecies extinct because of these hybrids. It would seem that officially the IUCN are likely to continue to list this subspecies as EW and not declare it extinct. But that decision has not yet been made. With modern genetic testing it is easier to identify hybrids and hence use them to work back towards a pure strain, though this would take considerable time in a long lived species. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 19:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intra-species hybridisation 

message: I am a little concerned about this. Before I worked on Chelid turtles I did actually work on Galaps, it was a while ago now but among my research I did examine the specimens at Prague Zoo. Although one was a saddleback it could have been a G. n. becki and further on reading the article that was not written by P. C. H. Pritchard it just quoting him saying it was similar to G. n. abingdoni it was actually written by Frank Sulloway who has written many controversial articles in the past. I only have my own views here and hence cannot edit that section without breaching Original Research rules and I am not going to but I do feel that someone should look at whether a magazine called Skeptics is a source worth citing here. Would appreciate some comments here and maybe another editor to look into this. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 20:10, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been thinking a similar thing, it doesn't seem incredibly reliable.  This may violate WP:UNDUE. Ryan Vesey Review me! 20:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree, but would defer to others. Perhaps take the issue to WP:RSN. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:51, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It's reference 8 in the Skeptic article that provides the claim. Ref 8 reads "Peter Pritchard, personal communication, 6 July 2006". "personal communication" is not something that would be considered appropriate on Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove per talk? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would concur with removing it. Increasing the level of the reference by passing it off as a publication when it originates as a pers. comm. does not increase the validity of the argument. Surely if this was substantiated then there would have been a DNA analysis to confirm it. That there has not been would indicate the claims are no that great. Cheers Faendalimas talk 00:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: According to DNA analysis, the Prague Zoo tortoise was most likely C. n. duncanensis (See data for PRZ01 in Russello et al. 2007). Kaldari (talk) 05:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the Prague Zoo section with reliable sources. Kaldari (talk) 06:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Chelonoidis_nigra_abingdoni#At_Prague_Zoo]] 

message: Strongly recommended- I would strongly recommend to find the "ICUN 3.1" link to change the conservation status to extinct with the wide table of the 8 circles with 2 letters in each of then representing different conservation statuses (from EX, (extinct) to LC, (least concern)). I hope everyone knows what i am talking about, and I would strongly recommend someone to verify this. Dominicskywalker (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Dominic, the problem is the IUNC hasn't updated their information.  A portion of the text of an email sent from IUNC is available in the section Talk:Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni#Extinct in the Wild?.  In fact, the IUNC may not be declaring the subspecies extinct. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:13, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: finding links to change the Conservation status by the ICUN

message: Given there seems to be consensus to use 'possibly extinct' and 'believed to have become extinct' is it okay to remove this category that uses an absolute term? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely sure it should be removed considering that reliable sources currently listing it as extinct.  It shouldn't be listed in :Category:IUCN Red List extinct species, but that doesn't mean that reliable sources don't describe it as extinct.  If we do choose to keep the category, it should be changed to :Category:Extinct animals of South America and :Category:Extinct reptiles. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:23, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have modified the category to the ones I proposed for the time being.  If editors would like to remove them, I'm still open to discussion. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category: Extinct animals 

message: It seems like this article should almost simply be titled "Lonesome George," seeing as nearly all of it is about him.  If anybody with sufficient knowledge about these tortoises or patience to research (neither of which I have at the moment), please add some information about the actual species, Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni, in addition to the present information about George. --Breakfast221 (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Other possible individuals are mentioned, so it is not solely about him. FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The jist of his comment is, this article focuses way too heavily on "Lonesome George" which is correct.  In this instance, I don't believe that information on Lonesome George should be removed, and I'm unsure as to whether or not Lonesome Goerge is notable enough for his own article, if the tortoise isn't, then more information needs to be found and added on the species. Ryan Vesey Review me! 02:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it's a question of being notable enough, having two separate articles is simply redundant, as he pretty much was the subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 03:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I agree with the sentiments but not sure how things could be improved much. A split into two articles is possible(like on the German wikipedia) but the downside is less content in each. A taxonomy section is missing, a range map perhaps. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:50, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of this would be a rehash of Galápagos tortoise, but couldn't we include descriptive information?  The Pinta Island information in the "Galápagos tortoise" article could be added to here.  Do we know anything about its behaviour?  Sorry for not assisting more, I literally know nothing about tortoises.  Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Contents--Mostly George, Not Enough About the Species 

