Talk:Mammuthus sungari

message: We can't say that Shokako Mammoth is the largest mammoth, at 4.7 m height, when the article for the Imperial Mammoth says that M. imperator was 4.9 m tall.  Contradictory, yes?  At least, not until we get all the facts straightened out.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why was it originally written as being 4.7 meters tall?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I don´t know, but can you give me a souerce telling a 16 feet high Mammuthus Imperator??, the largest skeleton mounted is about 14 feet--Asier (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello, The image I make it in my own, the image mammoth is nearly 5 meters at the shoulders because the skeletal reconstruction is 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but in life the Mammoth with the muscles and hair is predicted to reach the 5 meters at the shoulders. But for make calculations I prefer to use the 4.7 meters eskeltons high  because is something verifiably the 5 meters high in life is something that I predicted, but is very posible. (and 4.8 meters high of Indricotherium is from the skeletal r3econstruction, I have to be most carefully posible to make this important calculations. For me ther isn´t doubt, Mammuthus sungari is the largets land mammal ever. I´m very happy to make you happy with this article.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: If the Shokaku mammoth isn't 5.3, or even 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but at the tip of the head, then we are not justified in saying that it is the world's largest land mammal. We really, really need to get the facts straight before we can state such things.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oficcialy the fossils shows a mammoth 4.7 meters at the shoulders, the largest indricotherium found is 4.8 meters at the shoulders but is more gracile than Mammoth. You can see it in the imagen, volumetricaly the Mammoth is much bigger.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory Information 

message: Mammoth, Probably this mammoth is over 4.7 meters at the shoulders. But I don´t konw 100%, so I can´t make my calculations with a mammoth over 4.7 meters. I try to be as profesional I can, and do the things the best I can. For now, I prefer to make the estimates with 4.7 meters high (official Measure) mammoth. 
PD: If mammoth were 5 to 5.3 meters high at the shoulders, it wouldn´t be larger than Indricotherium, it would be much much larger than indricotherium.--Mr Asier (Asier) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Ibaraki Museum Mammoth

message: This article says this mammoth weighed 17 tons, or three times that of an African elephant, but the article on African Bush Elephants says they weigh up to 22,000 pounds, with one exceptional one killed in 1955 weighing 27,000 pounds.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.100 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparision to elephant 

message: Asier,  I have had trouble finding more information about this mammoth.  In fact, I didn't even know of its existance before I found this page. Do you know of any scholarly literature in English that describes this mammoth's lifestyle, morphology, habitat, or relation to other mammoths? Cbmclean 204.85.66.157 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen any information in scholarly journals, either.  I haven't searched except on-line, though, and there are abstracts in this area that may not be on-line.  The only information I've seen is about exhibits in Hong Kong.  In fact, this article has no sources.  I'm not even sure it does exist.  --Amaltheus (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello, of course that it existed. Yes is very very strange I don´t know why ther isn´t information in google. And please, don´t tell me that this is an hoax... The most information I get form chinese and japanese pages and I´m in contact with a lot of paleontologist. It´s ironic but many of them didn´t know about this mammoth. Again Hoax? you have the reconstruction of the eskeleton of the Mammuthus sungari... this skeleton is based in 2 giant skeleton found in 1980 in Mongolia, one of them it was 40% complete and the other more than 60% and they were in incredibly good conditions with fingers and toes complete. They were two extremely large male of about 45 years. 1984 were found another 3 skeletons of Mammuthus sungari, one of them has skeletal reconstruction of 4.33 meters high. In total have been found 13 skeletons. Give me your e-mail and I will give you all the links about this information. And please, remove the label of the hoax.
I´ve been weeks and weeks working in this project with amateur paleontologist and world recornized paleontologist. So please... Who are you to say that this is an hoax and telling that this article could be removed, you only spend a few minutes searching in google... Is this a Joke?--Asier (talk) 8:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Asier, please remain WP:CIVIL against your fellow editors. Anyone on a wiki can edit anything he wants. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, but if you don´t know anything about a theme, Why are you changing articles... It doesn´t have any sence. The wikipedia it should be a site the most objetive and well done as is posible, these actitudes don´t contribute to it.--Asier (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Everyone tries to contribute. Sometimes they are wrong, and then they are usualy swiftly reverted. It is safe to say that almost all editors act in good faith. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello I don´t think that it is descrived in English, I´m trying to get the original description. This mammoth lived areound 100.000 to 10.000, the giant 4.7 species remains shows 34.000 years old fossisls. They have a thick coat like M.primigenius And they lived in the gobi desert. Asier (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General Information 

