Talk:List of longest-living organisms

message: The following links should be worked into the article somehow:
*Prometheus (tree) 
*Pando (Quaking Aspen) 
*Tree#Champion trees
...and a few other articles that now link here. Melchoir 10:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: --sin-man 04:54, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It is not known to be immortal, according to the reference given in the article. Just because an animal can switch between a "mature" and "immature" state does not mean it can do so indefinitely. The individual cells may still age continuously. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Candidates

message: I understand that for certain freshwater fish -- for example, 
*sturgeons -- if they manage to live past a certain age, they, in effect, become immortal & can only die from accident or the intervention of man. (Sorry, no cite)
*Oliver Rackham claims that the Queen's Oak at Huntingsfield, Suffolk is "about a thousand years old" -- as well as "the wonderful pollards of Winsdor Great Park -- while some coppice stools in the Bradfield Woods, Suffolk, are "among the oldest living things in Britain (at least a thousand years)". (Trees and woodland in the British landscape [London: Phoenix Press, 2001], pp. 14f.)
*I've also seen mention that Baobab trees are very long-lived, easily over a thousand years. Does anyone have more information? -- llywrch 00:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other long-lived organisms 

message: Since the Turritopsis nutricula is the only known immortal species, it's likely that the oldest continuously living animal on the planet is a jellyfish of this species (I would have thought). Can we have some coverage of this in the article, please.
--Wragge 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not known to be immortal, according to the reference given in the article. Just because an animal can switch between a "mature" and "immature" state does not mean it can do so indefinitely. The individual cells may still age continuously. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  immortal species? 

message: In a discussion on the science ref desk someone pointed out that clones are no more alike than identical twins. In which case the clonal colonies can hardly be regarded as one plant. I don't suggest removing them, but if the comparison makes sense it might make sense to make it in the article because it rather puts things in perspective. DirkvdM 19:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clonal colonies are one plant. They are physically contiguous, like your body. So it's more like conjoined twins, although in the case of plants there is no meaningful distinction between two and one if they're connected and genetically identical. In animals there is.
=== No meaningful distinction between plant clones and plant individual ===
All plants are modulary organisms (as well as lower animals such as sponges). Therefore the distinction in the article between plant clones and individual plant specimens is actually irrelevant.
Also in a single plant 'individual', there will be no cells living throughout the life-time of the plant. Leaves are shed, of course (also needles), and in the stem, the cells making of the xylem and phloem are only functional as young (and dead already in the case of xylem). The same token applies to major roots whereas the smaller ones are shed or withered away.
Hence, in a way the clones (like Pando) are just as modulary as is a single maple.
Our way to think of 'individuals' is (too) heavy influenced of ourselves being eumetazoans. Plants simply aren't like that. That's why they might be immortal (also having high activities in the meristems of the telomerase enzyme). 
Therefore, the only meaningful distinction is to regard an individual as being all the cells derived from a common zygote. 94.255.244.204 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

text: Each and every clonal organism can, in itself, be considered an individual organism - it'd just be a really really big individual organism. Whether or not it remains a continuous cell mass, isn't of massive importance (as trees can be divided and fused and still survive perfectly well); what is important is how genetically identical the trees are - supra-surface stems that are identical must have been born of the same 'flesh'. 82.18.44.72 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So when we have separate organisms as a result of vegetative reproduction, you choose to regard them as a single organism? --Michael C. Price talk 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clone colony one plant? 