message: According to several sources—Márquez et al. (2004), Poulakakis et al. (2008), etc.—the Pinta Island tortoise (and the other Galapagos tortoises) are genetically distinct and should be treated as species rather than subspecies of Chelonoidis nigra. In fact, it seems that a large percentage of the recent papers on Galapagos tortoises treat them as separate species (including papers published this year). I don't normally work in turtles, so I don't know what the guidelines on their taxonomic determination are (some WikiProjects stick to certain reference sources to avoid endless conflicts), but I think we should at least mention the fact that many reliable scientific sources consider this a full species. Kaldari (talk) 07:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not something I've encountered with the Galápagos tortoise. Can you flesh out those sources a bit, a title perhaps so we could locate them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 08:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know much about science at all, but given that this is in trinomial, rather than binomial, nomenclature wouldn't that make it a sub-species? Ryan Vesey Review me! 12:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. 'trinomial' is three(tri) part, the last part is the subspecies name so in Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni the subspecies(sometimes written ssp.) is abingdoni. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: With this high profile group of species the giant tortoises are often seen as many things. In the end the concensus is what is published in broad taxonomic and nomenclatural reviews, such as Rhodin et al., 2011. In the end despite any claims its safest going with the concensus. If a rock solid claim was made then everyone would change their views. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It sounds like sticking with subspecies is the best option for now. Per WP:NPOV, though, we should at least mention that some authors consider it a full species (Chelonoidis abingdonii). Kaldari (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: To my (limited) understanding it's really an  a genus/species issue applicable to Galápagos tortoise rather then individual subspecies and so maybe an expansion of Galápagos_tortoise#Taxonomy might be in order. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species vs. subspecies 

message: The order of this article is poor.  I understand that people are interested in Lonesome George; however, the first information should be about the Species.  I suggest Lead→Taxonomy and range→Conservation efforts→Lonesome George→Reproduction Attempts→Death→Possible Remaining Individuals.  It is possible that some sections may need to be slightly rewritten in order to create that order. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Just go for it. It will never be perfect, but can adjust after it's in the appropriate order. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it is just about a subspecies, one population of the species known as Galapagos Tortoises. However, you are right, it should lead in better and get to Lonesome George later on. Taxonomy can also discuss the discovery and description of this subspecies, and maybe its rediscovery in 1972 after it was thought to be extinct then. Then onwards as you have outlined. Up to you though if you want to change it. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 13:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Woops, I meant subspecies.  It'll be a couple of hours before I change it, but that is good because it gives any ardent "Lonesome George should be first" supporters a chance to comment. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I already ordered it to your suggestion. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem! Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: I've move 'Conservation efforts' after George because the Conservation efforts where mainly because of George. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the section to its original location, the efforts were meant to conserve the subspecies, not lonesome George.  The conservation efforts also began before his discovery.  If it was to be moved, it would need to be after "Death" because "Death" and "Reproduction attempts" are subsections of Lonesome George. Ryan Vesey Review me! 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: "the efforts [before the discovery of George] were meant to conserve the subspecies" - do you have a cite for that? I've not read that anywhere and it could be added to help the flow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order 

message: The lead needs additions per WP:LEAD.  I'll take a crack at it tonight, unless someone wants to now.  I'm considering adding , but I don't know if it would be beneficial.  It looks poor since it is on the main page, and normal readers don't understand our lead policies, so I doubt they could create a quality lead. Ryan Vesey Review me! 13:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Expand somewhat as lead is now twice the length as before. Please feel free to expand further. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The grammar in the lead is awful. 174.253.228.67 (talk) 16:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, be bold fix it! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've revised the lead further. Kaldari (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: Do we know anything recent about this. Are the orginal specimens still available? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are interested, you can read the book here or here.  I didn't check the first link, but the second appears to use optical character recognition so you can search within the book; however, it doesn't contain the full text.  I'll do some web searching tonight for more current information. Ryan Vesey Review me! 14:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, the first link is great becasuse it's searchable. But I'm really looking for a recent update(even last century!) to know what happened to the specimens. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you mean the type specimens?? The ones in the British Museum are still there, I examined them in 1997. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  British Museum collection 

