Talk:Galápagos tortoise/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment

galapagos tortoise

Blurb for Did you Know

With large numbers of endemic flora and fauna, considered one of the unique and natural paradises in the world around you with beautiful clear beaches, lava tunnels, diving areas, a marine reserve, its prehistoric animals and a variety of beautiful and colorful birds. The Galapagos Islands are a province of Ecuador,

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.110.125 (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC) 

Did You Know

...that galapagos tortoise is the largest living tortoise, weighing over 500 pounds and measuring 6 feet from head to tail. One of the oldest living creatures, they are native to the Galapagos Islands off the coast of Educador in South America, where there are only 15,000 known to survive.

For the benefit of those of us who are not zoologists, can someone add to the article a picture of a tortoise with a saddle-back shell? I'm not even sure what that means.

I think it would be more correct to call the 'shell' a Carapace - the article on carapace has a useful diagram of a Tortoise's 'shell'. It Is the rarest animal in the world. There is only 1 left —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.130.42 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Se habla galápagos?

Who came up with the idea that galapagos comes from the spanish for tortoise?
The spanish name for tortoise is "tortuga".
69.230.90.199 19:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The reference is at least as old as the 1911 Encylcopedia Brittanica. http://57.1911encyclopedia.org/G/GA/GALAPAGOS.htm. It supposedly came from the word "galapago". The 16th century mapmakers called them "Insulae de los Galopegos" Could this be Latin? Vaoverland 21:00, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

The word "galápago" refers to a style of Spanish saddle (the kind for riding horses). The early Spaniards thought that the shape of some of the tortoise species's shells looked like the "galápago" saddle, and so called them "galápagos," and named the islands for them. Galapagos tortoises are still frequently called "galápagos" by Spanish-speakers in the islands. --DWiedenfeld 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Related topic: who came up with the idea that the English name of the Galapagos tortoise has an accent mark? It's fine for the Spanish wiki, but really not appropriate for the English one. I'll add a (now oddly nonexistant) redirect from the usual name, but it should be reversed. -LlywelynII (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Photo of Harriet

Isn't 620 KB a ridiculous size for the photo? I downloaded it and simply opened/resaved it with mspaint and it went down to 148 KB, and there appears to be no loss in quality. I also took a photo of Harriet when I went to the Australia Zoo in 2003, here's a scan of it (film SLR..), I could easily rescan it to be bigger and upload it as well, some comment on that would be good http://img66.imageshack.us/img66/5632/harriet8ft.jpg

The Hobo 18:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer your photo, since it gives a frontal view. However, it lacks a sense of scale.Minglex 21:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fritts 2001

Please provide an external link or citation to your claims.

Here are two:

ERNST, C., AND R. BARBOUR. 1989. Turtles of the World. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.

CARRILLO, E., S. ALDAS, M. ALTAMIRANO, F. AYALA, D. CISNEROS, A. ENDARA, C. MÁRQUEZ, M. MORALES, F. NOGALES, P. SALVADOR, M. DE L. TORRES, J. VALENCIA, F. VILLAMARÍA, M. YÁNEZ, AND P. ZÁRATE. 2005. Lista Roja de los Reptiles del Ecuador. Fundación Novum Milenium, UICN-Sur, UICN-Comité Ecuatoriano, Ministerio de Educación y Cultura, Quito, Ecuador.

Although Geochelone taxonomy is not settled, most current systematists working on Galapagos tortoises are using separate species. I previously used the citation of Fritts 2001 (FRITTS, T.H. 2001. A brief review of the taxonomic history of Galápagos tortoises relevant to consideration of the most appropriate generic and specific names for giant tortoises in Galapagos. Unpublished report to Galapagos National Park, Galapagos, Ecuador) although it is unpublished, because it lays out the rationale for using species rather than subspecies. I will change the names back to species.

--DWiedenfeld 01:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Removing references to reglion in discovery section.

I am remoivng all reference to reglion in the original. I would have let it go if someone didn't decide to cap THEORY in the agruement. REgardless of reglion, and I am a Cathloic, stuff like that is strictly against Wikipedia guidelines, regardless of your views. I appreciate that it not be changed.