message: All plants are modulary organisms (as well as lower animals such as sponges). Therefore the distinction in the article between plant clones and individual plant specimens is actually irrelevant.
Also in a single plant 'individual', there will be no cells living throughout the life-time of the plant. Leaves are shed, of course (also needles), and in the stem, the cells making of the xylem and phloem are only functional as young (and dead already in the case of xylem). The same token applies to major roots whereas the smaller ones are shed or withered away.
Hence, in a way the clones (like Pando) are just as modulary as is a single maple.
Our way to think of 'individuals' is (too) heavy influenced of ourselves being eumetazoans. Plants simply aren't like that. That's why they might be immortal (also having high activities in the meristems of the telomerase enzyme). 
Therefore, the only meaningful distinction is to regard an individual as being all the cells derived from a common zygote. 94.255.244.204 (talk) 15:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No meaningful distinction between plant clones and plant individual 

message: I'm not a botanist, but the Norway Spruce don't strike me as colonies like Pando. The oldest root has itself been dated to about 8000 years old. I would call a root a part of an individual organism, even if the trunks are more temporary. What defines a tree? Granted, the trunk is what we supra-surface organisms notice most of the time, but isn't a root an important part of a tree? And so wouldn't a root that has been growing and maturing for 8000 years represent a single organism rather than a colony? In the case of Pando, by contrast, I don't think anyone's claiming that any given root has persisted for thousands of years. Jbening (talk) 04:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Each and every clonal organism can, in itself, be considered an individual organism - it'd just be a really really big individual organism. Whether or not it remains a continuous cell mass, isn't of massive importance (as trees can be divided and fused and still survive perfectly well); what is important is how genetically identical the trees are - supra-surface stems that are identical must have been born of the same 'flesh'. 82.18.44.72 (talk) 04:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So when we have separate organisms as a result of vegetative reproduction, you choose to regard them as a single organism? --Michael C. Price talk 09:21, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Norway Spruce

message: Is there a comparable list for long-lived species?  I can't find one but it would surely be of interest & would add relevant context for this list. --lquilter 01:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Long-lived species? 

message: It strikes me as remarkable that we have so much information on (fascinating, but of very narrow relevance) Guiness-Book-ish "world records" for animals, yet we seem to have no articles listing, or even discussing in any detail, the average lifespans for any organisms (ideally with separate listings for animals in the wild and in captivity). Surely the norm is much more important than the extreme exception. In addition to there being no centralized location for such information on Wikipedia that I can find, our treatment of lifespan also seems to be inconsistent (e.g., wild vs. captive ages), well-hidden, or entirely absent in the individual species' articles; and I haven't been able to find any reputable sources online which list many lifespans either. Does anyone know of where one might find such reputable, sourced information? Is there any centralized hub of such data, at the very least for certain subgroups of organisms (e.g., all mammals, or all amphibians, etc.) if not for all life? -Silence (talk) 17:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Average'' lifespans? 

message: It is mentioned on the black choral page that a subspecies of black coral was found to be 4,265 years old.  It should be added at the top of the section as the oldest living animal.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.33.141.151 (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As are you. -Silence (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

text: Methuselah (tree) is clearly the oldest organism, and doubtless Kama Chinen is the oldest mammal, but doesn't sound right that Man has surmounted Chordata. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, pretty clear it's prolly a cetacean but difficulty in verifying prolly means Kama keeps the class title. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animal section 

message: The reference used to claim that ant queens are the oldest insects is set to private, and is a private blog - not a very preputable source. I suggest someone does proper research in literature, otherwise this should be deleted. I vaguely remember 17 years as the oldest unambigously documented age of an ant queen.
The reference for termites is commercial site with vague claims, and also not a source I would like to see in Wikipedia. I also suggest deletion, or proper research. To my knowledge, there is no case of documented termite queen age above 15 years, yet. While very old termite mound ages are documented (up to several centuries), this is not the same, as mounds get recolonised frequently. 
Additionaly, the resource for the Oldhouse Borer Hylotrupes bajalus is not very specific. I tried to find the original source, as it is not given in the linked MS Word document, but failed. This should be flagged for a check as well.
Botanischwili (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termite and ant references fall short of being sufficent 

