Talk:Komodo dragon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Weight

...weighing between 80 and 140 kg (40 to 310 lb). 80kg is not 40lbs, maybe the two numbers should be reversed?

Thanks. It was my mistake. The 80 kg was there, and there was only a conversion of the upper limit. I added the lower limit, and I not sure where I went astray. I don't know how accurate the numbers are, and obviously this must refer to mature adults. But anyway, I've changed the lower limit to0 175 lb now. I'm glad you spotted that. Gene Nygaard 23:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Made a minor grammatical correction. Removed an unneccesary "the". Toroca 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) in fact this numbers are inaccurate, the fattest komodo-dragon with empty stomach was only about 60kg in weight, although they can be much heavier when they have eaten. Furthermore weights of 80-140kg are far away realitiy.

clean it up!

—Pengo 23:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Did my best to edit & clean as noted. Added the university of melbourne link at the bottom. Good enough?

Thank you muchly, anonymous person at the 59.167.31.237 address. —Pengo 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Some unidentified claim

Some unidentified individuals have argued that komodo dragons have keen senses and are among the most intelligent of living reptiles.

What is this exactly? Is it local folklore or somesuch, or just a random claim? If there's no better source, it probably shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph. --Lorkki 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I listened to the podcast which was from the Australian Broadcasting Company and they interviewed the person who discovered that the Komodo Dragon is venomous. The man pointed out that no bacteria can act fast enough to cause the almost immediate symptoms experienced by a human when bitten on the finger by a Komodo Dragon. I'm no expert but think the logic is good and always have been a bit suspicious of bacteria being the killing agent. I never found a good answer to just what bacteria was at work. I have no idea how to edit a Wikipedia page but pass this on to anybody that does. I am sure, if you have an iPod you can find the podcast of interest under the Science category.

Tom Roach tbroach@gmail.com''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

Yes, I heard Fry talk about that and I read the data from that paper. The data on bacteria is actually excellent, the bacteria have been cultured, and the death of animals/humans bitten between a few days and a week later is typical of septic shock. The case of venom is solely based on a genetics doctor (not a medical doctor) looking at a single patient bitten by a Komodo Dragon in Sydney, who said something like "that looks like poison". Since the claim was not published as a verified account and was not by a medical doctor, and was from a single patient (who could have had an allergic reaction), it is really speculation (but interesting speculation, which may be verified later), so I rewrote it as such. Sad mouse 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Its not just speculation though, there's move evidence than you let on. The paper is cited on the wiki article. Why don't you read it? Or am I the one who is missing something? Kimbits - 3 March 2007

Fry has hinted at more evidence but it has not been published yet as far as I know. What we do have is a good bit of evidence pointing at venom in Varanus varius, and the speculation that this will extend to other members of the genus. Not enough to be certain that they have venom but enough to mention in the way it currently is in the article. And actually I think Fry is a biochemist not a geneticist...and when he said in the article he was a consultant in 3 cases of bites I think consultant was a euphemism for "bitee". Jvbishop 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What Komodo Dragons eat.

"I think that Komodo Dragons should not eat horses.You may think that I am a freaky,DON'T EAT MEAT!,girlssss but I'm really not.I am a vet so I know that it is part of the life cycle,but horses should not have to die for the sake of Komodo Dragons.I know what most of you may say that I am crazy,but trust me I'm not.I just think that if horses are slan for the sake of Komodo Dragons that all HELL!will break lose.So think about what I am saying and comment for me.PLEASE!"

64.250.195.33 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Why should Horses be any more special than any other animal? Dragons need to eat, and if we're going to feed them, better a common animal than a more rare one. Would you rather the endangered species be forced to eat EACH OTHER? Dragons are an endangered species, and it's not like the Horses are in danger of extinction themselves. And I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the Dragons kill the Horses themselves. Circle of Life, creatures have to eat. Especially something as rare and beautiful as a Komodo Dragon.

Actually, the Komodo dragon bites its prey, and lets the bacteria in its salivia finish it off. The Komodo dragon prefers decaying flesh. But you're right - we have way too many people in this world, and the komodo dragon needs to eat. I like the way you think. Raul654 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Komodo dragons kill horses themselves, silly! They need to eat! And would you rather protect an endangered Komodo dragon or a non-endangered horse? Dora Nichov 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

An even better idea - feed murderers to komodo dragons. It will make prisons safer and more spacious, marginally reduce the worlds human population and keep one of the best reptiles in the world alive. Win-win. 24.77.19.12 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be a bad idea to feed murderers to Komodo dragons, as it would be inadvisable to develop a taste for humans in a large dangerous animal. It isn't like they would be able to distinguish between a worthy and unworthy meal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Varanus komodoensis

That is the scientific name of the Komodo Dragon.Most of the common names for it is Ora,Komodo Dragon,and buaja darat.To most people it means nothing.To me it means the name of a animal so exotic it hurts to insult it or hear someone insult it.The most thing I can say is that the Ora's are very fun to research.Tell me what you think of them. 64.250.195.33 20:30, 30 January 2006

Bold text P.S. woow its amazing how there is real dragons i thought it was only in fairy tales! =) it would be great if more people put other types of dragons that DO exsist!! kk thanx

Komodo dragons aren't dragons either, they are just big lizards. Dora Nichov 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Common name

Could people please stop moving this page back and forth from Komodo dragon & Komodo Dragon. I mean, ffs, does it really matter? There are so many more much more important things that need editor's time on wikipedia. The pettiness and ultimately irrelevance of it all is reflected in this section of the Manual of style which says either can be used. Let's use some common sense. --Merbabu 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What is that supposed to mean; I do not understand. Why are there Canadian geese, Arctic wolves and Eurasian badgers, but Komodo Dragons? How can it be either? Being incorrect by concensus does not make it correct? DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Komodo Island Monitor?

Who changed the name? Shouldn't we stay with Komodo dragon as a name, since it's more common of a name? bibliomaniac15 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Right. Dora Nichov 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Komodo dragon parthenogenesis

This is interesting. Perhaps worthy adding? 1

It has been added I see.