On second thought, I am removing the Discovery section completely because it is clear that Darwin did not discover the turtle, rather the spainish. I will research this but for now, it is gone.

Please respect NPOV.--Kirkoconnell 03:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. That pointless edit wasn't even well written. Minglex 22:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too! Good that it has been removed. Pmaas 13:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

merger proposal

oppose....bad idea to merge ....species from different continents are distinct....research underway to enhance wikipedia data on madagascar giant tortoises...may have text by mid june 2006. Anlace 02:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

oppose Galapogas tortises are relative newcomers on the scene. --Knife Knut 13:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Species

Although the systematics of reptiles (including Galapagos tortoises) is not settled, you need to show evidence if you want to change the scientific names back to subspecies. I have posted two references above. If you can show better ones, post them. Ernst and Barbour is a widely-used standard, and the Carrillo et al. reference (sorry if you don't read Spanish) is a very recent reference, published by IUCN.

DWiedenfeld 21:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As a professional taxonomist, I don't advocate changing nomenclature on the basis of general manuals or checklists. Your references fall into these categories. If most current users are using full species, a tortoise taxonomist should publish a taxonomic paper in a research journal revising this group. If you tried to keep track of butterfly taxonomy on the basis of general books and checklists (even those compiled by specialists, who have massive disagreements among themselves), you'd be changing the names constantly.

Also, IUCN's Red List is still using subspecies. Personally, I don't like the subspecies concept and I'm not a herpetologst, so I'm not defending using them in the GP, but I also don't like basing nomenclature on non-taxonomic and/or unpublished references.

Harriet

Adwaita has an article, why not Harriet? -24.92.41.95 02:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

sounds

It would be nice if there were sound files of the roaring mentioned.

I just finished and Animal Diversity course at Moorpark College in California. We were taught that the giant Galapagos tortoise's scientific name was Geochelone elephantopus. Where did this Geochelone nigra come from?

G. elephantopus (Harlan, 1827) is a junior synonym and is incorrect. That name was published 4 years after G. nigra (Quoy and Gaimard, 1824). Also, the holotype of G. elephantopus has been lost and the original description is too general to associate the name with a species (or subspecies).

photographs

I think the 3 photographs in the "Subspecies" section might be better in a different location. As is, their position interrupts the start of the text, and it is not obvious from their captions how they relate to the (coming) discussion. Cpurrin1 00:50, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Ages, particularly average, do not match

Given that the average lifespan of a Galapagos Turtle is supposed to be 150-200 years I'm wondering how 'Harriet' was estimated to be only 176 years old at death and yet also thought to be the oldest living animal. If the AVERAGE lifespan is as high as 200 years, then reason would suggest that it is obviously very unlikely that Harriet was the oldest animal alive, as there should be a respectable number of 250-year-old tortoises around. It sounds like the '150-200' average lifespan is probably made up. Can someone confirm or deny this?163.1.143.107 (talk) 12:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

that's because the average lifespan for a Galápagos tortoise is only 100-150 years. also, Harriet was only thought to be the SECOND oldest TORTOISE (not animal, there are species of clams that can live well over 200 years)and she was only estimated to be 175 years old, not 176. as far as we know, there are no 250-year-old tortoises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.47.28 (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galápagos tortoise/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reading through the article, I'm going to fail the GA nomination. The article fails on a number of scores:

• The prose and grammar suffers from some poor areas and others that are quite awkward. Just a few examples include
  • "They have a very large shells (carapace) made of bone which is an integral part of the skeleton."
  • "On the wetter islands, the tortoises migrate down the gentle mountain slopes after the wet season to feed on the grass-covered plains and they climb back to feed on grasses of the mountain meadows in the dry season (the increased precipitation at that altitude keeps the grasses watered)"
  • "Clearly then, they are able to vocalise."
  • "This happens during aggressive encounters, whilst righting themselves if turned upside down and particularly males in mating ("rhythmic groans")"
  • "Lonesome George is the only known individual of the Pinta Island Tortoise"
  • "In contrast, the eggs are deposited randomly into cracks in rocky areas,."
  • "Contrarily, "The old ones seem generally to die from accidents, as from falling down precipices: at least, several of the inhabitants told me, that they never found one dead without some evident cause.""
  • "In the seventeenth century, pirates started to use Galápagos as resupply base,"
  • "Overall, 2500 individuals of a all breeds have been reintroduced to the islands."
• The article does not follow the correct layout. See WP:LAYOUT
• Correct dashes are not followed. See WP:DASH.
• Many of the sections are unreferenced.
• References should be placed directly after punctuation marks. See WP:CITE.
• Also see WP:CITE for how to correctly annotate references.
• Numerals less than ten should be spelt out. See WP:MOSNUM.