message: *Description section for features, length, weight etc, some info available from Günther's 1877 paper. Even images from paper asthey will be out of copyright(?)
*Common names in body(reduce from lead) to explain name change of island and Galápagos move from English to Spanish
*Expand taxonomy section with synonym info and previous names per changes in species
*Explain about range and also George's discovery(on Pinta) and where he lived til death
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 14:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add maybe 

message: I suggest the article is moved, but wondering if this is uncontroversial! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Having already discussed the verifiability of this, I would say it is uncontroversial.  In fact, I'm going to move the wikispecies one.  Make sure the main page gets changed. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:10, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: give me a couple of minutes to check just in case something strange is going on. Faendalimas talk 16:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ok the name is not in the Official list of names in Zoology published by the IUCN, hence we go by what we can see. So yes move them to Geochelone nigra abingdonii. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 16:20, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you explain why the IUCN have not corrected there own website page as they have been aware of the error for some time(years?) now? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:22, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

text: Plus you mean Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii not Geochelone nigra abingdonii??? Surely. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:25, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry yes I mean Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii and as for the IUCN they have to deal with the status of every species on the planet. they cycle through them in a yearly review that only covers a set number of species. There are Millions of species and 10's of thousands that they deal with. It would be overload and the species was adequately protected by the most recent assessment. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 16:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:40, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks. Cheers Faendalimas talk 16:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Move artice to Chelonoidis nigra abingdonii

message: I really dislike the way the article appears with .  Can we consider removing this?  If the concern is that the map doesn't appear near the correct section, we could consider removing only the clear after the lead and moving the map to the left side of the page.  Some of the concern will be fixed once the article, and thus the lead, is expanded a bit more. Ryan Vesey Review me! 16:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I dislike it also, but feel it's the lesser evil, but have removed the clear now. Solution as you suggest is to expand the article to have more text. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I will expand the synonymy section, the problem with the Reptile Database is its old and inaccurate. Use Frittz and Havas, 2007, and Rhosin et al., 2011. You can glean the info from them they have just written it better, but different. Ny the way the source for the combination of Chelonoidis abingdonii is David, 1996. I will put this section together and show you what I mean, need to gather some papers etc first. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clear 

message: When did Galápagos Islands become part of Ecuador? I don't see anything on Galápagos Islands and no sources. I want to link the name change of Abingdon Island to the Enlgish(Earl of Abingdon) to the Spanish Pinta Island(es:Isla Pinta). Sources seem hard to come by, at least so far. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: After the Independence of Ecuador in 1832 they were annexed and called the Archipielago del Ecuador at that time the English names were replaced with Spanish ones. The Port on Isabella is named after the first Governor, Jose Villamil. Anyway there are history books available, this site has a list of some of them galapagos.to go to the books section. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 17:52, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galápagos Islands became Spanish 

message: http://www.galapagosexpeditions.com/islands/lonesome-george-tortoise.php Really? 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: www.wildlifeextra.com/go/news/lonesome-george.html Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guiness book of records? 

message: The article refers to this several times. Even in a quote. Makes it a little difficult to be internally consistant. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:15, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Since they now use the Spanish names we should also, at least as much as possible, unless we are specifically referring to something that happened to do with the English names. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: What about it's use in the quote? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wolf Volcano or Volcán Wolf  

message: How could the species be extinct????? Couldn't people clone the turtle and keep trying to breed it with another species??? Last of it's kind, and nobody thought to clone it. That really goes to show how crazy people are... If anyone reading this agrees with my idea, please say so. Scientific Alan 2 (talk) 23:19, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well cloning is not as easy as it looks and in some ways is easier for mammals because we are placentals whereas reptiles you need to get the material into an egg. Plus LG was a male and so you dont have an egg to start with. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 23:32, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange... 