My comment is, news reports state the offspring of this parthenogenesis must be male. Please explain the Sex-determination system (obviously not XY) that produces this outcome.

Parthenogenetic offspring will be genetically identical to their mother, barring mutations, because all of their genetic material is indeed derived from their mother. However, gender determination is not at all as clear-cut in the rest of the animal kingdom as it is within the human species.

For example, the egg (not the sperm) carries the determinating factor of offspring gender in birds; it is for this reason that avian autosomes are referred to by W and Z, as opposed to X and Y as they are mammals.

In bees, females are produced from fertilized eggs, while males are produced from unfertilized eggs. This is achieved through a gender determination system whereby females are diploid and males are haploid. Because parthenogenesis occurs with unfertilized eggs, the egg cell (ovum) remains in its haploid state (one of each chromosome, rather than two homologous pairs of each chromosome) and undergoes mitosis to form a haploid embryo. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

some recent edits

i cleaned up a good bit of bad grammar, noun/verb disagreement (still more to go there), tons of redundant info, and the like, and added/replaced/corrected many wiki links.

cheers! Metanoid 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

For new data going into the article, please remember to use metric weights/distances first and imperial weights/distances second. Sad mouse 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm accustomed to the customary system (being a Yank) :). bibliomaniac15 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

ICUN

I cleaned up the ICUN image to reflect the recent 3.1 system instead of the phased out older system. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert. 209.6.251.147 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization

Would the most interested party please run through and uncapitalize the word "dragon;" there is no reason for it to be capitalized. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Locations

[ - I didn't see Thailand listed as a place the Komodo inhabits, but I just returned from a trip there and saw two of them during a cannal cruise.]

• They could have been ordinary monitor lizards. Anthony Appleyard 14:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Discovery

Surely it would be possible for this section to be expanded beyond the current 4-sentence section-stub. — Red XIV ^(talk) 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I have seen them in the small oil camp of duri on the island of sumatra indonesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.218.156 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Bob & Ray routine?

Does anybody else think this article should include at least a brief mention of the famous "Komodo dragon expert" sketch from the comedy team of Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding? - Mdumas43073 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Australia

I rekon if a few breeding dragons were released in Australia that they'd flourish and eventually out number dragons from their native locations. TeePee-20.7 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I reckon if a few pairs of breeding rabbits were released in Australia, they'd flourish and overrun the local environment. Introducing species without previous research or investigation to another place is a very bad thing. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that there were, prior to the arrival of humans, monitor lizards larger than Komodos, it could be argued that it would simply be reintroduction of sorts. The native Perentie is the third largest lizard also. But Biblomaniac is right about research. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeh I know bibliomaiac, but yeh Australia has pefect conditions and if they were ever in risk of extinction, I think scientists should consider have a controlled population releases and monitored here. Besides we already have an abundance of feral herbivores living here that I think kmodos could help in wiping out. TeePee-20.7 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Feral herbivores are not the only thing that lives in Australia. What about the indigenous wildlife? You cannot expect a whole forest to have its inhabitants displaced and replaced only with Komodo dragons. In addition, the perentie is a desert animal, while the Komodo dragon is not. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Tim Flannery in "The Future Eaters" (1994) did propose such a "controlled release". The book text is searchable on Amazon.com. I don't know if there has been much discussion of this since, though. Vmenkov (talk) 05:14, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Komodo Dragon vs. Komodo dragon

I notice Bibliomaniac15 has reversed my change of the capitalisation of common names on this page in spite of correspondence between us. As I said to him previously, either is acceptable, but I believe there are a number of reasons for choosing to capitalise the inital letter of each major part of the common name.

There is no hard and fast rule for most animals - there is no standard convention for common names, as there is for scientific names. But it has been the common convention with bird names for many years to capitalise the first letter of each major part of the common name - hence Bald Eagle, Common Crow, Black Swan. See, for example, the notes at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Animals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles.

This general rule - for some reason - has not always been applied to other orders of animals - I am not sure why.

However, the capitalising of common English names is becoming much more widely used, and so you will frequently see names written like: "Sign-bearing Froglet" (rather than "Sign-bearing froglet") and "Ornate Soil-crevice Skink" (rather than "Ornate Soil-crevice skink"), Alpine Cool-skink (rather than Alpine cool-skink) or Curl Snake (rather than Curl snake). None of these forms is "incorrect", but it is certainly becoming more standard to capitalise all major parts of the name.

There are good reasons for this. First, proper names are almost always capitalised in English. Secondly, it clearly shows that the last part of the name is separate from the first and to some degree classificatory - thus, Froglet, Snake, Monitor, Crow, Eagle, etc. In the case of the Komodo Dragon I think it usefully emphasises that we are not talking about some other sort of "dragon" (perhaps raising thoughts of dragons in mythology), and that it is a shortened form of the name of a real animal. For similar reasons, I think Tasmanian Devil is far preferable to Tasmanian devil, as the latter does not make it clear that it is a proper name and someone could easily think one was referring to some devil in Tasmania.

Finally, I think it is best to stick with one convention to improve consistency and prevent confusion and I don't see why the convention should be limited to birds.

I would appreciate other readers' comments on my suggestion. John Hill 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is important to follow convention, but more importantly, the common usage should be followed. In biological studies and books, they are referred to as the Komodo dragon, with the "d" uncapitalized. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

REPLY

I don't want to get in an argument about this but it depends what biological studies and books you look in, and I think you will find that more and more frequently both parts of the names are capitalised. I don't have a modern work mentioning the Komodo Dragon itself, but I do have two recent books here on Australian animals (that have all the common names capitalised so that you get Earless Dragon, Two-line Dragon, Lashtail Dragon, Bearded Dragon, Lace Monitor, etc., etc., etc. At the moment Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any recommendations on a style for such names so we end up with a real mess. For example, in this one article on the Komodo Dragon you get "Komodo Dragon," "Komodo dragon," "Dragon," and "dragon" all referring to the same species.