I would suggest getting a copy-edit or peer review before making a Good Article nomination. The main reason to fail it is the lack of references. But the prose would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   Peanut4 (talk) 23:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Subspecies

Hey, yeah, I'm not going to change it because I don't know, but the article contradicts itself in saying one spot that there are ten subspecies left and in another spot it says that there are 11. Just so somebody knows.

Tony the tortoise

Hello. Could somebody please help me ID this Galapagos tortoise species? Much obliged. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

You may find this infographic or a little use: Shell shape or subspecies map http://www.cbu.edu/~aross/galapagos/galap027.jpg
The specimen appears to be from one of the domed subspecies, though variation in size and shape even within subspecies makes identification difficult. The most likely answer is either G. n. porteri from Santa Cruz, or one of the southern Isabela subspecies (guentheri, vicina, microphyes or vandenburghi). Unfortunately, the only gold standard method would be to use nuclear or mitochondrial DNA profiling, as has been developed to elucidate the taxonomy and phylogeny of the species. Minglex (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Galápagos tortoise/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• The lead goes around from singular to plural ("The Galápagos tortoise ... is .... They are ..."); that should be consistent.
• The section on "Taxonomy and phylogeny" goes back and forth between information on the subspecies (internal taxonomy) and the relationships of the species (external taxonomy); it would be clearer if you could separate those subjects.
• "Significant revisions to the taxonomy from the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in future may resolve this issue."—the ICZN does not rule on taxonomy, only on nomenclature.
• "a process similar to a rafting event"—why not just a rafting event?
• "making the former up to three times heavier"—even taking the lowest figures for females and the highest for males, this is not true.
• Numerous journal citations are missing volume and page numbers.
  • Still a few left (current refs. 24, 26, 55, 59, 65

Overall, a great article, but there are some problems—including those listed above, and a few more I'll come to later—that will need to be solved before this can be a GA. Ucucha 12:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks for the constructive feedback, will be resolving as much as possible soon. Re: 'rafting event', I was trying to draw the distinction that the tortoises do not require a 'raft' of branches or buoyant material, because they are able to float unaided. Minglex (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the issue with "rafting event" illustrates a problem that occurs a few times (for example, also with the piece about the subgenus): you first introduce something the meaning of which is not very clear, and then a few sentences later it is explained (in this case, where it says the tortoise is buoyant). It's better to have that closer together. Ucucha 15:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Have tried to rephrase these sections in a less awkward manner. Minglex (talk) 17:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The references are somewhat chaotic. While the GA criteria don't explicitly cover many of the problems I'll list, they do hinder verifiability (in some places) and generally make the article look untidy. (Ref. numbers as of this version.)