message: Asier it isn´t worth to be justyfing yourself on your work. I´ve read many articles on paleonthological subjects and this is the only one in which the weight of the species is justified or at least explained by your calculations cause I´m surprised by the lack of consensus on this issue. It is the only article about giant prehistoric animals which shows volumetrical models incredibly well done. The article shows a reconstruction of the eskeleton that proves the actual animal´s size. It has helped me a lot with my survey on proboscideans, Im writing a thesis just now! The links you refer to also justify the size. This article has much more references than any other article about any other mammoth species (except the one on mammuthus primigenius).What more references are people asking for??
I believe that the people who submit their opinions don´t have a real basis on the subject. For instance, in the article on mammuthus imperator it is said that it had a shoulder height of 4.9 meters which isn´t by far the truth. The largest M. imperator remains show a eskeletal reconstruction of 4.08 m high at the shoulders (around 4.25 m at shoulder flesh). It is also said that it was the largest mammoth species, how can this be true if remais of M. trogontherii much larger have been found? For instance a humerus nearly 5 foot long. And of course, M sungari was even larger too. --Airam (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I ask for additional sources, because it is turning out really hard to find sources about the existence of this mammoth. That is not an attack, or a claim you are not doing good work, but a request for more sourcing. I don't see what's wrong with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh my God, thank you! finally someone taht know about this theme. Again Martijn??? are saying that Mammuthus sungari doesn´t exist like species?? What about the skeletons reconstructions in hong kong, inner mongolian museum, ibaraki muesum and many more ???? .... [Mammoth in Atlanta museum]. This photo is a Mammuthus sungari showed in atlanta museum in 1995. What moreeeeee??????????????????????????--Asier (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a first note, one questionmark is generaly enough. No, I'm not saying that the species does not exist, I am saying that it is really hard to verify it's existance, and it would be nice if we had more links proving this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Here are two links, one about the first mammuthus sungari found in 1973, it was nearly complete. And another,an abstrac with a table with the 13 mammuthus sungari discovered and location (mentioned above). [First sungari] and [13 sungari].
Asier,  do you know how to locate the original species description?  That would settle alot of questions.Cbmclean (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Hello Cbmclean, Parelephas (subgenus) only means that this mammoth is very near to other Mammuthus genus like M.trogontherii and M.columbi. That link shows how many and where are mammuthus sungari found.Asier (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The article is sourced enough

message: As an explanation for some of the tags, here are a couple of specific problems with this article:
1. There is only one unchallenged reference that refers to M. sungari. Of the remaining three, two are references on the mass of Indricotherium, and the third has an unreliable tag and appears to be self-published, which is a no-no. There are several external links, but unless those are cited somewhere in the text, they don't count as references. At least one appears to be a blog post, which is also unacceptable as a reference,while several are in Chinese and Japanese, which is only marginally better, albeit understandable given that the topic of the article is an obscure taxon from China. Either way, since they're not cited, they're not references. This leaves a single source which, based on where and how its cited, appears to document that Songhua River Mammoth is the common name of M. sungari, useful information, but not nearly enough given the length of the article.
2. Given the reference problems, as written, the section "Size" violates WP:OR. You're not presenting information on the mass of M. sungari that has been published elsewhere, you're publishing it on Wikipedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helioseus (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Helioseus, thank you for your questions to improve the article. Firts I´m tying to find the paper of the formally description of this animal, If exist, I don´t think that It will be in English. I´m in contact with an proboscidean expert chinese Paleontologist, and probably he could get the paper of the description(for next week). Yes you have the reason there are a lot of links, but ther aren´t "Scientists" links, anywat I will upload better ones. Is very dificult to use google in chinese and japanese. Any way is ovbious that the mammoth exist and that it is enormous. The mass is my calulation, I use volumetricall model for this, it can be use to, shoulder height (acording with Per Cristian paper, a mammoth of 4.7 meters high would weighted even more than 17 tons), femur lenght and humerus and femur circunference. --Asier (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References and Original Research 

message: I think the article needs deleted for now.  The editors don't want others working on it, and they don't seem to have found reliable sources.  The Chinese references on the web are about the same as this, self-published sources that use on academic references.  The writers are aggressive about keeping it here, but they don't have any energy to find academic references, and there's no place in the world where a new mammoth would not be extensively published in the press and in peer-reviewed journals, at least an abstract.  IF the writers want the article to stay on Wikipedia all they have to do is source it.  But if they spend time attacking me, they won't get it sourced.  They will, however, distract from the controversy of whether or not the mammoth exists.  It's time to focus on the lack of sources.  No mammoth this large and this unique is going to be without scientific references in Chinese, Japanese, and English.  If there are no references, maybe it's because there is no ....  --Amaltheus (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: PS I was willing to say it might be a hoax, but I'm more inclined to think it is because the writers simply haven't put up references.  It would be so easy, with a mammoth this spectacular, to get references.  It's time to put up.  --Amaltheus (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Are you Paleontologist??, So why are you making changes without any idea about this mammoth?? you can ask before...So you have been making ridiculous changes without any aproach... I upload an abstract above, why are you making changes if I uploaded "mammuthus sungari" in your list?, please stay away--Asier (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm making changes because you haven't provided any sources, if no one has any idea about this mammoth, quite simply, no one can make changes while having any idea.  That's the point of asking if it is a hoax, there are no sources that indicate this mammoth has been studied by the scientific community.  Simply give links to appropriate sources that show the science behind this mammoth so this article can stay, be well sources, be well written, and be used by those who read Wikipedia. I don't see an abstract anywhere.  --Amaltheus (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

