Talk:Tuatara

message: Does the tuatara have a voice or any sound producing organs?
:They do make sounds, but have no eardrums. See the Berlin Zoo reference. pschemp | talk 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do they produce sound? 

message: From Classification:
:Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha. Its origin probably lies close to the split between the Lepidosauromorpha and the Archosauromorpha, making it the closest living thing we can find to a "proto-reptile". 
#Saying it is the 'only survivor' is nonsensical considering the Lepidosauria also includes snakes and lizards (numerous species).
#No extant reptile is any more like a "proto-reptile" than any other, they have all evolved their own distinctions in different ways, the Tuatara just as much as any (as in e.g. its temperature tolerance cited in the article). - MPF 10:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusing text

message: This article needs a table showing which of the tuatara's features are believed to be the ancestral within which taxonomic group, e.g.
Uncinate process	Diapsids
Gastric ribs    	Diapsids
Parietal eye    	Vertebrates
Samsara contrib talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table needed 

message: :The tuatara's limbs are well-muscled, have sharp claws and partially webbed feet, and it can swim well. The tuatara usually doesn't chase its prey; instead it just sits and waits until a suitable prey passes by.
:The tuatara has no external copulatory organs, and is like caecilians and most birds in transferring the sperm by partially extruding the rear part of its cloaca. It is still not clear if the tuatara evolved from reptiles which never had a penis from the start or if the ancestor of the Lepidosauria lost it at some point during evolution.
Samsara contrib talk 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed sentences

message: I just took a quick look over the article.  I think that there's good information here, but think that the overall organization and flow need work.  Flow/organization issues are common on Wikipedia, but I wonder if taxon-based articles shouldn't adopt some standard organizational scheme.  WikiSpecies has an outline they suggest (or require?) that might be helpful (or not, I don't really remember).  Here's my specific issues:
# I don't think the intro is adequate.  I think it would be important to describe them as lizard-like, and mention that there are only two species.  Maybe that they're a "living fossil?"  I'd make these specific comments myself, but think that the intro needs work beyond this.
# I'm not sure that the Taxonomy section should go first.  For a general reader, the general description might be more interesting than the taxonomy to start off with.  While I like the Taxonomy section, I'm concerned jumping right into the differences between Lepidosauromorpha and Archosauromorpha might scare away those without a background in zoology.  I suggest starting with the general description then going into natural history (reproduction and ecology).
# I have serious questions about the factual accuracy of the "third eye" buisiness.  Parietal eyes are in no way "famous."  I'm not sure that the parietal eye is actually a vestigial real eye; this needs a reference.  The parietal eye is NOT similar to a real eye, as it is difficult to even notice (and then only noticable in hatchlings???).  This whole section needs a thorough fact check, and maybe an image, if available.  I would NOT suggest the parietal eye article as a source, as the information content here seems even less reliable.
# I think there could be some more information on general natural history.  Tuataras live in close assocaition with seabirds, inhabiting seabird burrows (and often eating their eggs and chicks).  There's little info on diet (and what there is is in the "skull" section.)  And tuataras can live 50+ years.  That's pretty cool and worth mentioning.
# I would suggest "Natural history" instead of "Ecology and behavior", and I think Reproduction could be a sub-section of this section.
Hope that my comments are helpful and constructive.  It's looking good so far, good luck!Pstevendactylus 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General comments and suggestions

message: The physical description section of this article is far too complicated. I have tried to simplify it, but gave up after a while as I didn't understand a lot of it myself. Mostly, it is in the sensory organs and spine and ribs section, but the skull also had something I didn't like (the skull problems have inline comments). --liquidGhoul 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the level of detail presented goes a bit beyond what is needed for an encyclopedia article.--Peta 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the info which seperates them from the rest of the reptiles is relevant, it just needs to be better expressed. Probably by removing some of it. --liquidGhoul 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an idea at one stage of having a table or even phylogram showing which features are shared with which groups, and which are unique. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Scientific jargon

message: Is that correct? There was such a thing 111 years ago? Is it possible that 1895 was a typo and that 1995 was meant? Hi There 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems unlikely since Lutz says that S. punctatus was removed from the list in 1996, i.e. downgraded to low risk/least concern. S. guntheri is vulnerable. However, the IUCN was founded in 1948. S. guntheri was apparently first listed as endangered by one Groombridge in 1994 , but S. punctatus was considered "rare" by the same author in 1982. So either Groombridge chose not to assess S. guntheri in 1982, or did not recognise it as a separate species. While it's clear that S. guntheri was first described as a separate species by Buller in 1877, I'm not sure whether this is equivalent with it being officially recognised. I am not familiar with the processes involved, if any. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Classified as endangered since... 1895?

message: This is a really troublesome passage:
:[Albert Günther] proposed the order Rhynchocephalia (meaning "beak head") for the tuatara and its fossil relatives.
:During the years since the inception of the Rhynchocephalia, many disparately related species have been added to this order. This has resulted in turning the rhynchocephalia into what taxonomists call a "wastebin taxon". Sphenodontia was proposed by Williston in 1925. Now, most authors prefer to use the more inclusive order name of Sphenodontia for the tuatara and its closest living relatives.
So the way I read this is, the order Rhynchocephalia became a wastebin taxon into which putatively close extinct relatives of the tuatara were thrown. Williston was dissatisfied with the wastebin taxon and made a new taxonomic order, Sphenodontia. However, that would mean that Sphenodontia are a more exclusive order, rather than inclusive, as the text suggests. However, it may also be possible that the two orders over time came to be synonymously used, from my reading between the lines in the reptile encyclopaedia reference. We really need some more evidence (i.e. dead trees) to resolve this passage. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that most modern taxonomists either use one or the other to refer to the order. However, a few (outdated?) sources found via quick Google search seem to use Rhynchcephalia as an order and Sphenodontida as a suborder. For example this site , which cites (Olmo and Odierna, 1982) as its source. Either way, the text should in fact read more exclusive rather than inclusive.Dinoguy2 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but now it's too inclusive. See Sphenodontia which it contradicts. Dysmorodrepanis 00:59, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: 
produces
I would like to see "In:" and "eds." in that sequence, does not currently seem implemented. Anybody know of a template that has this? Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation

message: I've had a bit of a fiddle and the article is progressing nicely, though the last section on Etymology is a bit stubby..several other FAs such as the various cetaceans Blue Whale, Humpback Whale and now Common Raven sport a naming/taxonomy section which sits between the lead and the description. I would have thought this whole section could fit into the front of taxonomy - it sort of sits like a trivia section at the present. cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 14:09, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style

message: This is just so we know who to thank when this article gets nominated for FA. Feel free to add any significant contributors I may have missed (add your additions below my signature, and sign, thanks). I compiled this from memory and edit counts.
*User:Rhynchosaur, who may also be responsible for various anonymous edits that occurred at the same time:  
*User:Robinh, 
User:Tavilis, 
User:Avenue, and User:Gadfium who must have been watching this article for some time, and kept adding things to it.
*User:Donarreiskoffer
*User:PDH
*User:LiquidGhoul
*User:Bibliomaniac15
*User:Dinoguy2
*User:Pschemp
I'm probably in there somewhere, too.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:29, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main contributors so far 

message: Why does this article state: "The tuatara has been classified as an endangered species since 1895," while the taxobox indicates it is listed as "vulnerable", not "endangered"? Additionally, there are two extant Tuatara species, so it would not be an endangered species. This mistake (referring to the two species as a species) occurs throughout the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:40, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the taxonomy is actually a bit of a sticky point. One of the subspecies does not have a name, for example. That's not because we don't know the name, it actually doesn't seem to have one (at least as per the 1990 paper by Daugherty et al.) I also somewhat regret that we actually have an article for *one* of the species (and the rarer one at that!) - here is an example photograph: http://www.flickr.com/photos/scruffy/433185414/  I think for the moment, the best thing is to keep most of the information in this article, maybe even merge back the stubby, pictureless Brothers Island tuatara. As for the inconsistencies in the text, I'll look into it. Thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with accuracy?

message: thumb|right|"Current" distribution of tuatara (in black). Dots may represent up to five islands.
I like the idea of this map, but it seems a bit outdated to me. In particular, I think readers in Auckland and Wellington would appreciate one that shows tuatara live on Tiritiri Matangi and Matiu/Somes Island. Does anyone know of other current habitats that aren't listed in DoC's Recovery Plan (Appendix 1, pp 29-36)? -- Avenue 02:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Matiu/Somes Island is shown on p. 10. Where is Karori, though? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Karori is a suburb of Wellington, so we wouldn't need to show Matiu/Somes as a separate dot. -- Avenue 02:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Now that I look more closely, the coastline around Wellington looks odd too. I know it's prone to earthquakes, but ... -- Avenue 02:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had to remove the cities and city names to fit in the islands. If you have a clean map, please upload it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Done. Separa 15:09, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map seems outdated 

message: Does anyone have ready access to this paper? It seems like it might help flesh out the Cultural significance section, and connect it with the rest of our article.  -- Avenue 00:39, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find. I may have access to it. I'll check later. Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent paper on Maori knowledge 

message: Can anyone get access to
FREEMAN AB, FREEMAN AND. 1995. REDISCOVERY OF AN ORIGINAL TYPE SPECIMEN OF SPHENODON-GUNTHERI BULLER IN THE CANTERBURY-MUSEUM, NEW-ZEALAND. NEW ZEALAND JOURNAL OF ZOOLOGY 22 (3): 357-359 SEP 1995 
Thanks,
Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had no trouble downloading it from here. -- Avenue 15:39, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent, thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:40, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for paper 

message: Since I'm merging that article, and the reference wasn't used to add anything that isn't already present in this article, I'll quote it here:
"New Zealand Frogs and reptiles", Brian Gill and Tony Whitaker, David Bateman publishing, 1998
If anyone has that reference, obviously you're welcome to contribute! The original contributor, User:Kotare, did not reply to my query about it, although (s)he has been online. Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the second sentence is definitely supported by the same reference ( pages 22, 23, 24). Hope that helps. And yeah sorry for the delay and I know I've been on a bit but trust me there are (personal) reasons.. it wasn't just laziness. Cheers Kotare 00:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was good of you to reply. I added it to the article. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference used in Brothers Island article 

message: Don't have time to look this up myself at the moment, but I noticed both authorities for the living species in the taxobox are given in parenthesis. This means that they have been re-named or re-classified since original description, but this is not explained in the text (I've found references to S. punctatum rather than S. punctatus, maybe it has to do with this issue?). Anyway, if anybody has refs for a more detailed taxonomic history, it might help. Dinoguy2 02:51, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll have to look into that yourself if you want more detail included. I don't think that a taxonomic history is really required for the article to be comprehensive, and to be honest, I won't be working on that. I feel I've put enough effort into pulling the rest of the article together. You have to stop somewhere, you know? Having said that, if you want to include more information about that, great! Two pointers I can think of: 1) Could the old genus name Hatteria be anything to do with it? 2) You could check the edit history for who originally contributed that information, and determine if they knew what they were doing when they placed the parentheses. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomic history? 

message: User:ArthurWeasley has been kind enough to fashion a drawing of a tuatara skull for us.
Image:Tuatara_skull.png
I believe he would take some suggestions if there are any. Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:29, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gosh, it's great! I don't know if it's possible to show the interesting alignment of teeth in a drawing like this, I looked at the source pictures and they didn't show it either. We've got a picture of a tuatara with flesh showing the overbite, so I would think that is sufficient. Great work and *much* thanks to Arthur. That makes me love wikipedians. pschemp | talk 16:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd thought of the possibility of getting an illustration of the dentition, but I don't have a good model for that. Have you seen anything that could be used? Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull drawing 

message: If a period piece is ever needed:
Spamsara 15:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image material 

message: I've uploaded a higher res map of NZ as suggested by Avenue: :Image:Nz large simple downsampled.gif Separa 18:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More precise map uploaded 

message: Removed the following:
*
*
*
*
Separa 11:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link dump 