I have just checked on Amazon.com and the following books use "Komodo Dragon" - not "Komodo dragon": Komodo, the Living Dragon: The Living Dragon (1996) by Richard L. Lutz (Author), J. Marie Lutz (Author); Komodo Dragons (2006) (Bridgestone Books, World of Reptiles) (Library Binding)by Jason Glaser (Author); and others.

A quick look for scientific papers using the capitalisation that I recommend turned up: "Genetic Divergence and Units for Conservation in the Komodo Dragon Varanus komodoensis." Claudio Ciofi, Mark A. Beaumont, Ian R. Swingland, Michael W. Bruford. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 266, No. 1435 (Nov. 22, 1999), pp. 2269-2274; "Mitochondrial Genome of the Komodo Dragon: Efficient Sequencing Method with Reptile-Oriented Primers and Novel Gene Rearrangements." Yoshinori Kumazawa1,* and Hideki Endo21Division of Material Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan; "At the feet of the dinosaurs: the early history and radiation of lizards." SUSAN E. EVANS. Department of Anatomy & Developmental Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England, UK, and so on and on. Now, I admit others do use "Komodo dragon" - but I do think this is less preferable because of the lack of clarity and the possibility of confusion.

Whatever the case, there is clearly an urgent need for some consistent guidelines for the Wikipedia so I have, accordingly, left a message asking for others' opinions at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life‎. I strongly support the position of captitalising all the major parts of the name (unless hyphenated) as this is now the most common way of writing them and obviously the clearest and least likely to cause confusion (think "Tasmanian Devil" - which is obviously a proper name, rather than "Tasmanian devil," which is not obviously a proper name - and could equally refer to something quite different than the animal). I would also be grateful if anyone would to comment here. Cheers, John Hill 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a very simple problem to the books you've cited. You have only cited the titles. Following the guidelines for book titles, of course the "dragon" part would be capitalized. If you actually looked inside the books (for example KOMODO DRAGONS (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series)), they all use the uncapitalized form. Guidelines are guidelines, they aren't set in stone. Whatever the case, we must use the most commonly used name. bibliomaniac15 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Addendum. In addition, I don't see how clarity is affected in the article. The context is already established as the Komodo dragon, not the Chinese dragon, the European dragon, or any other dragon. Thus, if we give a statement such as: "Dragons are carnivorous and eat a wide variety of animals" in the article, it would be quite obvious, looking at the context, that we are referring to the Komodo dragon and not a mythological dragon. If this statement was standing by itself, it would definitely need disambiguation. But since the context has already been established, it is already clear that references to a "dragon" in the article would refer to the Komodo dragon unless specified. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Bibliomaniac

Well, this does, unfortunately, seem to be developing into an argument, as what you have just written contains some gross untruths. For example, one of the books I referred to - Komodo, the Living Dragon: The Living Dragon by Richard L. Lutz, J. Marie Lutz always uses the capitalised form "Komodo Dragons" - I just checked through it on Amazon.com. (I can't check KOMODO DRAGONS (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series) as I don't have it here.) But every single book on animals that I do have to hand here at home consistently and always capitalise the common names. These books include: Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Reptiles by Harald Ehmann and the Australian Museum; Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Frogs by Michael Tyler and the Australian Museum; Dangerous Snakes of Australia by Peter Mirtschin and Richard Davis; Wildlife of Tropical North Queensland published by the Queensland Museum; Toxic Plants & Animals: A Guide for Australia by Jeanette Covacevich, et al., Native Animals of Australia: Macmillan Pocket Guide by Susan Drury, and Venomous Creatures of Australia by Struan and John Sutherland.

So, please, argue with my logic if you wish - but don't use false arguments. Now, to cheer things up a bit, I will admit that Dave has just pointed out that this whole subject has already been argued in detail on the Wikipedia, with most people who participated taking your position - see: [1] However, I still think Komodo Dragon, Tasmanian Devil and Water Dragon look better, are clearer, and are, therefore, much better capitalised than not. Besides, this usage is becoming more and more standard all the time. At the moment, the confusion in the Wikipedia is not only messy and unprofessional looking - sometimes it is downright confusing - especially when different systems are used within the same article, and while all the articles on birds are supposed to be standardised in capitalised form. Sincerely, John Hill

Sorry, I was getting a little flustered. Komodo, the Living Dragon does not capitalize dragon in its text, I searched on Amazon.com too (just read the first chapter past the Table of Contents and the title). I did not use a false argument in that regard. I know many creatures have the complete name capitalized, but the Komodo dragon is better off conforming to the other literature I have cited. bibliomaniac15 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I will try to make this the last comment for now - it is obvious I have been getting flustered too - do keep it as "Komodo dragon" for the time being if you wish - after all, you were working on it before me. I guess this is a very controversial subject and if the scientists and taxonomists can't agree, there is no reason why we should be able to come up with a simple answer which will satisfy eveyone. But do please take a look at the discussion of the problems and possible solutions in: "Capitalizing the Approved Common Names of Species" (2003) by Ernest H Williams, Jr and Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, at: [2]

Sorry if I sounded testy at times - please put it down to the muggy heat here at the moment - which is almost intolerable. All best wishes, John Hill 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"largest living species of lizard"?

At tops of 3m, he can't be the largest. 'El lagarto's article claims about 4m lizards. He can be the largest living Squamata, but lizard is not a technical term and can easily mean an alligator. 189.5.182.45 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

First of all, alligators are not lizards. They are crocodilians. Second of all, Komodo dragons are not the largest living squamate, this distinction goes to the longest snake, the reticulated python. A lizard is a squamate, not a crocodilian. Crocodilians cannot be squamates. This is quite silly. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

How deep can they dive?