message: According to http://www.agelessanimals.org/ the Rougheye rockfish can reach 205 years "In a very intriguing analysis, the project's Fish Ecologist, Gregor M. Cailliet, determined that rockfish have both short-lived and long-lived members in the same genus (Cailliet 2001). He found that maximum rockfish longevity ranges in age from 12 years for the calico rockfish to 205 years for the rougheye rockfish." This research group is currently studying the reasons for the longevity and has so far examined telomerase and protein turnover. Star A Star (talk) 06:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing fish 

message: great white shark - based on two sketches, apparently, over a century apart.  Note that I feel this is plausible, but it would be nice to have some comparatives; like a couple of interim sketches, or some research on - say - mother-daughter dorsal similarities.  But mighty interesting . . .
Autochthony has written.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.170.85 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Botha

message: Interesting to read that Jeanne Calment was an animal. --85.23.6.115 (talk) 19:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As are you. -Silence (talk) 17:11, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Humans

message: Would appear ATM to be a human female, but more likely an avian or terrapin. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Methuselah (tree) is clearly the oldest organism, and doubtless Kama Chinen is the oldest mammal, but doesn't sound right that Man has surmounted Chordata. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, pretty clear it's prolly a cetacean but difficulty in verifying prolly means Kama keeps the class title. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Oldest Living Vertebrate]]

message: I'd argue that the canine transmissible venereal tumor deserves some mention on this page, but I'm not really sure what would be the best way to do that. It's not really a mammal or even an animal in most traditional senses of those words, but it's still mammalian in some sense and it's certainly quite old. Thoughts, anyone? 108.56.232.165 (talk) 20:23, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Mammalian cell line

message: "They are also known to be the worlds oldest olive trees as well as the source of Noah's dove olive peace branch." Is it really known? /:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.56.65.93 (talk) 21:15, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This offended my brain too, so I modified the language. People can believe what they like, but they can't claim it to be fact.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.215.232.37 (talk) 22:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Noah's dove's olive tree?

message: On March 1 it appears one user deleted 75% of this article leaving only the clonal colonies part. Accident? Reason?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.98.249.59 (talk) 03:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea. :) No explanation was given by User:Erforever88 for his removals. I've restored the content. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why was most of this page deleted? 

message: I've added this after coming to the entry while researching this issue for a project. I believe it is justified because (1) many of the references are low-quality and potentially untrustworthy (2)There is no proper discussion of the key issue of dormancy with bacteria (3) there's insufficient references to the recent work on eg actinobacteria, which appear to be the oldest organisms at around 500 kyr. Robma (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Where there is a main article, no references should be given on this page.  If the references are poor, that is an issue for the main article.  This page simply aggregates, indexes, and summarizes certain details from main articles.  75.210.162.232 (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues tag

message: I'm not sure that I understand the definition. I think that this is about the individual of each species, which is why I made the change, making that clearer. Not about the lifetime of the species - from speciation to extinction, for example. But I don't understand the distinction between the two definitions.    TomS TDotO (talk) 23:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't understand the definition. It needs some reworking. The two parts don't seem to differ in substance, for example. The citation of the Methuselah tree is outdated.     TomS TDotO (talk) 15:01, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on List of longest-living organisms. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060723041627/http://www.exn.ca:80/Stories/1996/10/21/01.asp to http://www.exn.ca/Stories/1996/10/21/01.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of longest-living organisms. 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://9e.devbio.com/preview_article.php?ch=2&id=6
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101219095825/http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm to http://waynesword.palomar.edu/ww0601.htm
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) 02:12, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of longest-living organisms. 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/20130413143127/http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2011/07/03/spe01.asp to http://www.sundayobserver.lk/2011/07/03/spe01.asp
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) 05:46, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The entry on the revived nematodes cites an article in Siberia Times, not any scientific journal, and a search on Princeton University website for 'nematodes russia' does not give any result that mentions this find.  I think this ought to be marked [needs better citation].Voland0 (talk) 05:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revived Nematodes 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:22, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion