Talk:Harriet (tortoise)

message: Shouldn't this tortoise be 155 (1992-2005) years old, instead of the 174 years old as said in the picture?—Reply to David Latapie 17:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, using her conjectural birthdate of November 15, 1830 you get 175 years 220 days... however, one has to wonder that if the Darwin connection doesn't hold water, how well autheticated her age can really be? I do remember her from the news in 1997, though, when it was reported that based on DNA testing she was 167 years old. Question: does anyone know how an organism's age can be determined from its DNA? --Anshelm '77 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meanwhilst, this article linked to from Australia Zoo claims her to have been born in November 1830 making her 175 (I have corrected the article, we may as well go with the owner's claim).  I wonder if the autopsy (assuming there is one, which I'm certain there will be) will give us a better idea?  Either way, she was very, very old!  Zerbey 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age 

message: Harriet (14 November 1830 - 23 June 2006) was a Galápagos tortoise (Geochelone elephantopus porteri) who had an estimated age of 175 years at the time of her death in Australia
Query:  If we can state her birth date with such precision, why are we saying "estimated age of 175 years"?  They can't both be right.  --  JackofOz (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Related issue

message: So where is she from, a by whom was she found? How did she end up in Brisbane? - Matthew238 03:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a story about her: 
http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/11/15/oldest-tortoise20051115.html
Also, here's a story on a supposedly 250 year old tortoise:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/23/tortoise-060323.html
And to top it off, searching Wikipedia by inserting Addwaitya into the search field on the left, seems to make the search engine here completely choke!!!  Charlie Richmond 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin 

message: I have removed the sentence regarding the use of "DNA testing" to determine age.  That is not something that DNA testing can be used to do without a huge amount of work involving the rates of mutation within a species, knowledge of diet, personal radiation exposure history (i.e. what altitude the individual lived at over the course of their lifetime; exposure to rocks producing significant amounts of radon, etc.).  I very much doubt such information exists with regard to tortises, particularly Harriet.  It may be possible to determine age using either protein racemization testing or perhaps C14 dating but those generally require the destruction of samples (such as teeth or perhaps shell) formed during the earliest periods of animal growth.  Unless a specific reference is found with clear documentation as to the method(s) used, their error range(s), etc. the statement is either highly misleading or completely false.  DNA testing can be used to determine population sub-groups so that part of the information from the BBC source may be correct.  Someone needs to contact the zoo and get more precise data with respect to the history of Harriet and any *real* scientific research which has been done with her.
:Hi, Robert Bradbury (I'm assuming that's you from the article history)
:I'll have to disagree with that, as The Times Online had this to say:
:What is not in doubt is Harriet’s age. The US research on tortoise DNA “baselines” showed big changes in tortoise DNA on Santa Cruz island after a terrible cull there. Harriet’s DNA predates the cull, making her at least 170.
:So I guess they compared her DNA with those of tortoises from different time periods, which would not necessitate measuring rates of mutations, c14, etc.
:Then again, the article also said that she is the "oldest creature currently walking the planet," which was not true, since I am looking at the newest Time Magazine right in front of me, which says :that Addwaitya, age 250, recently died. JianLi 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have seached the scientific literaure, and beyond the claim i the popular press, there is no information available. I have removed the info based on WP:RS and WP:V, as this is clearly not meeting those criteria. Based on my own klnowledge of molecular genetics, it is not an easy thing to determine it was of a certain age. Kim van der Linde it's a girl 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: DNA Testing

message: ABC Newsradio is using this as a source for Harriet the tortoise. . Well done to all involved. Capitalistroadster 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ABC Newsradio

