Talk:Bothrops asper

	Ecuador portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ecuador, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ecuador on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EcuadorWikipedia:WikiProject EcuadorTemplate:WikiProject EcuadorEcuador articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Costa Rica Low‑importance

	Costa Rica portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Bothrops asper is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

The 'English'

Appallingly poorly subedited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.12.19.173 (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feeding

Regarding the sentence "They eat small animals; a study in Brazil found frogs, mammals, lizards, snakes, centipedes, and birds, in decreasing order.": The mentioned study in Brazil shurely does not refer to Bothrops asper, as this species does not occur in Brazil (see range). The sentence should be deleted. Greetings,-Accipiter2 22:58, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are! I should have caught that earlier. I'm not familiar with the reference, but I wouldn't be surprised if the contributor is guilty of confusing this species with B. atrox. --Jwinius 23:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How did you not catxh that dummy! 105.250.7.51 (talk) 15:39, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Name

Fer-de-lance "is not used in countries inhabited by this species"? The informative signs at Braulio Carillo National Park called it a fer-de-lance, as did all the guides. I'm not sure how to find a cite, though; any ideas? 128.194.34.211 (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as the associated reference indicates, that what it says in Campbell and Lamar (2004), which is considered a very authoritative publication. Since this species is found over a reasonably wide range I'm sure there are exceptions to this rule, but unless you can produce a reference that says otherwise I suggest we just go with the existing text. --Jwinius (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They will use "fer-de-lance" for tourists and in English language literature for tourists. The name used by locals in Costa Rica is "terciopelo" (velvet skin). (Caissaca (talk) 11:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

That sounds like a good explanation. If you can find a reference for that somewhere we will be able to add it to a number of articles. --Jwinius (talk) 12:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Fer-de-lance" was what was commonly used in Panama while I lived there (most of the 70s and 80s). Aapold (talk) 17:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that was a big contributor to the popular usage of the name. In the 1970s I read a mystery novel involving a police trained Doberman where the Fer-de-lance name was used and it was based in Panama. Trying to remember the title but not having much luck. It was where I first heard of the Fer-de-lance. 172.103.172.228 (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Does this article need to have the picture of the gangrenous leg on it? I can't see what it is adding the article. 86.17.186.211 (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The picture is very disturbing, and should be placed in a drop down. See the discussion about this on the necrosis talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkkelf99 (talk • contribs) 18:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image associated with the Venom section is extremely distracting and graphic. It does not contribute the readers understanding of the snake and if any individuals wished to learn more about the process of necrosis a link to the associated page would suffice. 66.76.136.168 (talk) 01:07, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I propose following the last suggestion here of deleting the image and linking to necrosis. Thoughts? - Eponymous-Archon (talk) 13:12, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind everyone that Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. My questions before advocating for its removal are - "Does this image show a typical human reaction to the venom of this snake?", "Is there a better picture of what happens after envenomation by this snake?". I feel that changing it to only a link to necrosis removes information because there are many different types of necrosis, and necrosis progresses differently depending on the cause. Necrosis from snake venom does not present (medically) the same way as necrosis from frostbite or other sources. Therefore, I feel that a link to the general article on necrosis shouldn't replace the picture because it doesn't completely fit the envenomation section. However, if it can be documented that all snakebites (or all bites from a specific type of venom) necrotize the same way, then perhaps moving the image and linking to that section of an article could be an option... if it does not remove viable information from this article. - 68.189.61.34 (talk) 06:31, 3 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bothrops-asper-juv-1.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Bothrops-asper-juv-1.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

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.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Bothrops-asper-juv-1.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:19, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Birth Size

The two sexes are born the same size, but by age 7 to 12 months, females begin to grow at a much faster rate than males. As already stated, adults are typically 1.2 to 1.8 meters (3.9 to 5.9 ft) in length. From birth, males are notably smaller in size than females.

Are they born the same size or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.207.248.150 (talk) 20:05, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bothrops asper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110426102526/http://www.bosquepuyango.ec:80/en/especies.php?idc=3 to http://www.bosquepuyango.ec/en/especies.php?idc=3

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: 5 June 2024).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

It is suggested that common English names should be used for organisms over their scientific nomenclature. I think we need to use Terciopelo for this purpose.

Agreed...but is it the most common name....? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed: Latin names are perfectly acceptable on Wikipedia (thousands of pages are using them) and in some cases Latin names are preferred.

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna) "Do not use vernacular names when it is not clear to what the name refers"

Campbell and Lamar, Venomous Reptile of the Western Hemisphere (page 373) list over 75 common names for this species (e.g. barba amarilla, cantil bakay, cuatronarices, fer-de-lance, nauyaca, tigra, toboba, tommoygoff, yellow-jaw, and many others). There is a heading on the Bothrops asper page on "Common names" discussing just a few of the issues with common names for this species and identifying Terciopelo as the preferred and standardized name for the species with many authoritative references. This page was created as Bothrops asper in 2006 and has been working under that name without change or issues for 15 years.WiLaFa (talk) 18:06, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It was created at its common name and unilaterally moved by an editor who put all snakes at their scientific names without discussion. In an ideal world I'd have all living things at their scientific names, however as things have turned out, we have animals at common names and plants, fungi and others at scientific names. What really irritates me is when some members of a genus are at common names and others are at scientific names. This genus is complicated it seems by the application of different names.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]