text: You have the abstract in the external links. Tell me please, Which source are you looking for? This mammoth is totally clasificated as mammuthus genus by sience. There are links with sience behind this mammoth. Check them please.--Asier (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Probably should be nominated for deletion 

message: I´ve talk with Adrian Lister chinese colleges and they answer me that this species was described in 1959 by Zhou, M.Z. I´ve uploaded in the refereneces. --Asier (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Officialy described

message: this paper  is given as a reference, but the name sungari does not occur in this paper at all. I have heavy doubts about the sources given in this article.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong reference 

message: Hello, I´m Asier. The person who created the Mammuthus sungari article. Since some people are making changes without asking before and with any idea about this species. I decided to leave a short version. I´m a little surprised because this article was more accurate to what sizes concerns. I aported photos, I convinced a japanese friend to go to the museum and measure the skeleton, I made volumetrical models...
For example in other mammoths and other large prehistoric especies articles, nobody questions the sizes. The imperial mammoth article says that this mammoth was up to 4.9 meters at the shoulders, there isn´t any evidence of this. The largest Imperial mammoth mount in the world is less than 4 meters at the shoulders, "Kika" the giant female M.trogontherii, isn´t 4.7 meters by far. The Indricotherium article doesn´t says the truth too. The world largest Indricotheriums remains suggest a creature less than 5 meters at the shoulders...
The largest proboscideans mounts in the world are based in the two giant M.sungari found in 1980. This mounts are obviously the biggest in the world by far. The second largest mammoth mount in the world is based in Mammuthus sungari too, in one specimen found in 1984. This one is 4.33 m at the shoulders. Another Deinotherium giganteum skeleton mounted in bulgaria is very near in size.
I talked with many paleontologist of every were from USA, Europe to China before making this article. On chinese paleontologist told me that the largest M.sungari specimens are probaly Palaeloxodon sp. and he was with me that theese ones are probably larger than Indricotheriums.
May be one day, one paleontologist decide to make a serius research in this species and all of you will remeber that extensive wikipedia article talking about M.sungari. 
Regards.
--Asiertxo (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Asier. May be you are right and M. sungari was the largest Mammuthus species (if it was realy a species and no subspecies or late form of Mammuthus trogontherii), but the problem is, that you have to bring scientific references, which can be found and checked by other persons. If I see a living Mammoth in siberia, I am not allowed to wtite this in wikipedia. Well, Its good to have people which do wiki-work about prehistoric mammals, but the information always must be checkable.--Altaileopard (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Everybody 

message: Here an IP MADE AN EDIT, but according to the given source (Dong Wei, Xu Qinqi, Jin Changzhu, Liu Jinyi "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE", Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing 100044), M. sungari survived not into the end of the late pleistocene. 
" The giant Mammuthus (Parelephas) sungari, evolved from less giant forms from Siberia, was extinct during the beginning of the Late Pleistocene."
I WILL CHANGE THAT!--Altaileopard (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As the text sounds a bit incomplete now, I will add its existence in the middle Pleistocene: The same source says: "While Jinniushan fauna (about 280 kya), composed mostly of the temperate forms, had some cold forms (e.g. Mammuthus sungari, Coelodonta antiguitatis)."Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Late Pleistocene? 

message: The Chinese Paleontologist with wich I am in contact, confirmed me some weeks ago that the original fossils are clearly Mammuthus, not Palaeoloxodon as previous authors suggested.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiertxo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: I have been looking for a while and have not been able to confirm that this species was ever officially described.  The Zhou 1959 reference does not appear to address any taxonomics, and nothing more recent on the species comes up in searches. Does anyone have access to the 1959 paper to verify if there is a formal description, or if the designation is an informal one that was sucked into the popular media due to the size estimates. --Kevmin (talk)
:In any case, it has been sunk into M. trogontherii and should redirect there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: validity of species

message: Giving the recent description of M. sungari remains actually belonging to M. armeniacus, rendering this species invalid, I wan't to propose the deletion of this article, but before putting the tag I want to know if there's anyone against it. thoughts? Mike.BRZ (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposing for deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Msungari.jpg Nominated for Deletion