I have by WP:OR heard that they can dive deep, divers have seen them much deeper than 4.5m. The page now states up to 4.5m, with a ref for Burnie, David; Don E. Wilson (2001), I tried to find something on the net but could not find much, but one other ref [3] states "They can also dive and stay underwater, some say up to 100m." , which would correspond more to what I have heard. Any comment? Does the first ref specifically state the depth or is it for other parts of that sentence? --Stefan ^talk 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some say? I find that rather doubtful. The bottom line is that Komodo dragons do swim well. The ref is for the whole sentence, if I remember correctly. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just think that 4.5 now is VERY precise and I have from WP:OR that it might be wrong and that very unspecific and weak source also backs that up. Since I have no good source I did not change the page and will not unless I find a better source. I just wanted to know how good your source was. The weak source can be interpreted as they can dive deep for sure, some say as deep as 100m, and deep in this context would be much more than 4.5, but very weak anyway. I will try to find something better. If you have been updating this page for 1 year plus, have you read in more places that they are limited to about 4.5 or is it only that one source? --Stefan ^talk 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find many sources telling how far exactly they dive, so I just took 4.5 from the most reliable source I could find. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, I will try to find something, but we keep the 4.5 until then, thanks! --Stefan ^talk 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Can only find references for 2 and 4 meters, so I give up :-). Good work, should become FA! --Stefan ^talk 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

largest lizard

i just want to say that croc monitors are longer.Reptilemasterdilorenzo (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's actually speculation that Papua monitors can grow up to 5 meters. So far, the only actual captured specimens are shorter than the Komodo dragon. There was a specimen claimed to be 4.25 meters, but it has mysteriously disappeared, and other assertions are based on sightings. Komodo dragons are larger on average, and are heavier, making it the largest lizard. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Popular culture

Should we add in the popular culture in this article, I see that dragon in culture alot. Mr. Loner (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? bibliomaniac15 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Like the Komodo bros from Crash bandicoot 2. Mr. Loner (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tall tale

They were considered myths till a dutchman crashed on their island

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=de32f9d6-e52f-406d-b410-2e78d7ebea18&p=3 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.241.245.34 (talk) 00:02, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Consistency in measurements

"…growing to an average length of 2 to 3 metres (6.6 to 9.8 ft) and weighing around 70 kilograms (150 lb)." Should this be "2 to 3 metres (6.6 to 9.8 feet)" and "70 kilograms (150 pounds)"? –thedemonhog talk • edits 04:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

David Attenborough

Nice article, but I was very surprised there was no mention of David Attenborough's 1956 Zoo Quest BBC tv programme about the Komodo Dragon. I remember seeing it as a kid and it largely popularised the beast, at least here in the UK. Link: [4], and there's a book and an audiobook of the book: David Attenborough - the Early Years: Zoo Quest for a Dragon. I'm not sure if the original Zoo Quest programme is still available on DVD, although the Wikipedia Zoo Quest pages says the BBC still has all the Zoo Quest programmes in its archive. It also says the programme captured the first tv images of the dragon. I remember hiding behind the sofa at the images of the poor tethered goat waiting for the dragon. I think Attenborough's input in bringing the animal to a wider audience should be acknowledged. 81.159.90.178 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I've added his book to the further reading (and sorted out the citations, dates etc of the others - in a bit of a mess for a featured article) 81.159.90.178 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Discovery?

The article says that Komodo Dragons were discovered in "the 60s" is this referring to the 1960s?Ratsbew (talk) 17:02, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Spelling

Is not consistent - American English (color) and Commonwealth English (metre) are both used. I haven't copyedited for one or the other as I'm not sure which version the article is supposed to be in. 81.159.90.178 (talk) 18:37, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

{{fact}} tags

I added two fact tags...sorry biblio for the trouble. =/ —Ed 17 ^{(Talk / Contribs)} 23:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Conservation"

I changed this to more accurately reflect the article - the natives blamed the environmentalists for causing the death of the boy - not because they beleive goat sacrifices keep the animals/ancient ancestors pleased, but because they beleive that by banning goat sacrifices, the komodos (who are scavengers) wandered into human-occupied parts of the island in search of food. The natives said that if they were allowed to feed the Komodo's the scraps of their kills, then the komodos would have less incentive to kill humans (the ones who feed them). I'm not making this political - this is what the natives beleived is the error of the environmentalists (who the natives blame for stepping onto an island they don't live on and dictating how to conduct their traditions of feeding the Komodo) - again, not politics, just what the natives sayXmacro (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Size

The article says this

A member of the monitor lizard family (Varanidae), it is the largest living species of lizard, growing to an average length of 2 to 3 metres (6.6 to 9.8 ft) and weighing around 70 kilograms (150 lb).

I had thought the Komodo was heavier (250 lb.) I also thought the Crocodile was bigger than this. Jokem (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The greatest weights are likely attributed to individuals with a full stomach, and the Komodo Dragon can consume almost its own weight of food on a single meal. When I once searched specifically for the greatest weight in the wild, the highest I found was a mere 69 kg (152 lb). This is too low even in my opinion, but restricting the search to wild specimens complicated things – not to say that it was a very thorough search in the first place.

The Crocodile Monitor (Varanus salvadorii) is indeed often claimed to grow longer than the Komodo Dragon because of its long tail (almost 70 % of total length), but this is exaggeration: the largest verified length was 2.44 m (8 ft). In fact, Guinness had once accepted a completely absurd claim of 4.75 m (15 ft 7 in)!

Also, about the sentence "The largest verified wild specimen was 3.13 metres (10.3 ft) long and weighed 166 kilograms (370 lb), including undigested food." It's more than likely that this refers to the Guinness record specimen, presented to an American zoologist by the Sultan of Bima in 1928. At the time it measured 10 ft (3.05 m) long, and in 1937 it was put on display at St. Louis Zoological Gardens, St. Louis, Missouri for a short period. It then measured 10 ft 2 in (3.10 m) long and weighed 365 lb (166 kg). In other words, not a wild specimen; also, I don't know where the figure of 3.13 m originates, but I've seen it associated before with this specimen. Misconversion perhaps – like the ones in that original sentence.

Quite recently I saw a reptile book that mentioned that the longest wild specimen found in one study measured 3.00 m (9 ft 10 in). I'll add the source here if I remember to look it up again.

