Talk:Eastern diamondback rattlesnake

	Eastern diamondback rattlesnake 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.

Untitled

Think I butchered the taxobox since I lumped both species together... but tis my first article. Go easy. --Surreal 21:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naming

I take it that it must be Jwinius, and his love for Scientific names that went through and butchered all the Pit Viper articles? Seriously....You say this is done to avoid confusion, but all it does, if anything... is confuse the living hell out of the common reader. Which is why you pretty much won't find ANY other snake listed under their scientific name on Wikipedia. Or any other animal for that matter. It is also why you won't find find them listed under their scientific name in ANY reputable encyclopedia. While it would be nice in a perfect world (since you can't get any more specific than scientific names) It is completely impractical. Which is why you never see it used. Abalu (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)Abalu[reply]

It really should be listed under it's common name wikipedia is for everyone not just academic eliteists and last time i checked most people dont know the scientific name and therefore are being robbed of their access to this articleIrishfrisian (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Size

I believe the Eastern Indigo Snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) is the longest recorded species of snake in North America. The Eastern diamondback is indeed the longest venomous snake, however.MFuture 20:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct! The Indigo snake is the longest snake in North America however, it is NOT venomous! Most of the the article seems fairly accurate however... enough venom to kill 400 humans? toddg

I never said the Indigo was venomous. I was correcting the article at the time, which stated the Diamondback was the "largest snake in North America". I have since edited the article.MFuture 21:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what about this... http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/snakes/ss/Eastern-Diamondback-Rattlesnake-Pictures.htm ? Says 15' East Diamondback and ask.com confirms it to be true. [Anon] 14:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.65.221 (talk)

That's the same snake discussed below, with the same photos, and if you actually read the article it says (on the fourth page) the snake was much smaller – measuring 7 feet, 3 inches, and "way short of the 15 feet claimed". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:52, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion caused by common names

It would be nice to see a section added to this entry as well as Crotalus horridus. Living in West Virginia, I was always taught that the "Eastern Diamondback" was one of the two venomous snakes in the state, but the mapping of both species adds confusion to this. It seems like both species are commonly referred to as "Timber" and "Eastern" so it would be nice if a more herpetologically minded editor could clarify the difference between the two species, preferably in both entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.35.172 (talk) 09:24, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

15 Foot Specimen Found

fotos here Jimhoward72 (talk) 11:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, that's a link to a Snopes.com article that says "the apparent size of this rattler has been exaggerated in the photographs ... and the diamondback measured only 7 feet, 3 inches — less than half the length claimed". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 25 August 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 05:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

– These species each have a well-established unambiguous common name, so we should use that name as the article title per WP:COMMONNAME / WP:NCFAUNA. See also remarks above on the Talk:Crotalus adamanteus page from 2009 and 2012. —BarrelProof (talk) 18:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support both per WP:FAUNA and the guidelines of "recognizability" and "naturalness". — the Man in Question (in question) 20:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 21:46, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.