• "Further reading": Darwin's book is oddly formatted, with the link appearing twice, and the linked parenthesis.
• Refs. 2 and 58 are both PhD theses, but formatted very differently.
• Refs. 3 and 49 are identical. The publisher is italicized, as in most or all other refs.; I don't think I've ever seen that before.
• Refs. 4 and 61 are identical.
• Ref. 5 is rather terse, and could do with a link to the relevant article of the 1911 EB. However, a more recent source would be preferable.
• Ref. 6: what is the access date? Also, it seems better not to link the publisher.
• Ref. 7: title given doesn't correspond to the title of the linked page. Also, what is the access date and what makes this page a reliable source? Cf. the oddly formatted ref. 74.
• Ref. 8: accessdate? The text of the ref. does not give the title of the linked page. Not an ideal reliable source either. Same page is cited in ref. 46.
• Ref. 9: more conventional to link the title, not just have a [2]. Why the "pp." when only one page is cited?
• Ref. 10: accessdate? And again, preferable to link the title.
• Ref. 11: is that a reliable source? Why the "pp."? What is the ISBN?
• Ref. 12: almost certainly available online, please link. (This probably goes for many other journal sources cited.)
• Ref. 13: I can't find 1974a, so why the "b"? (Also ref. 67.)
• Ref. 14: journal titles should mostly not be abbreviated (and in any case, the article is currently inconsistent).
• Ref. 16: what is the page cited?
• Compare refs. 17 and 18 for a few examples of inconsistency. Also, refs. 17 and 29 as well as 18, 25, 31, and 32 are the same.
• Ref. 20: what is the page cited? And the ISBN?
• Refs. 27, 28, and 40 are the same. (Several other duplicate references; I am not listing them all.)
• Ref. 36 refers to the same page as ref. 1.
• Ref. 38 needs some more information.
• Ref. 39 has "pp.", but doesn't actually mention a page. Also, since it cites Darwin (1845), that work shouldn't be under "Further reading", which is only for works that haven't been cited. Same with refs. 68, 69, and 72.
• Ref. 53: page reference?
• Ref. 56: this is a bare URL, and should have the proper information added (title, author, etc.).
• Ref. 62: are MacFarland and Reeder different people?
• Ref. 63: page reference, ISBN?
• Ref. 81: needs better formatting, date, author.
• Ref. 82: needs better formatting.

Ucucha 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, will get round to tidying up the references in the next few days hopefully. Minglex (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I have hyperlinked to online versions of articles where possible, and I've standardised the formatting of the references now.Minglex (talk) 20:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

More

The article is shaping up pretty good; I have left some citation needed tags that need to be addressed. And a few more issues:

• Is this the same as your ref to Marquez (1988, Comportamiento de Apareamiento al Azar en tortugas gigantes. Juveniles en cautiverio el las Islas Galápagos)?
• "volcanos"—the plural would be volcanoes in English, or is this meant to be a Spanish word?
• "Galapágos tortoises are the only lineage of giant tortoise exhibiting two different types of shell shape" and "There is no saddleback/domed dualism, as tortoises can be of intermediate type with characteristics of both"—an apparent contradiction.
• "adult males weigh an average of 272–317 kilograms (600–699 lb)"—that looks like a range, not an average.
• "They vocalise when struggling to right themselves, during aggressive encounters, hissing when startled into withdrawing into their shells, and 'rhythmic groans' from males during mating"—this sentence doesn't make sense grammatically; some parts of the lists are the sounds made and others are the situations when the sounds are made.

Ucucha 16:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Images:
  • File:GNigrita.jpg is "all rights reserved" on Flickr.
  • File:Lonseome_george.jpg doesn't match the source photo on Flickr.
• Ucucha 17:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Must have got confused with too many tabs open when scouting for images on Flickr. Changed both now.Minglex (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• The lead contains several facts that are not in the body of the article (the origin of the name "Galápagos", the tortoises' effect on Darwin's theories); per WP:LEAD, which is part of the GA criteria, this should be corrected.

May take a little while, will see to it soon.Minglex (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, done as much as I can with the historical relation to Darwin. Re: The naming of the islands, I can't find anything else interesting to write about it nor a place where it could sit comfortably in the body. Apart from this, all the references from the lead have been relocated to where the facts appear in the body of the article.Minglex (talk) 18:18, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay. As the article has been edited so extensively, I am going over the entire text again to check for clarity and other problems.