--Anshelm '77 (talk) 22:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Jokem was asking about true crocodilians, rather than the Crocodile Monitor.

No, not really. I was suggesting the Croc was heavier than the Komodo, when the Komodo was supposed to be the heaviest lizard. Jokem (talk) 15:48, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Many crocodilians are bigger than the Komodo dragon, but crocodilians aren't lizards. They belong to Crocodilia, a completely different group which differs from lizards in a number of ways. The two groups' ancestors diverged a long way back, well before the rise of the dinosaurs.

--Colin Douglas Howell (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Crocs are not Lizards? I thought all reptiles were either snakes or lizards? I never heard of a third group. Jokem (talk) 15:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Local names

To the natives of Komodo Island, it is referred to as ora, buaja darat ("land crocodile") or biawak raksasa ("giant monitor").

What language(s) do these words belong to? Indonesian, or something else? --Ptcamn (talk) 23:43, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The last is probably Indonesian. I'm unsure of the other two. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

"Evolutionary Development."

Well, I think the use of the phrase "Evolutionary Development" to head this section is a little confusing. Particularly, it lends itself to being confused with the "Evolution of Komodo Dragon Development" (see evolutionary developmental biology). I think a better phrase to use would be "Evolutionary History" or just simply "Evolution." Also, I think use of the word "genus" in this section is misleading: "The evolutionary development of the Komodo dragon started with the Varanus genus.." should probably be replaced with something to the extent of "The evolutionary development of the Komodo dragon started with the common ancestor of the Varanus genus..."

It used to be just "evolution," but it was later changed to add development. I think "history" is more fitting for the section though. Now as for genus, I think in context it talks about the genus as a whole, not necessarily just about the common ancestor. bibliomaniac15 00:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

In captivity section

Deal with five American zoos only. Surely there are Komodo dragons elsewhere in the world worth mentioning? (apart from Chester Zoo etc in earlier sections - but you need some from elsewhere in the world to give balance to this section). 81.159.90.178 (talk)

Formerly there was a list of all the zoos in the world where Komodo dragons were kept. The section was later revamped to mostly mention studies of Komodo dragons and conservation as a whole. You can see where all the Komodo dragons in captivity are kept at the ISIS database. bibliomaniac15 00:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

komodo dragons

yea i think the same thing they do need to be saved and taken care of. and all people should care about the wonderful animal. --209.188.54.221 (talk) 21:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)kiri katazea

konodo dragons are firce animals and on the verge of elimination (extinct) so dont help them they could be just like dinosaurs. gone forever. so stop being so selfish and save a komodo dragon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.80.156.13 (talk) 15:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

komodo dragons

The komodo dragons are the most deadly lizards in the world. They also have red and grayish skin. Thay live on islands thare offsping is eggs the intresting facta are the komodo dragons are the biggest lizards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.89.110 (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect statement regarding feeding

The article states that "There is evidence that Komodo dragons are becoming accustomed to human presence, as they are often fed animal carcasses at several feeding stations by tourists.[4]" This is out of date and therefore currently incorrect and the source that is given dates from 1989 & 1992. Feeding used to occur but it has been prohibited now for a number of years for environmental reasons. The dragons were gradually becoming so accustomed to being fed artificially that is was considered very bad for the species as a whole and was stopped. I do not have a source for this but I lived on an island adjacent to Komodo for a year in 2006 and had many discussions with the park rangers on the issue. I am not sure who is monitoring this talk page but from the state of it I guess the answer is no-one. Page could do with a clean up Antarctic-adventurer (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

New findings on how Komodo dragons kill their preys

MRI scans and study of the venoms they produce show that hey can kill their preys quickly with their vemon which affects the circulatory system and coagulation, causing shocks.(http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/43907/description/It%E2%80%99s_not_their_dirty_mouths) {mirrordor}

Mike, you've repeatedly deleted this material, with the comments that it is "spurious" and "junk science". However, this is the same research team whose 2006 study is already the principal source for the section, and both studies are published in peer-reviewed journals. It is therefore up to you to demonstrate that the study is unreliable before you delete it. kwami (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Well for starters, he's using a negative argument to try to proove another negative. In the article you linked to above the proposition is put forth that the only way a Komodo dragon can kill its prey is by biting it and infecting it with virulent bacteria. This on it's face is utter nonsense.

A lizard that size takes down prey similar to the way smaller monitors do against smaller prey...they overpower it and tear it apart with jaws and claws. What Fry has done is seized a flawed hypothesis, that of a scientist who received an infection following a bite that wondered if that was how Komodo's killed their prey. This gave rise to Fry's equally ridiculous argument that lizards such as monitors and bearded dragons may be venomous which gave rise to even more outlandish nonsense that Green iguanas are venomous.

Fry is, but one "scientist" and while his theories are provocative, they are not accepted by the scientific community yet, perhaps in a few years after more conclusive evidence than the presence of salivary glands is submitted, the bulk of opinion will change. In the meantime, while it's an interesting footnote, it is still not proven beyond a theory. To conclusively state komodos are venomous based on this is as irresponsible as saying dinosaurs died because there was lack of room in Noah's Ark, at best they "may be venomous". If youy choose to believe sexed-up spurious stories by all means go ahead, just do not place undue weight on it and ruin an otherwise good article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:49, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Our job is not WP:Truth, but to reflect the state of the field. This has been published in a peer-reviewed journal; if there are counter-claims, then by all means add them. Otherwise you're engaging in censorship of an idea you personally disagree with. Your argument does not even appear to make sense: "the only way a Komodo dragon can kill its prey is by biting it and infecting it" does not appear in the article that I can see, and even if it did, that could be a poor summary of Fry et al. rather than a claim by Fry et al. Anyway, it's the exact opposite of what the authors claim. (I assume that you worded your argument poorly, but I'm at a loss as to what else you might have meant.) They also apparently cover other methods as well, such as teeth evolved to cause massive wounds which lead to bleeding to death. So you do not actually address the claim you're refuting, and your only evidence appears to be your opinion. kwami (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Here's the quote from your link:

Just how these deadly lizards kill has been controversial. Conventional wisdom held that after inflicting a bacteria-laden bite, the dragons would track wounded prey and wait days for sepsis to set in before dining.

