Talk:Steppe mammoth

message: The main page to "mammoth" is extremely lacking, and this one seems decent. They ought to be merged together until the article is large enough to have "steppe mammoth" as its own separate page. Colonel Marksman (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: "Mammoth" concerns the genus Mammuthus, while "Woolly Mammoth" and "Steppe Mammoth" concern specific mammoth species.--Mr Fink (talk) 13:57, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: MERGE SUGGESTION

message: Would it be possible if a justification is made for the newer picture's inaccurate anatomy?  It lacks the shaggy fur and SPIRAL TUSKS the steppe mammoth is described as having.  As such, it seems strange to trumpet this as "better quality" if there has been no attempt at accuracy.--76.246.143.113 (talk) 15:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerning Inaccurate "Better Quality" Picture 

message: my english is not very good, so this word can mean something I don't know but I guess in the Part Fossils is a tipo: "...but sketetal parts are rare" - greetings -- Hartmann Schedel  Prost  12:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've fixed the typo. Mikenorton (talk) 12:49, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  maybe a tipo? 

message: Mammuthus trogontherii appears to be a jr. synonym of Mammuthus armeniacus. There was some discussion over at Talk:Mammuthus armeniacus. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 03:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Mammuthus armeniacus'' 

message: However the paleontologic world goes definitely goes with M. Trogontherii, not armeniacus, which has been decided in Shoshoni, J., & Tassy, P., (eds.), 1996: The Proboscidea - Evolution and paleontology of elephants and their relatives.
If you look at the cited ref, Todd 2010, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ar.21010/pdf
...you'll notice in table 1, second column that Shoshani and Tassi 1993 overrule Maglio 1970 and changed M. armeniacus back to M trogonterii.
See for instance also: http://www.helsinki.fi/~mhaaramo/metazoa/deuterostoma/chordata/synapsida/eutheria/proboscidea/mammuthus.html
So I intend to change it back soon.
Andre  —Preceding undated comment added 21:10, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was embarrassing.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That can only be decided by the ICZN, can't it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

text: True, and if I remember right the ruling is in favor of the name that was described first. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Any news on this? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what I was talking about back then, I think I meant that according to the code the first name has to stay, I'm not aware of any petition being made to the ICZN regarding M. armeniacus vs M. trogontherii. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Mammuthus trogontherii again''

message: 19 tons? from where? frankly I'm not even sure if the 4.7m tall is correct either, yeah, I know, Kika, but that size was reported on the press (so its higly probably to be made up), anyone knows the original paper where it was described? Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:16, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've found This which is about the excavation, conservation and recosntruction of Kika, it seems all this "giant female mammoth" are just the result of a typo; the mounted skeleton is 3.7m a whole meter less than what has spread through the web and the press, the tusks weren't 3.4m either, they were 2.7m. whoever there were giant Mammuthus trogontherii, I found about them in a paper about paraceratherium; two males, one estimates at 4.5m in the flesh and other with a skeleton height of 4.5 (so 4.7m in the flesh), I'll add about them when I gather more information, for the meantime I'll change the info on Kika. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight 

message: Hello. The article has an infobox informing that the name was coined by Pohlig in 1885. But the reference, "New Phylogenetic Analysis of the Family Elephantidae Based on Cranial-Dental Morphology", does not mention "1885" nor "Pohlig". What is happening here? --MisterSanderson (talk) 01:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1885 

message: Toward the end of the first paragraph of the Taxonomy section, a reference includes the following date parameter: "date=2012-03".  This causes a CS1 error and the the page is listed at Category:CS1_errors:_dates.  It should be changed to "March 2012".  Thanks.  Ira Ira Leviton (talk) 22:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:42, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 20 December 2023