• "Tortoise numbers have fallen dramatically due to human disturbance from over 250,000 when first discovered to 20,000 now"—I think it would be better to say the actual time (16th century, I believe) instead of "when first discovered" (both in the lead and in the "Human disturbances" section).
  • Done. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• Did Duméril and Bibron publish in 1834 (article text) or 1824 (taxobox)?
  • The Taxobox is by Quoy and Gaimard, will finish the outstanding taxonomy soon though. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • Sorry for the confusion. Ucucha 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
• Try to find a place to link to the articles on Indian Ocean giant tortoises somewhere in the first paragraph of "External taxonomy".
  • The closest is to the list of Giant tortoises. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• "Larger islands with humid (mesic) highlands over 800 m in elevation, such as Santa Cruz and the Volcán Alcedo on Isabela, have abundant vegetation near the ground"—Alcedo is not an island. Not sure how to fix this.
  • Removed Alcedo, not essential info anyway. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• "collections [of tortoises] from two of the islands"—why the "of tortoises"? He may well also have mingled the other collections. The islands also have different species of rice rats, for example.
  • Fixed. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• "This may have been done because Darwin only reported seeing tortoises on San Cristóbal..." (I rewrote this sentence). It seems the refs only support the fact that Darwin saw tortoises on these islands, not the inference being drawn.
• There are some remaining citation needed tags.
  • Will find page reference for this. It appears in Nicholls. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• The article seems overly fond of quotes from Darwin, even when they add little. I removed some, but there are probably more that can go.
  • I like the historical perspective, but I see what you mean. Trim away as you like. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• "In 1936 the Ecuadorian government listed the giant tortoise as a protected species, and then in 1959, when it declared all uninhabited areas in the Galápagos to be a National Park. and established the Charles Darwin Foundation."—confused sentence
  • Fixed. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
• "United States Public Law 91-135 (1969) automatically prohibited the importation of Galápagos tortoises into the U.S. as their export was declared illegal"—I'm not sure what to make of the point about "export".
  • Reworded. Minglex (talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 19:45, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time, will address these points soon.Minglex (talk) 14:28, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Is the review close to being wrapped up? There haven't been any comments here from either side in a couple weeks. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Will try to make a final push this week.Minglex (talk) 18:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

There are still some citation needed tags that need to be taken care of. Ucucha 21:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. (got tired of still seeing this up so I fixed what was left) Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It seems everything has been fixed; I will pass the article now. Congratulations. Ucucha 14:19, 7 November 2010 (UTC) Thanks very much for your time Ucucha, it's been a pleasure. Minglex (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Sorry for the late reply. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no move Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Galápagos tortoise → Galápagos giant tortoise — 05:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC) To distinguish them from ordinary-sized tortoises, they should be referred to as giant tortoises.

• Conditional Oppose - Unless we have an article about non-giant Galápagos tortoises (and I can't find one), I oppose this move on the grounds of "unnecessary precision". Titles should be succinct and only as precise as necessary to distinguish them from other uses. There appears to be no other relevant use in this case, so need to add precision to disambiguate. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - both seem to be legitimate common names for this species. IOW, I think the Born2cycle's oppose is baseless, but I don't know if there is any point in moving this article anyway - is one name more common than the other? ErikHaugen (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)
• Comment I've always heard 'giant'. If my experience is typical, the article should be moved. — kwami (talk) 12:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Google Scholar results for this species are mostly "Galápagos tortoise", although variants like "giant Galápagos tortoise" and "Galápagos land tortoise", as well as "Galápagos giant tortoise", also occur. Ucucha 14:14, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mmmm...

I'm trying to make sense of this paragraph but it's rather difficult:
"An estimated 200,000 animals were taken before the 20the century[9][35], the consequence of several waves of human exploitation of the tortoises as a food source. This led to a population crash of around 250,000[6] when first discovered in the 16th century to 20,000[84] in the modern day, but only after sustained recovery efforts."
--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Hope it is clarified now. Minglex (talk) 15:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, so much better. Thank you.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:55, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Oldest Individuals

Not sure that listing these two animals is of any benefit to the page, but if you insist I would suggest using a more accurate appraisal of the discussion on Harriet. There have been several books and numerous papers published on her, Chambers is only one of these opinions and not completely accepted. His data is grossly innacurate and relies on the published opinions of others. Some of these opinions are baseless and at the least inaccurate. So I suggest remove the mention of these two individuals, or update for accuracy. This is a page on the species, not individuals I would suggest removing them altogether. Faendalimas (talk) 15:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Please do update the info on Harriet with these references. I relied on Chambers' time-line because it was the only one I could find (when researching) from a reliable-looking secondary source but by all means cite the other sources you mention. On the other hand, I disagree that reference to the individual tortoises should be removed from the article. Lonesome George is a flagship specimen of this flagship species and has a compelling story as the last of his subspecies. Harriet's age is also important in establishing the longevity of the tortoise which is one of the most unusual facts about the species. Minglex (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I've done some work with turtle articles in the past, and I must say I'm with Minglex here...if there's material out there and it demonstrates something important about the animal (in this case its maximum age) than I think it should be included, although certainly not in its own section. Regards, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