message: Can we find an IPA pronunciation for this anywhere? Ryan Vesey Review me! 00:52, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: This section seems misplaced or unnecessary. It states the goats were introduced in 1958, at a time when the species was already considered extinct. It then states (With no citation) that the goats were eliminated. It has no connection to trying to conserve the species (George was found 13 years after the goats arrived) and gives no time frame for the goat's removal. I would think the removal of the goats would be a broader conservation effort for the island as a whole, not the tortoises.
The Lonesome George section then suggests that the goats from 1958 were responsible for the species' loss due to habitat destruction, yet the species was already considered extinct before the goats arrived. The island's vegetation had been devastated by introduced feral goats, and the indigenous C. n. abingdonii population had been reduced to a single individual.
Probably should remove the conservation effort section and tweak the later sentence to not draw a conclusion that the goats were responsible (At least for the tortoises). -- ferret (talk) 15:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is poorly sourced and unclear at present. What source says 'the [sub]species was already considered extinct before the goats arrived'? My understanding was that George was found while clearing the goats, hence some relevance of the goats. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I took that from the lead, which states "by the mid-20th century". That could include up to 1960, just after the goats were introduced, but consideration of being extinct I don't believe occurred in just that 2-3 year span. I now see that that statement is also flagged as needing a source. -- ferret (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in two minds about marking the unsourced lead part as dubious.  Several editors have altered the lead because the grammar was difficult but in rearranging the lead have made claims not sourced in the article. So it would seem possible that the lead claim is dubious. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: By the time the goats were introduced, the tortoise was assumed to be extinct (see Lonesome George: The Life and Loves of the World's Most Famous Tortoise). However there were still a few tortoises on the island. The ones that were left had no food (thanks to the goats) and were still killed by poachers, so they had little chance for survival. The article currently doesn't really cover any of this, and instead implies that the goats were responsible for the subspecies decline, which isn't true. Kaldari (talk) 02:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation efforts 

message: Interwiki links need to be checked as some refer to a subspecies and some to a Lonesome George. Ivo (talk) 17:00, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Some are species some are combination. I don't think they require checking really. It seems an error to remove them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Most languages will have either one article or the other, and we still need to get the readers to the info somehow.  If there is a better article in that language you could change the link, but deleting would be inappropriate, I think.  --Tom Hulse (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: I found the link to the offical IUCN article to offically change the status to extinct. http://www.iucn.org/es/sobre/union/secretaria/oficinas/sudamerica/?10248/Lonesome-George-a-farewell-from-a-friend Dominicskywalker (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The article, although published on the IUCN website, is just a nice opinion piece by one individual, and does not affect the official IUCN status, is still EW (not CR as your current version shows).  The discussion above still applies where consensus was reached for the current wording, and so I have to revert your edits (sorry!).  --Tom Hulse (talk) 02:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Where?--Tom Hulse (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  found offical link about IUCN extinct conservation status 

message: IUCN lists this as extinct as of 2016 (see here). I'm a little confused by the note in the taxobox that says that EX status is out-of-date. Is there still some point of contention here or should the taxobox show the status as extinct? Plantdrew (talk) 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Efforts to find remaining individuals hidden among other populations were announced in 2007, and obviously have not led to any results. We have no good basis for second-guessing the current IUCN assessment of EX. The latest change to the status in the taxobox, although DONE IN OPINIONATED CAPSLOCK , should be allowed to stand.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:23, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  IUCN status 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Pinta Island tortoise. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120628014014/http://www.galapagospark.org/boletin.php?noticia=628 to http://www.galapagospark.org/boletin.php?noticia=628
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627143500/http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/24/12386484-lonesome-george-last-of-its-kind-galapagos-tortoise-dies to http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/24/12386484-lonesome-george-last-of-its-kind-galapagos-tortoise-dies
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pinta Island tortoise. 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/20130114030204/http://www.galapagos.org/pdf/Oryx_campbell1.pdf to http://www.galapagos.org/pdf/Oryx_campbell1.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified