Talk:Mata mata

message: In a web for a life being species adding a section about its captivity handling is out of place. A depiction in another web related to that may fit. Definitively not here. I recommend to rename it to habitat conditions or parameters to resue the already appropriate content in that section.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.167.135 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Captivity section is inappropriate 

message: According to the "Turtles of the world, 2011 update" the binomial name is Chelus fimbriata. Was previously in this article as Chelus fimbriatus. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I checked your ref. and made the changes. Also added a redirect. Dger (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The images at commons want to be moved or adjusted. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  out-of-date 

message: Ok not sure what to do about this one. The Category for when this species was described was recently changed. Now that change was correct as it was not described in 1741, no probs there. However if you look at the naming of this species it was originally described in 1765 (Testudo terrestris Fermin 1765:51 (nomen rejectum)), now we dont use the name Testudo terrestris because of the ruling by the ICZN where they decided we would use Testudo fimbriata Schneider 1783:349. My question though is that although we dont use the name Testudo terrestris Fermin 1765:51,  the species was still originally described that year. Not in 1783. What should we do here? Or will we just run with the year of the first valid name? Cheers, Faendalimas talk 05:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It shouldn't be 1741 because names and descriptions prior to 1758 are invalid (apart from Clerck's 1757 spider names). On other wikipedia pages where a species has an older, invalid name (such as here), the year of description is regarded to be the year it received its current species name, which in this case would be 1783 Elspooky (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was referring to its 1765 description, which although nomen rejectum is still a valid date for the declaration of this species to science. I am basically asking what this category is really about. When was the species formally declared to science? or when was the currently accepted name for this species actually proposed. Two different concepts. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 10:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  The latter one Elspooky (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories when described? 

message: Just forewarning that I intend to change the way this page links a bit. There are two fossil taxa in the genus Chelus, which do not currently have pages so I am going to make a page for the genus and those two species. This will require that this page links to the genus (instead of it being a redirect) and the family does also. I will write the necessary pages and do this over the next couple of days. Cheers. Faendalimas talk 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-arranging this one a bit 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mata mata. 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:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011173155/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/04/giant_fossil_matamata_turtles.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/04/giant_fossil_matamata_turtles.php
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) 12:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hi,
is the elongated nose horn hollow and used for breathing?
Also the neck frills are curiously feathery, is it possible they have some oxygen-gathering capacity when submerged?
thanks 92.0.22.87 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nose, and neck frills