T. macrophyes

Just as a note, Garman (1917) did indeed propose the name Testudo macrophyes as a substitute for T. microphyes (Gunther 1875). Source: Pritchard 1996 p28 (see article references) Minglex (talk) 12:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Rothschild riding a tortoise

I think this picture of Walter Rothschild riding a Galapagos tortoise is fit for inclusion in the article. It illustrates the relative size of the tortoise to a human, and Rothschild himself is mentioned in the article for having described multiple new subspecies. The image also has a certain comic value. I think it is more suitable than the current first image of Rollo Beck, because though Beck has a subspecies named for him (G. n. becki), he was not as important a character in the taxonomical history of the tortoise. The sub-adult specimen that he is mounting for taxidermy also does not give as good a sense of scale. Minglex (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, it suits the article well. :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomenclature

The name Chelonoidis has been officially adopted by the IUCN and I have updated the Testudinidae page accordingly. I changed the name in the Taxobox but have largely left the article alone, since I was not involved in writing it. I would recommend going through Rhodin et al., 2010 and checking your synonymies also. Please note there has been a lot of discussion on the various names for the Galapagos Tortoises it should be noted that there are a lot of nomen dubiums in this group, in particular around the names nigrita, nigra, elephantopus and porteri. It is actually possible that the name macrophys was not referring to microphys and that the name cathamensis has been misapplied. Pritchard summarised much of this. By the way, I do have photo's of every subspecies, including wallacei and phantastica, I will try to get them as they are back home in Australia. Faendalimas (talk) 06:45, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks, have updated the article for consistency with the elevation of Chelonoidis. The current species and subspecies synonymies are taken from Pritchard 1996. Would it be more appropriate to use the list from Rhodin 2010?Minglex (talk) 19:48, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:40, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A few editors have been working though multiple sources about this and Rhodin has proven to be the most useful.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 21:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Distribution Map

Anyone know how to do the wiki-style distribution maps? I'm thinking a version of this would improve the article: http://www.galapagospark.org/programas/parque_nacional_nativas_endemicas_tortugas_02.html (from the website of the galapagos national park) Minglex (talk) 11:42, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have photoshop or some other similar program, you could download a blank map (say, for instance, File:Ecuador Galápagos Islands location map.svg) and edit it to show the distribution. If you can't make it yourself, you could put in a request in either of the following two places: Wikipedia:Graphic Lab/Map workshop or here. Hope this helps, --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Second paragraph of taxonomy

The bit where it talks about the name gigantic tortoise has some awkward formatting, especially with parenthesis. Is there a way to clean this up just a little? NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Darwin quotes

WP:MOS#Quotation_marks specifies that quoted text should be enclosed by double quotation marks. In the article single quotes are used. The reference numbers would look more consistent if they were placed after the closing quotes (and the punctuation). - Aa77zz (talk) 12:57, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback, will change this now. Minglex (talk) 14:12, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

galapago mean turtle or saddle?

Maybe our Spanish minor could research this?TCO (talk) 02:40, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Both.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:44, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

TCO questions

1. Are there any fossil species that were bigger? Or is this the biggest turtle ever (known)?

2. Consider this a review comment (sorry, can transcribe later). Please give page numbers for source 10 Pritchard. It is an 85 page, stand alone printed monograph (basically a book). I think having NYM "anchor" it is justified. We can add a section called Bibliography to the Refeference list. I left a note on his page. If you're nice, I bet just giving him the page numbers for the sites and he will take care of everything for you!