Scientists recently discovered Komodo dragons possess six venom glands on each side of the lower jaw. Bryan Fry, et al.“In the minds of many biologists, that just didn’t make sense,” comments Christopher Shaw, a biological chemist at Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland. “If you’ve evolved to be the size of a Komodo dragon, it seems to be a waste of time.”

What’s more, rare sightings of the lizards hunting didn’t fit with this method. Victims typically died quickly and quietly after going into shock, the authors say. “No one’s actually seen a Komodo dragon track a prey for three days until it dies of septicemia,” Fry says. “It’s an absolute fairy tale.”

What Fry fails to mention is that no one has ever seen anything envenomated by a Komodo dragon, either. He appears to be telling fairy tales in exchange for grant money. If you want to believe that salivary glands contain venom proteins, that's fine, but that's all these geniuses are finding, is salivary glands. By the way, a real doctor who is a venomoligist has published that venom and saliva are linked in that venom breaks down internally much like saliva does, but to say the two are the same demonstrates gullibility. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

At least from my reading of the PNAS article, it appears that the authors of the paper actually did an analysis of venom found in a Komodo dragon using mass spectrometry, which conclusively shows that they are venomous.--Tekhnofiend (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again your criticism is incoherent. You're also making accusations of academic fraud, which requires some backing up before we dismiss the source—again, the same research team as the earlier study you leave in the article. And I have no idea what "Bow the real" means. kwami (talk) 04:54, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I have a wireless keyboard that drops keys, tough guy. No need to be snarky and argumentive. And I'll watch allegations of fraud as long you watch false accusations of vandalism.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Tough guy"? All I said that that part of what you wrote was unintelligible. I spent some time trying to figure out what typo could've produced it, and was at a loss. If you know your keyboard drops keystrokes, I'd think you'd proofread what you write. kwami (talk)

I'm not too keen on the Toxicofera clade stuff that Fry's done, to be honest, but I think the venom is worth noting. However, just because there is a peer-reviewed article on the subject, doesn't necessarily mean all wisdom gathered about the Komodo dragon is immediately thrown out the window. New ideas surface regularly, but old ideas are never (and should never) be totally discarded. bibliomaniac15 05:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I say it needs to be added based on consensus and without undue weight. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 05:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Certainly new ideas take some time to be evaluated. It just seemed odd to reject as "spurious" a new study by a research team that was already used as a primary source. kwami (talk) 06:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Many in the herpetological community find these claims to be spurious and sexed-up. Fry has done good work with venom, but his lizard studies and subsequent claims are way off the mark.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:31, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike - Venom production by Komodo dragons is well supported by the evidence published in PNAS and Nature. These papers have the support of a considerable number of co-authors in addition to Fry himself, and have been accepted by the editors and reviewers of these journals. If you know of good quality published evidence to the contrary then please bring it to our attention. Opinionated comments such as "junk science", "ridiculous" and "telling fairy tales" are not really sufficient in this respect. Also, can you back up your assertion that "Many in the herpetological community find these claims to be spurious and sexed-up.", and give a source for your "real doctor who is a venomoligist (sic) has published that venom and saliva are linked in that venom breaks down internally much like saliva does"? --Graminophile (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually it is not well supported by the evidence in those two works. What is happening is that you have someone changing definitions of what venom is by a group of people with an agenda. Can I back up what I say about peers in the herpetological community, sure...pick up the phone and make a few calls, I won't post private correspondence here, but it's safe to say if you called any curator of reptiles at any major zoo in the US, 9 times out of 10 you would hear what I have said. See what the real scientists have to say. Read Freiberg or Haast for more information on the properties of saliva vs. venom. Just about everyone in the field has always maintained that venom is "evolved saliva", not that saliva devolved from venom. Finally, Fry himself, after publishing this tripe says that for legal and medical reasons monitor lizards should not be considered venomous:[5]. I guess it depends on how you want to read this paper and define what venom really is. Wait for the paper due out that says wolves and cats are venomous.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

You're still not making your being very clear. What’s demonstrated in the papers, and supported by a number of previous observations and independent work (e.g. on the toxicity of Varanus griseus), is that the saliva of various lizards, including the Komodo dragon, contains various toxic proteins capable of causing a range of negative physiological effects, including those mentioned in the article. What is it you dispute – that these particular proteins are not present in the saliva, that they aren’t toxic, that they are but it’s still not venom, or something else? Most of what you’ve written consists of pejorative comments aimed at Fry and his work, such as your implied accusations that he isn’t a “real doctor” or a “real scientist”, plus references to the personal opinion of anonymous people in the herpetological community. It's just not substantive. Whether individual species of lizards and snakes should be considered venomous in the context of the legal regulation of reptile keeping isn’t really relevant to the biology of these animals, although it could perhaps be included in the article.--Graminophile (talk) 11:18, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to simplify it, maybe I'm thinking on a different level. You have to stop confusing proteins with toxins. Venom is a strange thing. I've read the paper several times, here's what it's saying: They removed what they refer to as a gland and analyzed its contents they found the following proteins:

Cysteine-rich secretory proteins(CRISP): Cysteine is a non essential amino acid found in: pork,chicken, turkey, duck, eggs, milk, whey, red peppers, garlic, onions, broccoli, brussel sprouts, oats, granola, and wheat germ. As part of my diet as a strength athelete I consume close to 1400 mg of this amino acid a day, maybe more. As I read the label on a jar of whey protein on my desk I see it contains 372mg of this per scoop. Maybe the FDA will have to regulate whey protein in addition to all the food products listed above as this is one of the "toxins" found by Dr Fry in "Komodo venom". But wait, there's more!

Kallikrein, kallikrein is a proteolytic enzyme present in various glands: lymph, urine, and blood plasma. Even the human body contains this in huge amounts!