message: First up I want to point out that a very intensive DNA survey was done on Harriet, I know this I was involved in it and I published it. However the person above is correct an exact age cannot be determined from a DNA annalysis and I, nor anyone else, ever claimed it could be in the scientific papers on her. What was shown in a study of over 900 tortoises looking at sub populations, populations and subspecies was that was that harriet was actually unable to be matched to any known population of galapagos tortoises. On re-annalysis it was found she was a G.n.porteri however that she was a minimum (and thats all we said minimum) of two generations older than any other tortoise of her subspecies examined. The oldest approximately aged tortoises were two that were caught as adults in 1907, hence the minimum 2 generations takes her back to about 1860. Thats as far as DNA testing can take us and all that was ever claimed, whats been said in newspapers and books is not correct, myself and several other people have been seriously misquoted and taken out of context.
Ok the date of birth being Nov, 1830 comes from me from my 1995 paper on Harriet. How did I get her age, well from a combination of factors, basically historical evidence, the results of the dna could be used to rule out a lot of possibilities (eg she had been recently smuggled in or something) and a lot of digging through thousands of records. Basically she had to have been alive by 1860, this we knew. So how could she have become a resident of Brisbane. There were actually only 2 imports of Galapagos tortoises prior to 1900 in Australia, one a shipment of 2, the other a shipment of 3. The 2 were at a hospital in Sydney and both specimens are now actually in the British Museum, so they are accounted for. The other shipment of three was by John Clements Wickham, First Leiutenant of the Beagle, under FitzRoy. Where did Wickham get 3 Galapagos tortoises in 1841 when he arrived in Australia? Incidently 2 of these 3 tortoises are accounted for. Harriet is one, Tom another is in the Queensland Museum after dying in 1942. Point to note that Darwin wrote a letter to Huxley in 1860 telling him he should talk to Wickham about the last living Galaps from the 1835 expedition as he had them and that Wickham had just moved back from Australia to Paris. He left the tortoises in the care of the Botanic Gardens as was written on the carapace of Tom in the spirit collection of the Queensland Museum. I actually think the evidence that harriet was collected by Darwin was pretty strong and I have yet to see it refuted. Or any viable alternative come up with.
The birthdate of Nov, 1830 is based solely on FitzRoys measurements of the tortoises in 1835, they were 11 inches in length on average so I averaged out that they were about 5 years old in 1835, as they hatch in November there is her birthdate. The exact day was randomly picked from the month of November for no other reason than they could have a day to wish her a happy birthday, I had nothing to do with that detail. Her age is accurate based on evidence to within 2 years. I would suggest that if people wish to site sources of information try going to the literature rather than the newspapers.
In the 1995 paper we published a Timeline for Harriet, it was republished by Reptilia Magazine later that year and again in 1997. All authored by Steve and Terri Irwin and myself.
Based on the stuff I have seen in the Media in the 11 years since I published the findings on Harriet, and in several books I could bore people for ages. But this is just to address a couple of points. Yes I am happy to be questioned on this. Cheers. Faendalimas 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Clarifications

message: So who is the oldest tortoise now? --Thenickdude 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's next? 

message: I have rewritten the article on Harriet adding much of the information that is contained in the original peer reviewed papers on Harriet, other data from my own research notes, including some material that has come to light more recently.
There were a number of points in the article that were incorrect, or at best innacurate. They were also misleading. I brought some of this up in the discussion here. I felt the article should be accurate. I am fine with it being argued against and even refuted, but this should be based on facts not opinions.
Scott Thomson.. Faendalimas 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I felt this needed to be rewritten. 

message: I am a little curious about some of the edits that have been done. I am fine with the typos etc, of course they had to be corrected.
However I would like to know why the timeline was changed when it was cited exactly from a published source. The previous timeline someone removed because it was felt not to be appropriate so this time I put one in that was on public record, and authored by myself. I quoted it exactly except for the last three lines and I pointed out I had added them. What this edit has done is actually make it an innacurate citation. I thought accuracy was an issue for any encyclopedia.
The second one is that my comment at the bottom was removed. Iwould appreciate knowing why that was removed also. If there is a good reason fine I will accept it. But I would like to know. Faendalimas 04:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The artilcle is much longer now, which is good, but maybe it could do with some headings to break it up. - Matthew238 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the edits 

message: Regarding the statement that "Darwin ... sent a letter to Huxley in 1860 informing him that he should speak with Wickham in Paris about the last of the tortoises from the 1835 expedition as he had them."
Can anyone tell me where this letter can be found? If the person who wrote the above knows the actual date, that would help to find the letter in the Darwin Correspondence Project at Cambridge. Or maybe it's somewhere else???
Thanks, --John Woram 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detective Work 

message: Interesting article, but the style of "it is in doubt that Harriet came with Darwin" in the first line and the collection of evidence in the following paragraphs isn't really encyclopedic, is it? If the evidence is as strong as shown here, shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to something along "despite some doubts (see below), it is believed that Harriet came with Darwin"? -- 132.230.104.57 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: This article states that Harriet was the second oldest tortoise after Tu'i Malila. What about Adwaita, who is thought to be older than both? Shouldn't he be mentioned in some way? -- Imladros 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no conclusive proof of her age as yet, once the carbon dating is completed we will have a clearer picture. Zerbey 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed without evidence Adwaita is heresay only. When and if the evidence comes in it can be incorporated. Faendalimas 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adwaita 

message: No matter what you want to believe of her history there is no way she was born on James Island that is the wrong sub-species. She was born on Santa Cruz (Indefatigable). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faendalimas (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the Island of Birth back.. 

message: Note that G. e. porteri (the Santa Cruz subspecies) appears to be a junior synonym for G. e. nigrita, as found on the subspecies list on the Galápagos tortoise article. The Reptile Database has it as Chelonoidis nigra nigrita (Duméril & Bibron 1835). --Anshelm '77 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subspecies 

message: Harriet was not a TURTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!! Who the HECK WROTE THAT?!?!?!?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.134.230 (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I gather that the term "turtle" is used for all testudines in American English. Since the body of the article uses "tortoise" I've moved the page. Hut 8.5 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harriet the TORTOISE 

message: The Guardian - Henry Nicholls - Celebrity pet: the rediscovery of Charles Darwin’s long-lost Galapagos tortoise, 12 February 2014.       ←   ZScarpia   22:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "James", 1834-1837.