3. I want to get the refs out of the lede. To do that, I will do some duplication in the body (it's fine, I think, per se the lead should cover stuff in the article). I will expand the content a bit with some info from the Islands article. Will put a cn tag there, since the (expanded) content is not backed up.

4. I added a note on the English island names. Can probably be skinnied a little more and cited.

5. We should discuss the naming of the subspecies. I think this makes sense "in article" (not a note). My impression is a lot of the names are from the English versions of the island names.

TCO (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Stupendemys was bigger, I think. Ucucha 01:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

1. There are a number of extinct taxa larger and even some Aldabrans are bigger than most Galaps. Although a lot of Galap names are named after the Islands eg. cathamensis = catham - ensis ie endemic to Chatham remember that the subspecies are recognised sub populations of the primary species and everyone of these names has at one point been described as a full species, then later sunk into the oldest name. Faendalimas (talk) 01:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

The Leatherback sea turtle is bigger then the Galápagos tortoise and possibly bigger then other extant turtles depending on how you define bigger/largest etc. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:01, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Map of the Islands

This map would benefit from some kind of a scale indicator on it, to show how big the islands are, and how far apart from each other. Especially relevant given the indications that some subspecies have swum between islands. T-bonham (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Darwin section

I'll not gum up the FA process; rather, just share a minor thought here on the talk. The 'style' of the section referencing Darwin seems to lack continuity. Perhaps because of the over-use of subheadings and the extensive block quotes. I would prefer two or three paragraphs outlining the impact the turtles had on Darwin's theory. It seems different and out of place with the other sections. Eliminate sub-headings that are substituting for topic sentences. As stated, a personal preference that should not create undue stress in an FA attempt. Also, the sea of text in that section and one that follows is markedly different from the well placed images, breaking the monotony in other sections. Perhaps an image of Darwin (one where he looks demonically possessed) or an image of the Beagle. anything to relieve the eyes. Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Good points, will do.TCO (talk) 19:57, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

 DoneTCO (talk) 20:46, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

replacing lost photos?

Seems like a Flickr, Google search might help find replacements for some of the lost pictures. Most needed is the saddleback picture.TCO (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

The current main image is of an Aldabran Giant Tortoise (Aldabrachelys gigantea), not a Galap... HLogic (talk) 01:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

nope that is a Galap. They can be difficult to tell apart, use the facial structure, best way. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Confirming these are subspecies"?

Fertile offspring resulted from pairings of animals from different races, confirming that they are subspecies and not distinct species.

I am deleting the latter half of this sentence, since the definition of biological species is that they don't normally breed in the wild, not that they can never produce fertile offspring. --Monado (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, please note that although the original biological species concept included a statement on reproductive isolation this does not mean that they are genetically incompatible. Species such as Chelodina longicollis and Chelodina canni can and do hybridise in the wild, they are definitely different species, not even in the same clade within the genus, the offspring have hybrid vigor, which means that the offspring are bigger turtles than either parent, both longicollis and canni are about 18cm in length, the hybrids are about 26cm in length and as they are heterzygous for marker genes that means F2 generations were found, meaning the hybrids can reproduce. The ability to hybridise is more to do with evolutionary history than genetics. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:59, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

A source that I can't quite place

I found a news article stating that Chelonoidis elephantopus may not actually be extinct. However, I can't figure out what this is. It's not listed on this article, nor on the list of subspecies. Here's the cite: Richard Black (January 9, 2012). "'Extinct' Galapagos tortoise may still exist". BBC News. Retrieved January 9, 2012.. Please help, thanks, D O N D E groovily Talk to me 18:17, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The article says that elephantopus was the name used for the species before 1984, when the older name nigra was resurrected. It looks like the BBC News source is referring to the Floreana Island population, which this article calls subspecies nigra. Ucucha (talk) 18:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Where should this go in the article? Or should it go in the list of subspecies? D O N D E groovily Talk to me 22:19, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes its referring to the population from Floreana, of Charles Island. This was called G. elephantopus galapagoensis for a while but is now G. n. nigra as Uchuca has pointed out. It is a subspecies that went extinct in about 1830. It should be discussed in the species account and at least mentioned, it should also appear in the subspecies article. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Notable individuals?