Then there is natriuretic peptide which is a 32 amino acid polypeptide secreted by the ventricles of the heart in response to excessive stretching of heart muscle cells. The heart secretes this as a natural defense against heart attack...the presence of these two substances would not have anything to do with the cause of death of the autopsied animal to begin with, now would they?

Finally, type III phospholipase A2 protein scaffolds were also discovered. Now this might be something as the extracellular forms of phospholipases A2 have been isolated from many different venoms such as snakes, wasps, and gila monsters, but they have also been extracted from virtually every studied mammalian tissue (including pancreas and kidney) as well as from different strains of bacteria. Gila monsters and Beaded lizards are the only known venomous lizards, yet even their bites are not enough to cause human death, and these animals are much smaller than a Komodo. What was believed by Fry to be a venom gland contained these 4 proteins. Kallikrein, for example was present in one instance, Gilas and Beaded lizards have at least 5 instances of this one protein in their venom glands. These enzymes do have pharmacological properties and are found in the saliva of other animals and in the venom of venomous animals. Yet, these do not make for toxic venom, not a single toxin was identified in this paper. If you want to stretch the definition of venom to include enzymes with pharmacological properties, you need to include a whole bunch of other animals as venomous, including humans!

From a scientific standpoint does this paper show evolution of a common ancestor? Absolutely. In reading this work several times over I am more convinced now than I ever was that varanids, helodermids, and snakes share common ancestry. Do I think that a Komodo has a nasty bite? Sure. However, I am not of the belief that this animal produces what has been traditionally known as venom. Whoever translated this for the media from science into newsspeak has again done another grave disservice to science and the media as the media reports do not reflect what the research shows. However, I could see how people not understanding venom or how it works could perceive it that way. He is really characterizing saliva and showing that it has been modified to fit specific lifestyles. It's disingenuous because this has been Fry's "theory" from day one and he's stretching the boundaries to make the evidence fit his claim. The scientific method for arriving at toxicity is totally off as well. I have no problems using this article to source claims that these animals derived from a common ancestor, or that there are proteins in the saliva that may have pharmalogical qualities. It still does not make them venomous, which the report doesn't come right out and say, either. That's the non-scientific spin put on it by the news. I am sorry if you can't understand what I write, I am obviously not as scholarly as you and kwami. I'll stick to writing about guns and knives. Fry is a philosophy major, by the way. He has no degree in the sciences. If you want to contact me via email I can put you in contact with some other people who feel the same as I do that might carry a bit more weight than me academically.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Now those are substantive objections. Still OR by wiki standards, but a clear reason for your objections, and something we can work with--we can agree, I think, on omitting things based on OR like this more easily than we can get away with adding them. kwami (talk) 16:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I think. I do apologize, sometimes my brain is on fast-forward going 1000 mph and I make mistakes thinking everyone else is on the same page...I also type like an ape and sometimes don't get everything out as orderly as I should...my one PC also drops keys. PNAS is not a peer-reviewed journal, however, I will grant it is a respected one, although I personally cannot believe this was published as a science article and am curious as to what two people were chosen to read it prior to submission. Going strictly by what the article says as published, the best anyone can say is that "its saliva possesses proteins with pharmalogical properties similar to those found in venomous animals, suggesting at one time that Komodo dragons shared a common evolutionary ancestor with other venomous species". If you read the abstract, I would hold that if someone used florid prose describing a "combined killing apparatus" in a lizard article it would not make it to FAC or even GA status, but that's neither here nor there. I would even list the proteins out as I did when I contributed to the Gila monster and Beaded lizard articles. I don't object to mentioning this study or even "this team of scientists concludes that this is venom". My objection is categorizing it as venomous, when even the doctor who performed the study and spun this for the media concedes it is not legally or medically venomous.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike, this is utterly wrong >Fry is a philosophy major, by the way. He has no degree in the sciences This is completely wrong. I have a Ph.D. in Biochemistry and a B.Sc (Honours) in Molecular Biology. I do, however, also have a BA in Philosophy and another in Psychology.

Straighten out the University, this is what they list, Bryan:[6]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Further Mike, your understanding of venom evolution leaves much to be desired.

I don't go around pretending to be a "Venomdoc", though, I'm just some idiot who writes on wiki.

1. CRiSP proteins are not cysteine amino acids, they are a type of protein that is rich in cysteines.

Semantics, old boy.

2. venom proteins evolve by the duplication of an ordinary body protein, with selective expression of the new gene copy in the venom gland, followed by explosive duplication and diversification. As we explored in one of our previous papers http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2005_BGF_Genome_2_Venome.pdf Thus phylogenetic analyses can recover the molecular evolutionary history. The proteins we have recovered from the Komodo (and other varanid) mandibular venom glands are of the same types as present in gila monster venom, indeed sharing a molecular history, and have many of the same pathophysiological actions. Of course there are other forms of kallikrein, the venom proteins had to come from somewhere since there is not an intelligent design magic fairy that says 'poof! have another venom protein'. But by doing molecular phylogenetic analyses, we can show the venom proteins all form a clade and share a common recruitment event. Once these molecular clades are created, they are often mutated to potentiate an existing useful activity (such as the hypotention-induction of the kallikrein and natriuretic) or new forms evolved with entirely new activities (such as the anti-platelet activites of the PLA2 toxins found in the venoms).

I conceded you found pharmalogical proteins, not venom and you have not shown a single toxin. I was a bit skeptical of much of what you published before, especially how you worded it to the press, but I guess that the truth doesn't make for good headlines. This paper has me more of the belief that Varanus, heloderms, and snakes share a common ancestor and has me more interested in the toxicofera clade.

