Talk:Columbian mammoth

message: How long is the Columbus mammoth foot 107.127.28.14 (talk) 14:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not aware of sources that give such specific measurements, as goes for most creatures, they would be given for individual foot bones. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mammoth 

message: Reading Evolution and dispersal of mammoths across the Northern Hemisphere again, it implies that the species Mammuthus columbi only applies to remains of Late Pleistocene age. I don't known what this implies for the classification of remains of North American mammoths between 1.5 and 0.1 Ma, the earliest of which presumably were not a hybrid species (at least not with the woolly mammoth, anyway), but also implies that M. columbi is basically indistinguishable from M. trogontherii. Does this warrant changing the fossilrange in the taxobox or not? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Being from 2015, I it's too early to take into account the latest DNA papers, and now it's still very early days when it comes to concluding what these hybridisation findings will actually mean for mammoth taxonomy. So I think we need to wait for new publications. I can imagine it will take years for the dust to settle. Also, you removed the statement that the DNA analysed teeth were steppe mammoth-like, which I've re-added, since it's pretty important.FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think Lister is spot-on when he calls mammoths effectively a continuous metapopulation rather than neatly divided species. I'm satisfied with the content of the article as it currently stands. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that doesn't translate well into clean cut traditional taxonomy. The name M. columbi would have to be arbitrarily retained instead of synonymised, which is de facto the case now. FunkMonk (talk) 20:43, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Timing 

message: See doi:10.1080/08912963.2023.2286272 Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems there's some useful stuff for both here and woolly mammoth. I don't have so much time to look into it, but feel free to add anything, . FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: , this sourced text was removed in your edit, is it inaccurate? "Columbian mammoth tusks were usually not much larger than those of woolly mammoths, which reached ." FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't verify the ref because I don't have a copy of this book, and I wanted to avoid WP:SYNTH. The maximum tusk size does seem to be considerably larger for M. columbi that M. primigenius, and the recent Larramendi paper doesn't mention a 4.2 metre long woolly mammoth tusk, and Boeskorov and colleagues in 2020 give the maximum woolly mammoth tusk length as 3.8 m . Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, but not having access to a used source isn't really a good reason to remove sourced text, and I don't see a synth issue, as it's two different statements. On the other hand, this recent source also gives a shorter max estimate for woolly mammoths, so while the 4.2 m measurement is perhaps wrong, I'm not sure we can say that ""Columbian mammoth tusks were usually not much larger than those of woolly mammoth" is wrong. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's the source I was quoting. Reading it again, some of the tusks they are quoting have lengths of over 4 metres. like 4.05 m, but I am not seeing any evidence of a tusk of 4.2 m or greater, other than a seemingly anecdotal account of a 4.3 m tusk supposedly seen in possession of tusk traders in the 90s by a certain Dr. V. Zhegallo. Would you be able to provide a fuller quotation from the book here? Does the book say where this supposed 4.2 m woolly mammoth tusk was found? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, so there are 4 m measurements for woolly mammoths in that source? I could only find the 3.8 m measurement said to be the longest, which I added here too. Here's a photo of the Lister page, a bit easier than typing it all. FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  New paper discussing Columbian mammoth tusk lengths 

message: Hello everyone. I am a new Wikipedia contributor from Russia. I prefer the English-language section of Wikipedia, since everything is described here in much more detail than in Russian. The following attracted attention - the height of the mammoth at the withers is indicated at 3.7-4.2 m, and the weight is 9.2-12.5 tons. However, the average height of the male is given at 3.75 meters, and the average weight is 9.5 tons, that is, at the lower limits. I want to know on the basis of what such a conclusion was made. Thank you in advance for your reply.Cryzziermaximum (talk) 21:01, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, these numbers are from page 82 of the book Mammoths – Giants of the Ice Age combined with measurements from this paper. The average male height was added with this edit. FunkMonk (talk) 21:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but it's a little weird. Mathematically speaking, if the height ranges from 3.72 to 4.2 meters, the average value is 3.96 meters. If the weight ranges from 9.2-12.5 tons, then the average value should be about 11 tons. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: But that's assuming there's an even numeric distribution between the maximum and minimum values, which is not necessarily the case, no? In any case, it is mixing measurements from different sources, so it's possible they're inconsistent. FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree with Cryzziermaximum that we should be attributing the estimates and not mixing and matching different estimations without attribution, which looks to the reader like they're originating from a single source. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Then we need to figure out how to proceed and with which numbers. I haven't read the Larramendi paper closely, it was added by . FunkMonk (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  As the source book isn't easily accessible online, can you provide a photo of the relevant page of the Mammoths – Giants of the Ice Age book? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:28, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, here it is: FunkMonk (talk) 23:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The mix of measurements happened here: It seems Lister has kind of been drowned out in the process. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see an edit was made, but are those estimate's really Larramendi's, and not just his summary based on the existing literature? Also, I'm not sure it's even better than just using Lister's simpler stats. FunkMonk (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Larramendi's entire publication is about his development of equations for estimating probosicdean body masses, so I'm pretty sure that they're his own estimates. The books estimations in the page you took a photo of are quite vague. The up to 4 m claim is contradicted by Larramendi, who suggests that Columbian mammoth males could exceed that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was bigger, the Colombian mammoth or the steppe mammoth? Personally, it seems to me that 50/50 Cryzziermaximum (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, what size did the imperial mammoth (a subspecies of Columbian) reach? I think he deserves his Wikipedia article. Cryzziermaximum (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard about a huge specimen - Archie the mammoth. His height at the shoulders was 14 feet (a skeleton without flesh) How much did this giant weigh? Cryzziermaximum (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The "imperial mammoth" isn't considered distinct from the Columbian mammoth by anyone today. As for which is larger, said Larramendi paper is probably where to look, but these size contests are usually based on fragmentary specimens and are unresolvable. Also, we usually don't attribute researchers for non-controversial size estimates unless there's a debate, so I don't think we need to name Larramendi in the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: We can just say "a 2016 paper" it that's preferable. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think about how to discuss the steppe mammoth vs Columbian mammoth size issue in the article? These size things don't interest me much, so I haven't really followed the literature on that. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the 2016 document at the FunkMonk link, but it does not say about the average size of the male, which is indicated in the article. Perhaps it is in the full version? Cryzziermaximum (talk) 10:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Pinging  about this. I must say I find the Larramendi article confusingly written. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The average weight and size of the Colombian mammoth