I wonder, where there any other notable individual tortoises aside from Lonesome George? The long lifespans of these creatures must mean there were a few with interesting stories. --Doradus (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Well there was Harriet (tortoise) she was a Galapagos tortoise of the subspecies G. n. nigrita The Charles Darwin Research Station also had an old animal they used to talk about Onan from memory, he was a G. n. vicina from memory. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 05:29, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

"Extinct??"

Yes-can someone fix the conservation display thingie to make them vulnerable? Some idiot changed it to extinct because Lonesome George died and I don't know how to fiddle with that part of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.252.48.172 (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Reverted, thanks. Materialscientist (talk) 06:33, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Since Lonesome George (the last "pure" Galapagos Tortoise) has passed out, isn't this species considered extinct??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.47.65.104 (talk) 11:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lonesome George was a C. n. abingdoni not the whole species, one subspecies is now extinct only. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

The two populations of tortoises on Santa Cruz island have been found to be different species.

The Reserva population C. porteri, the smaller Cerro Fatal population Chelonoidis donfaustoi, per http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/10/151021-galapagos-tortoise-new-species-animals-science and http://www.plosone.org/article/metrics/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0138779 --CuriousMind01 (talk) 01:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

This paper has issues, by recognising the Cerro Fatal population as a species, or even a subspecies, and further declaring that the holotype of C. porteri is a hybrid, the name C. porteri can no longer be valid if we accept Chelonoidis donfaustoi as a species. They also negated their own morphological diagnosis in the paper, so the only diagnosis of this species is the DNA evidence. This paper is giving me nightmares. Faendalimas ^talk 17:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Galápagos tortoise. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.galapagos.org/2008/index.php?id=68

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Subspecies are now species...

Hey guys, I'm a relatively new user, but I was looking at the IUCN page and noticed that the subspecies are all now species. I'm not sure if there's an easy way to make pages for all of them or not, but that seems like a lot of work. This means that the species this page is referring to, Chelonoidis nigra, is extinct, as Chelonoidis nigra nigra is extinct. -http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9023/0

Also, the link for the IUCN page to Chelonoidis nigra meaning the large group of subspecies is now dead because of the recent changes. Here's the list of sources

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9023/0 -Floreana Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis nigra) Extinct

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9017/0 -Pinta Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis abingdonii) Extinct

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9018/0 -Volcan Wolf Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis becki) Vulnerable

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9019/0 -Chatham Island Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis chathamensis ) Vulnerable

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9020/0 -Santiago Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis darwini) Critically Endangered

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9021/0 -Duncan Island Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis duncanensis) Extinct in the Wild

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9024/0 -Hood Island Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis hoodensis) Critically Endangered

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9026/0 -Indefatigable Island Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis porteri) Endangered

http://oldredlist.iucnredlist.org/details/9028/0 -Southern Isabela Giant Tortoise (Chelonoidis vicina) Endangered — Preceding unsigned comment added by Megraptor (talk • contribs) 00:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

It has already been started on the Chelonoidis page. Dger (talk) 17:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

not extinct

• • • THE TORTOISE IS NOT EXTINCT IN THE WILD*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by America First (talk • contribs) 22:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Long list of synonyms

Do we really need the entire long list of synonyms in the sidebar? It creates a large space between the lead and the rest of the article and it makes mobile users have to scroll through lots of text before they can even read the article. IWillBuildTheRoads (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikispecies can provide the list of synonyms and some especific material about nomeclature. Burmeister (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Wow, just had a look on my mobile and I see what you mean. It would be better if it was hidden and you could elect to show it, as on the desktop version. I suspect this may affect other articles too so I would suggest you bring this up at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical) and maybe someone there can work out a fix. Richerman (talk) 20:37, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

I started a discussion. --168.105.249.124 (talk) 03:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Moved the synonyms to the main article text. --130.87.92.98 (talk) 15:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Are humans a natural predator?

The "Early life and maturation" part contains the following sentence: "The adult tortoises have no natural predators apart from humans..." I'm not sure if humans count as natural predators in the Galapagos. 75.110.35.108 (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't see why not. TL The Legend ^talk 03:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)