message: Might be interesting:
:A coastwatcher of a different sort was Ross Webber, who lived alone from 1957 to 2005 on his 38-hectare Puangiangi Island, one of the three Rangitoto Islands off north-east D’Urville. Rarely without his pair of finger-worn binoculars, his reporting resulted in the thwarting of several attempts to steal tuatara off Stephens Island.
Source: http://www.historic.org.nz/magazinefeatures/2006Winter/2006_Winter_Discovering%20D'Urville.htm
Also this bit from the same source, although it sounds ethically questionable in terms of Maori culture and animal rights as we see them today:
: During World War I, a reluctant conscript hid out at what is now called Deserter Bay, a most secluded spot off East Arm. After World War II, it was revealed the Japanese had drawn up plans to use Port Hardy as its southern naval base. A quiet place maybe, but never short on intrique.
:New Zealand military experts early identified Cook Strait as being the likely invasion gateway. Starting in 1942, a radar station was built in great secrecy upon Stephens Island. Barracks were constructed, on the long floor of which tuatara were raced. Locals could not help but notice the daily semaphore lights twinkling towards Patuki. Coastwatchers set up in isolated bays. Local members of the Women’s Division of Federated Farmers made sure they stayed well fed.
82.71.48.158 (talk) 16:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ross Webber 

message: *Wright, Kevin DVM. 1994. "Tuataras." Vol.2, No.1. Reptiles magazine. Fancy Publications. Irvine, California.
Samsara (talk • contribs) 08:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly useful 

message: Anyone know where they are located besides New Zealand?  I found one in Africa on a trip, in Nigera.  I wonder if this is possible?   User: Demonteenager
:If you mean you found it in the wild, you're almost certainly mistaken. They haven't been introduced to any other country, and Nigeria is especially unlikely since tuatara are adapted to a mild climate (temperatures over 28°C are generally fatal to them). -- Avenue (talk) 21:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: To discuss the superficial similarity to various lizards is still on the todo list. 87.165.243.64 (talk) 14:34, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location 

message: Please don't move the pageDemonteenager>   
TheLightElf (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't move the page. 

message: What happened to the newer picture on it?  I thought it was a better shot then the current one.  IF anyone has it...please put it back up there.  Anyoe else aggre?TheLightElf (talk) 12:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Other Picture?

message: New Scientist released an article about a record speed of evolution found in the tuatara.  Since I don't know as much about the animal, I'll leave it up to you guys if you want to put something on the page about it.Xe7al (talk) 00:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Record Speed In Evolution 

message: I believe the idea was that the diagram would be labelled using the other one as a template, rather than replacing the high quality complete version with a more cruddy attempt that is missing the lower jaw, i.e. the unique dentition. It shouldn't take too much time to do this. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you need to go back to the original, it's here. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 23:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what you mean by using a template. Templates and images are two different things. Another image could be uploaded. bibliomaniac15 00:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You use the labels on the flawed version to make labels for the good version. 87.165.224.137 (talk) 10:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skull diagram - use complete version please 

message: I'm seriously concerned about your editing, especially when you put the coin image back in....note the discussion about why it can't be in there is the first thing on this talk page. Please familiarize yourself with the history of this article before you edit more.  I'm not convinced that your content changes are helpful. (though most of the formatting ones are fine) But then again you delinked a red link for the southland museum and art gallery when we had an article on WP for it already under a different capitalization...its pretty obvious you didn't make a thorough effort check to see if we did. Please be more careful. breathe | inhale 17:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the map to the conservation section, as it adds significantly to the encyclopaedic value of the section. I've not modified the map at the top, but I'll put it to the masses that a lot of people may find it helpful to know where New Zealand is. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unwashed mass that I am, I prefer to know where they are on a world map. Maybe one that is focused on Australia and the pacific would work so people would have a good point of reference, yet the dot wouldn't be "so small"(to address that complaint). breathe | inhale 20:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about the coin image. I did not check the copyright status. bibliomaniac15 21:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it would be best if I stayed away from the article. I don't feel like I'm doing my best with this, since this is an unfamiliar article to me. I'll still watch it and copyedit when needed, but I'll withdraw from working around for now. bibliomaniac15 22:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work on the ref formatting btw. That's really helpful. breathe | inhale 06:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliomaniac 

