Talk:Varanus salvadorii

Doubled length

Actually the greatest verified length for this species is 244 cm (8 ft), just over half of the claimed 475 cm. --Anshelm '77 18:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

~ Actually your 8 feet is the most poorly accepted the majority of people claim lengths of over 10 feet (11.5-12ft). And since the 475 cm specimen was actually measured by a Dr. and put into a museum I would include it in the article since its clearly more than just speculation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There is an zoo (or small zoo-like place) that has a 10 foot crocodile monitor. So, the 8' maximum is bogus. However, the claim in the Wiki article that the tail alone can be 10' just doesn't add up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.231.33.145 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

~ Your right the tail alone being 10 feet doesn't add up the length of a large crocodile monitor is probably like a Komodo dragon the tail makes up about 50% of the body and plus of have seen videos of them the tail is around half the length of the body.

Mokele have you ever heard of any crocodile monitors being confirmed at 10 feet? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:05, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Honestly, I suspect they can get larger, but because they're rare, secretive, not hunted extensively, and not widely kept in captivity, we've got a pretty low sample of individuals. But they're becoming more common in captivity, and even breeding once in a while, so I suspect in 20 years or so we'll have a much better idea as to what's "normal" and what's "maximum". Until then, we just have to wait (because I'm sure not suicidal enough to keep one myself). Mokele (talk) 20:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Just how heavy is a crocodile monitor Mokele? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Pianka's "Varanoid lizards of the World" has a table that lists a 1.68 meter individual weighing 1.36 kg (fresh from the wild), but also has a 2.24 m captive specimen that weighed 6.4 kg. I trust the former as more typical, since captive monitor lizards of all species tend to get obese. Mokele (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly I think that the 8 feet reported by you guys is unreliable, I mean it is just like the alleged 16 footers you guys have never given a link to were your alleged 8 foot specimen might be I mean come on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold on a minute Mokele that edit that I added to the Crocodile Monitor Page is not Vandalism. I just wrote that 19 footers have been reported! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Check the page references. The 8 foot specimen represents a reliable measurement from a dead animal. No higher measurement is anything more than heresay, and thus not worth including. Mokele (talk) 01:04, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hold up Mokele did you tell this guy Mike to give me a warning or to sending me a message saying that I was doing something bad!? All I added to the Crocodile Monitor page was that unconfirmed stories of 19 footers exist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tell him anything, and prominently featuring such myths is a violation of WP:Undue, by giving undue (any) weight to baseless claims. Just as I have done with snakes and other animals, I insist on measurements being supported by some sort of verification, such as accurate measurement reported in a scientific journal, or a dead specimen. Rumors are just that, rumors, nothing more, and should be dismissed out of hand unless supported by evidence. Mokele (talk) 01:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I'm new to these editing rules and you don't think you could have told me that earlier? I never said that they grew 19 feet long! Oh wait on the Titanaboa page it says that modern reticulated Pythons reach 30 feet long. I'm sure you didn't give that guy who posted that a warning now did you? Oh that's right anyone but me can add such sizes. Alright Mokele So anyone can right anacondas reach 4000ft or they can write saltwater crocodiles reach 80000000000ft or they can right crocodile monitors reach 19,000ft is that Mokele? because if it is I would love to now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you aren't new to this. We have discussed this, at length (if you'll pardon the pun), on multiple other pages. And I didn't give anyone a warning - that was Mike. Mokele (talk) 01:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I fix incorrect lengths where I find them, but I have better things to do than checking each and every page. I deal with those I watch, and any that get reported to me. Mokele (talk) 02:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mokele what do you think about the idea of crocodile monitors reaching 15 feet? What do you think about the alleged 11.5 footer?

15 feet strains belief, but 11.5 is possible. Still, I'd like to see an actual specimen. Mokele (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

The 11.5' length is given in Sprackland quoting Wood, yet it turns out the Wood source and the alleged zoo in that source is spurious. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

