Talk:Varanus salvadorii

message: Actually the greatest verified length for this species is 244 cm (8 ft), just over half of the claimed 475 cm. --Anshelm '77 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope.  Honestly, I suspect they can get larger, but because they're rare, secretive, not hunted extensively, and not widely kept in captivity, we've got a pretty low sample of individuals.  But they're becoming more common in captivity, and even breeding once in a while, so I suspect in 20 years or so we'll have a much better idea as to what's "normal" and what's "maximum".  Until then, we just have to wait (because I'm sure not suicidal enough to keep one myself). Mokele (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Pianka's "Varanoid lizards of the World" has a table that lists a 1.68 meter individual weighing 1.36 kg (fresh from the wild), but also has a 2.24 m captive specimen that weighed 6.4 kg.  I trust the former as more typical, since captive monitor lizards of all species tend to get obese.  Mokele (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Check the page references.  The 8 foot specimen represents a reliable measurement from a dead animal.  No higher measurement is anything more than heresay, and thus not worth including. Mokele (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I didn't tell him anything, and prominently featuring such myths is a violation of WP:Undue, by giving undue (any) weight to baseless claims.  Just as I have done with snakes and other animals, I insist on measurements being supported by some sort of verification, such as accurate measurement reported in a scientific journal, or a dead specimen.  Rumors are just that, rumors, nothing more, and should be dismissed out of hand unless supported by evidence. Mokele (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: No, you aren't new to this.  We have discussed this, at length (if you'll pardon the pun), on multiple other pages.  And I didn't give anyone a warning - that was Mike. Mokele (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: I fix incorrect lengths where I find them, but I have better things to do than checking each and every page.  I deal with those I watch, and any that get reported to me. Mokele (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 15 feet strains belief, but 11.5 is possible.  Still, I'd like to see an actual specimen. Mokele (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The 11.5' length is given in Sprackland quoting Wood, yet it turns out the Wood source and the alleged zoo in that source is spurious.  --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Because it's nearly twice the maximum known.  For comparison, we know black rat snakes can exceed 7 feet, but I'd be very skeptical of a claimed 14 foot individual. Mokele (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a very good example, Mokele. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: First, skepticism is the default position of all science.  Nothing is accepted without evidence, period.  Secondly, average size is actually a fairly good predictor of maximal size in animals.  Consider water monitors, another large monitor lizard with lots and lots of records (both from captivity and the skin trade).  Average individuals are around 5 feet long, with some big individuals reaching 6 or 7 feet, and very, very rare animals reaching into 8-9 feet (only one ever hitting 10 feet out of hundreds of thousands of skins).  If we apply the same logic to the crocodile monitor, which averages about 6 feet, we'd expect the absolute maximum to be 12 feet.  I'd actually suggest a lower maximum of 11 or 10 feet, due to its highly arboreal nature (size and weight are liabilities for moving in trees). Mokele (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: 12 feet is merely a hypothesis.  Until an actual specimen of this size is found, it's not worth including.  After all, maybe 8 foot really is the maximum, due to their arboreal habitat. Mokele (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Yes, there are.  See the reference on that page, a book by Pianka which is available on Google Books.  It gives the absolute maximum, as well as very good averages (based on skin trade data). Mokele (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

text: No, the 8 foot individual is definite, with a museum specimen to back it up.  Nothing bigger has ever been recorded.  Seriously, we've gone over this before.  No corpse, no record. Mokele (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Congratulations, you can recognize which number is bigger than the other.  Note, however, that the komodo is the *largest*, meaning mass, which is definitely correct. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

text: They're all horseshit.  What's really funny is that if you look at the timeline of "giant monitor" sightings in Australia, every single one occurs *after* the discovery of Megalania and its announcement in the popular press.  Not a single report predates 1859, in spite of 100 prior years of being used as a penal colony.  Such reports come under the same heading as jackalopes and "drop-bears". Mokele (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubled length 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Varanus salvadorii. 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/20090701023157/http://www.azfamily.com:80/3tvexclusives/stories/KTVKZooTales20070424_crocodile-monitors.3cd03e2.html to http://www.azfamily.com/3tvexclusives/stories/KTVKZooTales20070424_crocodile-monitors.3cd03e2.html
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 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Most pages for species use it´s common name because most people don't know the scientific name. But not here, maybe because that name has already been taken, if is hasn't, can I (or someone else) change it to its common name? Quincy43425 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I wouldn't suggest it in this case because there are too many common names for V. salvadorii. Generally for organism articles, if there's a lot of common names, we'll have the main article use the scientific name and redirect all the common names. If you feel very strongly about moving the page, you'll want to follow the procedure at WP:RM. bibliomaniac15 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  moving the page