message: apparently a 111-year-old male just became a father.--Jrm2007 (talk) 06:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifespan: very long indeed 

message: I'm tempted to restore  as a reference in the image caption, but tuatara are not dinosaurs, and it's also the article that has the unverified 200-year claim, so I'm now thinking I'll leave it out unless others can point to some benefit. (Meanwhile, it seems CNN have fixed the spelling mistake, assuming it was ever there.) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk; todo) 18:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  111-yo father reference 

message: I've got a couple of photos I took last year when visiting NZ. 
The first one is of a display case that doesn't really work as a photo, but has some information on it that might be useful.  They're not great (bad lighting), but feel free to put them in if they fit. KeresH (talk) 07:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you tag them into this category, they will magically take care of themselves. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 19:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, I can categorize them as "Sphenodontidae" (and will shortly when the Commons orphan feature is not coming up as SNAFU).  Or, I could have just plunked them into the main article and let others clean up "the mess".  Which is why I brought them here - to the discussion page, to give the people who are most active in the Tuatara article a "heads up" that I've just added some images that may or may not help with the main article (although someone should write something about the jaw being made up of serrated bone and not actual teeth - which is what it reads in the display photo).  What I didn't expect was a flip reply.  If snark was not your intention, my appologies.  If it was, you might reconsider your tone of address to other people who are just trying to (imperfectly) contribute to the wiki and may not appreciate your subtle put downs.KeresH (talk) 22:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: English is not the only language with a Wikipedia. If you put images in the correct Commons category, people of other tongues can find them, too. Thanks for your understanding. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 00:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I'm aware that English is not the only language, in Wikipedia and in the world in general.  And yes, I do try to categorize my work whenever I can.  I usually only have a brief time to upload my images, so there if often a time gap between my uploading them and my searching for their proper categories (and, the "Orphan" function if frequently not working - as was the case earlier).  Obviously, you and I have a different sense of what constitutes proper "netiquette" - my version apparently is much less reliant on the use of gibes. Perhaps we can leave it at that.KeresH (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're upset because I said "magically"? What's wrong with magic? :) Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 08:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: English is a very nuanced language (and thus easy to misinterpret).  As you rightly pointed out, not everyone here speaks it, or if they do speak it, understand it as a native user might.  Therefore, I'd suggest a straight-forward use of it, in which potential double meanings and what might be construed as flippant remarks are best avoided. KeresH (talk) 22:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall submit my next comments to you for prior review. Hope you don't mind the extra work. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm totally with KeresH on this one. Your attitude is arrogant, condescending and just plain annoying. He responded very politely and reasonably and you responded with another snide jab. It reflects poorly on you. People shouldn't have to put up with this sort of crap on wikipedia and I do hope you will learn from the experience and be mature and polite in the future. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_be_a_dick Kotare (talk) 06:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos from Southland Museum and Art Gallery 

message: Mokele, your new intro looks okay, but is it still consistent with the reference that follows? If not, remove it and preferably replace it with your own reference. Also, don't forget the taxobox. --Jwinius (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the reference, but I'd prefer not to mess with the taxobox myself - I'm not good at the markup stuff, and invariably screw something up. Mokele (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've made the necessary changes. I also removed your ITIS reference, since it's use is really limited to the pages for Reptilia (Reptile) and Rhynchocephalia (Sphenodontia -- another article that now requires some modification) as per the recent WP:AAR taxonomic decision. --Jwinius (talk) 23:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

text: That would be a Bot requests. Sounds like a good idea, except that there might be an even better solution. Actually, this was something Papa Lima Whiskey mentioned: use a nested template (or templates) within the taxobox for the higher level taxonomy (or taxonomies) used in WP:AAR so that the next time we feel like making any changes to the article templates, we will only have to do this in one place once. This can be very useful because, even if we don't ever again want change Reptilia back to Sauropsida, for example, we can use it to change stuff like Reptilia to Reptilia. Or -- although I don't yet know if this can be done -- if it's possible to use a single nested template to define more than one taxon within the taxobox, then we would also be able to use it to add or remove higher taxons as we see fit! So, these options should be looked into first. --Jwinius (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: After the vote