And why may I ask does 15 feet strain belief? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Because it's nearly twice the maximum known. For comparison, we know black rat snakes can exceed 7 feet, but I'd be very skeptical of a claimed 14 foot individual. Mokele (talk) 20:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a very good example, Mokele. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway Mike Searson you gave me a warning for vandalism what is it that I did? I don't ever want to edit here again so you might as well block me from editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Mike your not in this conversation so butt out. You gave me a unessasary warning and I don't want to speak to you or hear any mention of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 20:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to be skeptical. First of all just because it is nearly twice the known max length don;t you think that in such a hidden area such as New Guinea that a few approaching that size would be at least possible? Honestly not to be mean but your being narrow minded. Being skeptical just because it is almost twice your alleged 8 feet is not enough you have to have a good reason. You need to prove it. Just because you have evidence that they grow to 8 feet it doesn't mean that it is the longest they get. truthfully and I'am being truthful about this but in a place like New Guinea a 12 footer wouldn't surprise me in the least. You can't even explain why it's body plan wouldn't allow it to get so big. you haven't explained why the animals in it's habitat couldn't sustain a specimen that big. It is unlikely because you think you now everything about them. I'am not saying you should write that they get that big but just because it is bigger than the max length that you have come up with doesn't mean it can't exist. I'm not being mean or say that you should write that they get that big I'm just saying that you should consider it as a possibility. And seriously 15 feet is not that big.

First, skepticism is the default position of all science. Nothing is accepted without evidence, period. Secondly, average size is actually a fairly good predictor of maximal size in animals. Consider water monitors, another large monitor lizard with lots and lots of records (both from captivity and the skin trade). Average individuals are around 5 feet long, with some big individuals reaching 6 or 7 feet, and very, very rare animals reaching into 8-9 feet (only one ever hitting 10 feet out of hundreds of thousands of skins). If we apply the same logic to the crocodile monitor, which averages about 6 feet, we'd expect the absolute maximum to be 12 feet. I'd actually suggest a lower maximum of 11 or 10 feet, due to its highly arboreal nature (size and weight are liabilities for moving in trees). Mokele (talk) 21:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright then I agree the absolute Maximum lets put it as would be roughly 12 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

12 feet is merely a hypothesis. Until an actual specimen of this size is found, it's not worth including. After all, maybe 8 foot really is the maximum, due to their arboreal habitat. Mokele (talk) 22:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

That's ok, I think mine kinda sucks, that was as close as I could get to it (I also used zoom too!). :/ --Mitternacht90 21:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You now what I hate all of you and I despise all off you losers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Mokele there is no evidence of a water monitor reaching 10 feet! Period! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there are. See the reference on that page, a book by Pianka which is available on Google Books. It gives the absolute maximum, as well as very good averages (based on skin trade data). Mokele (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also Mokele I looked on the crocodile Monitor site and just because the longest specimens available for measurement at the time were 8 feet it doesn't mean that is true. Their claims are just as questionable as the alleged 15 feet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the 8 foot individual is definite, with a museum specimen to back it up. Nothing bigger has ever been recorded. Seriously, we've gone over this before. No corpse, no record. Mokele (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

what is the longest and heaviest water monitor recorded Mokele? I have been seeing lengths of 10 feet 5 inches being introduced to the water monitor page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.130.18 (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

10.5 feet is correct, see the reference for that statement on the water monitor page. Mokele (talk) 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you can recognize which number is bigger than the other. Note, however, that the komodo is the *largest*, meaning mass, which is definitely correct. Mokele (talk) 21:45, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

~I only said that as a statement mokele I know that there is a differnece between longest and heaviest. I even said longest not heaviest longest there is a difference.

They're all horseshit. What's really funny is that if you look at the timeline of "giant monitor" sightings in Australia, every single one occurs *after* the discovery of Megalania and its announcement in the popular press. Not a single report predates 1859, in spite of 100 prior years of being used as a penal colony. Such reports come under the same heading as jackalopes and "drop-bears". Mokele (talk) 22:13, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

~They deserve more credit than drop bears and jackolopes whoever came up with that nonsense and considering giant monitors from what we know did exist and that aborigines have told stories of encounters with large monitors dating back well before the 1800s real or not or maybe still alive or not I think the existence of these animals stands on firmer ground than killer koalas and deer rabbits which shouldn't even be mentioned on Wikipedia. You also said that average size is a fairly good way to esitmate maximum sizes in animals you said fairly not perfectly and with every large animal there are thousands to tens of thousands of minimum sized indivuals, maybe a few hundred average sized specimens, a little over a dozen normal maximum sized specimens and two or three freak sized specimens. So what would the *extreme* maximum length for any living monitor today in healthy condition and with available prey?

