Talk:Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish

message: This animal is referred to as The Tasmanian giant freshwater lobster in all of the references used here and in all the literature that I have seen that uses common names.  I have been involved in freshwater conservation for about 20 years and I have always known this species by that name and I have never heard it referred to as a crayfish except when being referred to collectively together with other Australian freshwater crayfish.  It would seem to me that unless there are valid objections I will seek to have the article moved to ...lobster. - Nick Thorne talk 07:26, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title 

message: No consensus to move. (Though, if the two participants can agree on a name, go ahead and move it!) --regentspark (comment) 13:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Tasmanian giant freshwater crayfish →  – This animal is usually referred to ...lobster rather than ...crayfish.  As a redirect currently exists at the target name, reuqest this article be moved over the top of the redirect and this title become a redirect.
A sample of typical references supporting the proposed name include:
* 
* 
* 
* 
Nick Thorne talk 09:05, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the input. No question that this animal is a member of the crayfish family as you quite rightly say.  However, a family name is, by definition, a collective name and one I agree would always apply when speaking about the species collectively with other members of the group.  However, making an exception for this species' name is, in my opinion, not unreasonable given that it is so much bigger than any other species in the group.  I suspect that the name lobster became associated with this species specifically because of its size, but of course that is OR.  My association with the species is indirect and mostly because of my association with scientists who work in freshwater ecology and the name crayfish struck me as unusual for this species.  In the end, this is not a die in the ditch issue and I will go with the consensus here.  However, I think that in biological articles Wikipedia gains credibility by being seen to be speaking with an educated voice, which would suggest giving preference to the scholarly results over the popular ones. - Nick Thorne talk 07:06, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking about the size as well. It seems that it is considered a "giant" crayfish, and thus likely to be considered a lobster. But is it particularly gigantic for a lobster? Probably not. In case of confusion, I'm happy to prefer a scholarly name, but in that case I wonder if Astacopsis gouldi might not be the best choice. WP:NCFAUNA suggests appealing to "international zoological nomenclature authorities" before doing that. --BDD (talk) 16:14, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually these animals have been recorded at over 5 kg (11 lb) and 80 cm (31 in) long, which is pretty large for any lobster. - Nick Thorne talk 21:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: I have removed the following statement from the intro "The specific epithet gouldi commemorates the naturalist John Gould." because no citation was provided for this claim and a search for more details only brings up websites which reference back to this Wikipedia page. Instead, I found an ABC article by the Tasmanian Museum and Art gallery which suggests the specific name is actually assigned in honor of William Buelow Gould in 1845.
Regards,  NeoGeneric 💬  11:15, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  About the specific name - ''gouldi'' 

message: Two generic River pictures. A watercolor sketch that is more artistic than scientific. And a massive oversized sculpture. Yet no images of the actual animal. Seems like we could use one for the article. oknazevad (talk) 02:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph of the actual animal?