message: What exactly does this mean? Did BBC news also get the image from flickr?- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose you mean this article and this image. The image is licensed as attribution only, which allows us to use it. I don't see BBC attributing the picture though. The media is not very good at grasping the concept of free licenses. bibliomaniac15 00:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually moving the mouse over the BBC image I see author attribution. But you've right to suggest in the caption would be better. XLerate (talk) 00:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, it's in the image properties. bibliomaniac15 02:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image also on BBC news [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7850975.stm] 

message: How long can Tuataras get?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.43.15.193 (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  How long can Tuataras get? 

message: In the intro to the article it should be mentioned the morphology behind their classification separately from other diapsids as well as a SHORT etymology of the name. Other anatomical features and extant information such as During routine maintenance work at Karori Sanctuary etc should be shunted down to it's proper section in the article. Intro should not be larger than other sections in the article... 99.236.221.124 (talk) 07:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: "The tuatara has been protected by law since 1895[9][10] (the second species,"
I believe this should have been 1985 ??????
Jimbellofbelmont (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you believe that? 1895 is correct. I don't know the specific Act involved, but a relevant quote from Towns et al (2001) is: "When its present recovery plan was complete, tuatara had already received the benefits of almost 100 years of strict protection. However, the decline in populations of tuatara between 1895 and 1984 clearly demonstrated that protection without identification and resolution of agents of decline (Caughley, 1994) can result in a sinking lid for the species (Daugherty et al, 1992)." --Avenue (talk) 23:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The tuatara has been protected by law since 1895 

message: Amandajm (talk) 02:55, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, thanks. Leadwind (talk) 03:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this useful?

message: can you please add a pic of the Brothers Island Tuatara please.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.225.116 (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers island tuatara 

message: 1. Is there documentation on the process in which the rats were eradicated? 2. While they are of course currently protected, is there any pet-store trade going on for these animals?  Perhaps bred in captivity? HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:52, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  requesting details 

message: S. guntheri was sunk back into S. punctatus back in 2010. Two of the authors of the 2010 paper were on the orig 1990 paper which separated them; abstract - http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10592-009-9952-7 . 203.158.40.95 (talk) 03:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is certainly a bit confusing with the two species / one species thing. It looks like from 1990 to 2010 Brothers Island tuataras were considered a distinct species, but now tuataras are all considered to be one species. http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/reptiles-and-frogs/tuatara/ I can see about five parts of the article that would need to be updated to reflect this. If no objections I'll make a few wording changes, I'm reasonably familiar with tuataras, but am not an expert. Bryndlefly (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  One species, not two 

message: "...the family has several characteristics unique among reptiles." These characteristics are not spelled out clearly. Kortoso (talk) 21:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniqueness 

message: The article says, "The tuatara is considered the most unspecialised living amniote; the brain and mode of locomotion resemble those of amphibians and the heart is more primitive than that of any other reptile.[20]" what is it about the tuatara's "locomotion" that resembles an amphibian's? This quote mentions the difference, but I can't find a description of it. Did I miss it? Leadwind (talk) 03:02, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  amphibian-like locomotion? 

message: "Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara."
Is this definitely right?
The Malagasy three-eyed lizard, Chalarodon madagascariensis, has a developed parietal eye that isn't covered by scales (see )
Chalarodon (talk) 14:16, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the issue isn't that the parietal eye is more or less obvious than other reptiles. It is that, unlike other reptiles, the Tuatara has a parietal eye with lens and retina. 'Most developed' would possibly be a better statement than 'most pronounced'.
Dinobass (talk) 23:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Of all extant tetrapods, the parietal eye is most pronounced in the tuatara."? 

