Talk:Lissachatina fulica

message: The name Lisachatina pops up for the species every now and then. Could someone elaborate which one
the misnoma is and why?
::Lissachatina fulica is the currently recognized binomial. (I guess you could call this "Personal communication, Dr. David Robinson, USDA senior malacological identifier") At some point in the near future, Dr. Robinson should have a published version of the revised taxonomy in the near future, but the ICZN currently recognizes Lissachatina as the senior name. Aderksen (talk) 15:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lisachatina 

message: Much of this article seems to be taken directly from a Journal without attribution  (especially the Impact section).  Chovain 04:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I'm trying to clean this up now. -- Where 23:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I couldn't find anything besides that section that is a copyvio. Thus, I'm removing it from the Possible copyright violations category. -- Where 23:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyright Violation?

message: "Adult size is reached in about four months, but growth may continue slowly beyond this up to at least one and a half years."
umm isn't "up to at least" two conflicting statements, as upto implies a max life, and at least implies a minimum. Something worded a little better and perhaps giving and average and estimated max lifetime would be nice.Dabigdeez 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Life Cycle 

message: http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/rarespecies/a/pestsGALs.htm claims they are illegal in the US.  It's a terrible reference, I know, but better than nothing.  I didn't want to completely revert the previous user's edit because it contained some extra info that looked legit. Chovain 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are considered a plant pest and cannot be kept or imported without license.Edwbaker 23:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegal in US 

message: The article should include some information related with the human usage. Yes, it is consumed as food, but it is dangerous, because of parasites. The dogs die if they eat the snail. But human could also die. This is not explicitly said.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.207.100.126 (talk) 18:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Copying from a copyrighted source without any attribution is an infringement at best and outright plagiarism at worst. I have removed those sections that looked most violatory. 68.39.174.238 13:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disease 

message: "[...] the larger individual [acts] as a female. This is due to the comparative resource investment associated with the different genders".
I don't get it. Is the link between the two facts supposed to be evident? I assume it is the female role that implies the largest resource investment - so shouldn't the strongest individual be able to decline it?
Actually, both of them can decline, they have no devices for raping each other :). It seems to me, but I'm not sure, that the smaller individual already considers zirself big enough to f*ck, but not big enough to lay eggs, so zie doesn't allow to be penetrated by the big guy, even if the big one is already interested in both ways of sex :). (I would also appreciate more professional explanation) 140.129.151.35 13:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender related resource investment?

message: As with humans, left and right "handedness" is observed in the direction of coiling of the shell
Maybe I've been hanging out in the wrong circles, but I've yet to meet a human with a shell that coils in either direction. :)  I assume this sentence is relating humans preference for using one hand over the other, to the direction that AFs shells coil, but these things seem to me to be completely unrelated.
Is this a completely random comparison?  If so, I'd like to drop the "as with humans" part.
Or, is there actually some common mechanism that relates the two phenomenon?  If so, that is actually very interesting - but please can we mention what it is that relates the two? 82.46.105.121 16:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: snideness noted and article fixed... :-) -- Nashville Monkey 14:06, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Shell Coiling

message: I think that texts at iss.org  is not public domain.
because there is nothing about public domain in disclaimer --Snek01 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you are correct, Snek01. Further, I see what I believe is quite a bit of language taken directly from Mead's book on these snails. I am not sure what the proper procedure is, now, to save the article from being entirely deleted for copyright problems. That's what I now intend to check. Tim Ross·talk 19:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I just got a go-ahead from Anthøny to edit the main article in spite of the tag's restriction. That's what I will do now, working on your issue first, and then the parts taken straight from Mead. Feel free to jump in and help! Tim Ross·talk 20:54, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Just as I feared. Entire sentences have been inserted from Mead's book by User:140.129.151.35. I will have to revert back to the version of Oct. 24 just to get rid of those, which will, of course, remove some other bits and pieces. I have no time to do that right now, but will handle it tomorrow (Jan 4, 2008) unless some other editor makes the needed changes before then. Tim Ross·talk 22:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

text: As far as I can tell, all is now well with the article. All copyright problems that I could detect have been removed, the minor modifications that were lost by that operation have been restored, and the copyvio tag is no longer there (but not by my action). Tim Ross·talk 16:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio 

message: Another good image: http://www.hear.org/starr/hiplants/images/600max/html/starr_061114_9899_chenopodium_oahuense.htm --Snek01 (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  image 

message: :I've never done this before so I will apologise before anyone complains, but the picture of the eggs on an australian 5 cent piece (the coin with the echidna and the "5")implies that it had also spread to Australia, so I guess could someone provide a source of something for further research?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.197.5 (talk) 15:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to wikipedia! You did everything just right. Yes, Lissachatina fulica has been established in the northeast of Australia (out towards Darwin) since at least WWII, when the snail hitchhiked its way around the Pacific on war materiel. If you feel that there should be a specific mention of Australia in the section on "global range", then by all means please feel free to add it. Aderksen (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  possible spread to Australia 

message: They are active at night and spend the day buried underground.
I think they are just as active in the day.
In fact how did all those pictures get taken of them then?
Jidanni (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  They are active at night and spend the day buried underground 

message: WoRMS/Molluscabase currently accept this as Achatina fulica, though I see just in 2016 it was moved from that name here, to Lissachatina fulica. Which is currently correct? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 19:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Lissachatina'' vs. ''Achatina'' 

message: Hi all, I am a university student who has decided to work on this page for a class project. Over the course of the next month I will be slowly adding some edits in hopes of improving the page. I intend to improve parts of the ecology section with more accurate, up to date, and well sources information, as well as possibly adding a subsection to "As an Invasive Species" on different control methods that have been implemented to stop their spread as an invasive species. I am open to any and all suggestions on my edits, thanks! DevilsHolePupfishFanatic (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Edits