Length

Yes, there are rumors of longer individuals, but these rumors are not *confirmed*, and until they are, they're just baseless speculation. It's *very* easy to mis-estimate the lengths of animals, especially if they're already surprisingly large. None of the references supported the claim of an individual larger than that cited by Mertens, and unless we want this page to be nothing more than a rumor-mill for ridiculous claims, we need to demand some actual support for claims, such as either a dead specimen in a museum or a live individual which has been measured while under anaesthesia. Mokele (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The thing that you removed mentioned the fact that it was speculative, and that the longest recorded length was much shorter than that. bibliomaniac15 03:33, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I have the Sprackland source and he states it is speculated. That is what the article says. Sprackland has probably forgotten more about monitors than most will ever know. As long as the article does not state it is longer than the longest discovered...it stays in, unless a verified vetted source states otherwise. The speculation is not baseless, I've read enough about this species that I went from your POV to include such lengths within the realm of possibility.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So, I can just go around adding any random speculation? It's speculated that anacondas can reach 60 feet long, should we add that in? It's in the same range of belief as what you're quoting (more than twice the maximum known length). I don't care who did the speculation, it's still JUST speculation, and it stays out. Speculation and possibility are not how science works; if we go down that path, we might as well give official species recognition to Bigfoot.

Furthermore - Mackal is not a reliable source on ANYTHING, the St. Louis Zoo URL no longer works (and anyhow, they have not reported a longer specimen in the scientifc literature, ergo it does not exist), the Scientific American article does not contain any measurement of V. salvadorii at all (just a mention of it being somewhere in the realm of komodo length), and Sprackland admits it's baseless speculation. At the very least, 3 of the 4 references are worthless.

Honestly, the best option is mine - I cite the largest museum specimen and mention "rumors" (or maybe change to "speculations") of larger animals. If we start including speculative figures, especially in the very first paragraph, that gives them an unwarranted air of authority. There's no reason to give those numbers any more creedence than claims for 100 foot anacondas. Treating speculation as real or even plausible is quite simply Bad Science. Mokele (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I moved it from the Lede. Don't know who Mackal is, that's Biblio's source. I outgrew dinosuars when I was six. :) Sprackland is used elsewhere in the article, so don't delete the ref, which again, only mentions speculation and when you delete it, the others fall apart. I'm not treating it as reality, but speculation...particularly debunked speculation does merit inclusion. Read the Stanford University article and how it debunks the urban myth about its founder. When this is hashed out we may do the very same thing here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, I read the SA article, and all it says is that V. salvadorii may grow longer than V. komodoensis, it does not list any specific lengths. Check your browser or delete your cache because the St Louis Zoo link works for me and it backs up what you say, here's a copy/paste from their web page:"Although reported to attain a record length of 14 feet, the longest authentic record is 11.5 feet."--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Varanus salvadorii is so widely speculated to be the longest lizard (even by the Guinness World Records) that we would be in the wrong if we did not refute this belief of "longest lizard". I'd say we should address these claims in the article and explain that they are in the end speculation. bibliomaniac15 22:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is how it reads now:

Unique among living varanid species, the animal's tail is two-thirds longer than the snout-to-vent length in both juveniles and adults.[4] Herpetologist Robert Sprackland gives the proportion as the tail being 210% of the animal's body length.[8] It is speculated that the creature can grow to a length in excess of 14 feet (4.75 metres),[8][9][10] which would make it the longest lizard in the world, but to date the longest recorded specimen is only 11.5 feet in length.[11] Most of this length is made up of the tail, which accounts for more than 60% of the animal's length.[4] At birth V. salvadorii is about 18 inches (45 cm) long, while a sexually mature female may grow to 5 feet (1.52 meters).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I used the convert template on the lengths. Last sentence needs some work and a source...is it trying to say they are sexually mature at that size or females stop growing at that size?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:06, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

It means an adult female is about that size. bibliomaniac15 23:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, we shouldn't mention the speculated lengths at all. They violate WP:Undue and are also just plain made up. Why 14 and not 13.75? They're baseless, and should be treated as such. Also, I'm extremely skeptical of the St. Louis Zoo page claim - I got it to work, but it cites no source at all. I dug around in the scientific literature, but could not find anything supporting their claim. Given that it's a mere webpage, I say exclude it, and revert back to the Mertens 1962 record specimen of 244 cm, and just say "though some speculate it may grow longer". Mokele (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that not mentioning them would be detrimental. V. salvadorii has been so firmly entrenched in the public as the "longest monitor" when it is not, so we should give it a little more weight than just "some think so." Not only that, but "some think" is a very classic example of weasel words. We should strive to be specific in addressing their speculative nature. bibliomaniac15 23:39, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