message: The species section needs a complete rewrite as it starts with the assertion that there are two extant species, despite earlier mentions in the article that recent work has merged the two previously named "species". The section then concludes by informing the reader of the merger, thus contradicting the rest of the section while agreeing with the previous sections of the article. I imagine that this would be rather confusing for the average reader. I have not looked over the entire article, so there may be other instances of this confusion in other sections as well. --Khajidha (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Species 

message: “The tuatara Sphenodon punctatus has been protected by law since 1895.[11][12] A second species, S. guntheri, was recognised in 1989[6] but since 2009 its use has been discontinued.[13][14]”
The use of what? The species name? The law? The law in relation to the second species? This should be clarified. --X883 (talk) 00:56, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing pronoun 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tuatara. 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/20071114212222/http://nzphoto.tripod.com/animal/tuatara.htm to http://nzphoto.tripod.com/animal/tuatara.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) 19:38, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello! I have a question: There's stated that there are two living forms of Tuatara (formerly considered subspecies) confined to islands, however even the IUCN states that tuataras used to live on mainland New Zealand before it's extirpation. But considering the geographical forms as subspecies, does this means there was a mainland form/subspecies endemic to North and South islands that went extinct by introduced predators (the discovery of a third extinct form could be an important item in this subject) or one of the extant forms is the relict population of the mainland subspecies? Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.170.230.97 (talk) 02:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distribution? 

message: Hi! I've written a page for the tuatara tick, Amblyomma sphenodonti. I'm wondering if a section could be useful here on its tick. There are other diseases too...Markanderson72 (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Parasites and disease

message: the reader should not have to go to the link to find out which of several West Coasts in the world is intended! --142.163.194.149 (talk) 18:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the tuatara is native to New Zealand, that pretty much implies that it's West Coast, New Zealand. bibliomaniac15 06:52, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  on the West Coast 

message: If there are things that make their genome unique from other animals, then by all means, list them. However, it seems like a lot of the information included is overly technical and unnecessary for a basic encyclopedia article. --An anonymous username, not my real name (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most of the "Genomic characteristics" section seems trivial and of questionable relevance 

message: , is Sphenodon diversum considered a synonym (or has it been assigned to another genus)? The article currently mentions it as if it is a distinct species. Plantdrew (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Sphenodon diversum? 

message: There was a recent edit and subsequent removal of a list item in the popular culture section of this article. See here. The comment given by User:Elmidae was "irrelevant". What's the thought there? It seems appropriate for that spot in the article and was cited but I'm hesitant to revert it back in case there was some other reason. Maybe I'm biased on what falls under popular culture. For reference, I'm looking at the page Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content, and that list item seems somewhere between a good example and a poor example. Thoughts? - Procyonidae (talk) 20:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Lots of YMMV regarding inclusion criteria for these sections, as you noticed. We want to document the occurrence of a topic in cultural uses, and at the same time avoid articles turn into this infamous example (which pretty damn nearly was the state years back, before major clean-ups occurred). One of the best tests I have yet seen is checking for directional relevance. Assume Pokemon X is based on species Y and we have articles on both. In that case, that is worth a mention in that Pokemon article because it is relevant to the conception, promotion, illustration of the Pokemon. It is not worth mentioning in the species article because it is (very probably) not relevant to anything ever written about the species. Put another way, it is relevant to note at Donald Duck that he is a duck, but we don't want a list of a hundred cartoon ducks at duck. Same here with tuataras popping up in series, books, or celebrity tattoos. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of popular culture occurrence 

message: The ref in the article: has multiple identifiers in it, but there is a disagreement between them on the publication date. Currently, the article is using the date that Springer via DOI provided, which is July 3, 2009. But the other two links from Griffith via HDL and Semantic Scholar have the date listed as June 1, 2010 or just 2010. Which of these sources is the most reliable here and thus should have the date it provides be in the reference? BhamBoi (talk) 01:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue of the journal was formally published in 2010, probably they put it online in 2009. Use 2010 Dracophyllum 15:04, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Updated it to 2010. BhamBoi (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Journal ref date disagreement 

message: While looking for something else I came across this statement in the Evening Post editorial of 10 May 1870  - one or two specimans (Tuatara) were caught many years ago at Mākara NealeWellington (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tuatara at Makara