How about something like: "V. salvadorii is the second longest monitor, reaching 244 cm in length, most of which is it's tail (refs). Several individuals (refs) have suggested it may reach longer sizes, possibly even surpassing the Komodo, but no specimen has been found which supports such claims. However, due to the lizard's slender build, even if it were longer than the komodo, it would still be substantially lighter in weight (ref)." It gives primacy to the real data, cites individuals with claims beyond that, gives a ballpark for those claims (bigger than Komodos), refutes the claims, and dispates the whole "longest vs biggest" issue. Mokele (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would be best. To point out a few cases, authorities in the Honolulu Zoo say a limit of 4.6 m; Eric Worrell claimed 3-3.7 m; and the magazine Australian Wildlife, published by the Wildlife Preservation Society of Australia, claimed 4.6 m. Some biologists have even claimed a length of 5.5 m, which I find ridiculous. bibliomaniac15 23:50, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Given the sparse nature of the article, how much space should we really devote to this? Should we just lump all those individuals as references under "some say (refs) that it gets bigger, but..."? It'd be a bit tiresome to go through them all in text, especially since they all have the same refutation: "where's the specimen?".Mokele (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

No, because some say is a weasel word and should be avoided. If anything talk of the length is documented not only in scientific writings, but in crypto-zoology, so the weight is not undue. Read the same section on Anaconda and you'll see what I mean.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

But the anaconda section sounds just the same: "Estimates of 35 to 40 feet (11–12 m) (see Giant anaconda) are based on vague data and should be regarded with caution (ref)", plus a note about the failure of anyone to collect the reward.Mokele (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Sounding better! Name names though, let the reader know WHO said. When I get home I have a source to check, I believe some of the original reports of exaggerated lengths were made on a found claw which turned out to be from a bird, not a lizard.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:53, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

So... the discussion seems to have trailed off. Any more ideas on what to do? I still don't like the idea of spending extensive effort on speculations and giving made-up numbers. Mokele (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, since I'm the only one who hasn't lost interest, I'll make the changes. Mokele (talk) 17:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems about right. I've been trying to fix it, but every time I try the wording seemed screwy. bibliomaniac15 17:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I got sidetracked with my Uroplatus sikorae project this week and haven't been on wiki that much. There is a reference to an 11.5 foot monitor(Wood 1982)...BUT the Doctor and zoo in question who supposedly have the animal have never been found.See here.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you have access to the "Wood 1982" that the article cites? bibliomaniac15 22:09, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked around and couldn't find anything like it (it doesn't help that the page doesn't give any further information on the reference). If it's in a journal, it must be one that's not online or in any database, and if it's a book, it's a fairly obscure one. There's a guy named Wood who does circulatory physiology of varanids, but I doubt it's the same guy. Mokele (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I've been searching too, with no luck. Mok, I believe it's the same Wood in question.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Many sites today often point out that saltwater crocodiles 27-30 feet long have been recorded without even giving a source to just a skull or even a tooth.

The size of the crocodile monitor has been eggagerated to as long 40 feet or almost twice the length of the largest megalania prisca which reached a max length of just 23 feet long.

  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 15:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC) 

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Varanus salvadorii. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090701023157/http://www.azfamily.com:80/3tvexclusives/stories/KTVKZooTales20070424_crocodile-monitors.3cd03e2.html to http://www.azfamily.com/3tvexclusives/stories/KTVKZooTales20070424_crocodile-monitors.3cd03e2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 13:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

moving the page

Most pages for species use it´s common name because most people don't know the scientific name. But not here, maybe because that name has already been taken, if is hasn't, can I (or someone else) change it to its common name? Quincy43425 (talk) 14:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Quincy43425: I wouldn't suggest it in this case because there are too many common names for V. salvadorii. Generally for organism articles, if there's a lot of common names, we'll have the main article use the scientific name and redirect all the common names. If you feel very strongly about moving the page, you'll want to follow the procedure at WP:RM. bibliomaniac15 23:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

OK I’ll take your advice. Quincy43425 (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)