3. As for our stressing that they should not be considered venomous from a legal/medical practical perspective, this is out of concern for the herpetological community, which is constantly under attack by assinine legislation. The venoms are not delivered efficiently enough or in sufficient quantities to be of medical importance in their own right. As we went through great pains to stress in the paper, the venom supplements (not supplants) the deep wounds inflicted by the teeth. A komodo that delivered enough venom to cause obvious symptoms in a human, would have also already caused extensive mechanical damage that is of the primary medical concern. The venom by itself may cause symptoms, as I have personally observed with several varanid species (V. komoodensis, V. scalaris, V. prasinus, V. varius and V. mertensi) and have had anecdotally reported to me for other species. But it is not going to be life-threatening. Which is exactly what 'venomous animal' legislation is suppossed to address: life-threateningly venomous animals, not 'warm' animals. Otherwise, garter snakes would have to be included since they are technically venomous (but are not dangerous).

And hence, it's not venom, there is a brilliant doctor in the US you should read, Bryan, D. K Kardong, he might be able to straighten you out.

4. The venom glands are not salivary glands, they are newly created structures with their own functions. They also contain completely different protein types. Thus, the glands and the proteins produced are NOT homologous.

No, we are talking about this gland you extrtacted from the Komodo dragon, which is neither, but perhaps is more like a Duvernoy's gland but we know your hypothesis on those, don't we.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

5. PNAS is a peer-reviewed journal. There is an alternate stream for a member to directly place a paper in the journal but that is rare. The typical pathway is a long slog through, often several rounds, of peer-review. As was the case in this paper.

It is not a peer-reviewed journal--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the place for a full discussion, please go to my forum (venomdoc.com/forums) and we can hash it out there. Cheers Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 06:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, I'll consider it, I'm always suspicious of yanks who say "cheers", though.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:03, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To respond to the above:

1. a Ph.D. is a 'Doctorate of Philosophy', that is what it stands for (because it is making a contribution to the body of knowledge). But that does not mean all Ph.Ds are in Philosophy. My Ph.D. is in Biochemistry, not in Philosophy. To someone unfamiliar with academia, this could be confusing.

2. CRiSP proteins vs cysteines is not semantics. Cysteines are a single amino acid. CRiSP proteins are 24 kDA proteins that contain as part of the sequence a number of cysteines that allow for extensive disulphide bridging. This is not semantics but rather Biochemistry 101.

3. You concede that we have found pharmacological proteins. Considering they are the same ones found in gila monster venom and produced by the exact same gland as the gila monster, how is this not a venom?

4. Kardong's definition of venom is so dogmatically anthropocentric that it would exclude a large number of Australian elapids who are not medically important.

5. read the PNAS guidelines and you will see quite clearly that it is a peer-reviewed journal. It has different ways a paper can be accepted, from being nominated by an academy member, through to the normal rigorous blind review process. We went the latter, and more difficult, route with three round of review before acceptance.

Hope this is helpful,

Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

A bit,

1. My apologies on the degree, the Website does not make it clear to those of us who are unenlightened. Someone else pointed this out to me that your degree was in Philosophy and a thesis about Kant.

2. Still don't agree 100% on that

3. Because Gilas, Beadeds and other venomous animals posses toxins in addition to these proteins. These toxins are what make venoms, not these other proteins. There are no toxins listed in your paper, unless you are trying to change the definition of what a toxin is. Again, the finding of these in a monitor lizard is intriguing, especially as it points to venom and evolution, but probably doesn't make for sensational headlines in the mainstream press. Have you examined the carcasses of animals killed by komodos to find the degree this supposed toxicity might play? Have you also tried injecting the same amount of dog saliva into a rat to see what happens?

4. Guess you're not a fan of the good Doctor.

5. Thanks for the clarity, another researcher told me this journal is not peer reviewed, but rather read by two people on a review board, not necesarrily familiar with the subject matter.

Still not sure if this is the place to have this debate. Advise if you want to take it to email. Really wish I could make the conference in NM next week.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:54, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

To reply:

1. settled

2. what part don't you agree with? One is a protein, one is an amino acid. They are chalk and cheese. This is one of the very first things taught in a biochemistry course and is absolutely elementary.

3. Proteins ARE the toxins in reptile venoms. The table lists the toxins we have found in the komodo, all of which have been previously isolated from other lizard or snake venoms and are well-characterised in their toxicity. Indeed, these are some of the dominant toxin types in Toxicofera venoms. Our analyses demonstrate a common molecular evolutionary history for the proteins in Komodo's relative to those in gila and snake venoms, consistent with the shared history of the glands. Homologous glands producing homologous proteins. As for your other questions, I am off to Komodo Island in two weeks. We did not inject Komodo saliva, we injected pure toxin in order to characterise the effects.

4. I fundamentally disagree with Kardong's arbitrary definition, it contributes nothing to our understanding of venom evolution

5. Considering your rather public comments about me and my work (some bordering on slander) this is a rather appropriate place to hash out the points you have brought out previously here. Certainly anything else can be moved to another forum.

Regards

Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Bryan. 1. Good, and I do sincerely apologize for that. 2. CRISP being a toxin. I don't see it as a toxic substance. 3. I can grant/concede/follow the notion that true venomous animals also have these proteins in their venom and that venom is evolved saliva...somewhere along the path certain proteins became more virulent in certain species, etc. I guess someone as poorly educated as myself does not see the leap of Faith being made. It's like saying, "all venomous animals have forked tongues, therefore if an animal has a forked tongue it is venomous". I thought you were going to be in New Mexico in two weeks? Are you going to Komodo first? 4. I am not talking about the evolution of venom, just the properties that make venom, what it is. 5. Apologies if you took it that way. I guess I was reading the paper one way and agreeing with more of it than you might think, but not agreeing with the spin placed by the media or someone translating it for the media.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike, do you have any refs that these proteins are not among active ingredients listed for the venoms of helodermas and snakes? Given that each group is somewhat different, and that no-one is arguing varanid venom is well developed?

As for the precise definition of "venom", that would seem to be a philosophic debate which we could cover in the article, but which IMO should hardly be the deciding factor in whether to include the information. kwami (talk) 22:09, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Kwami, I said that two of these proteins were found in heloderms. The Komodo had one instance of one (Heloderms have 4 or 5 instances of the same, plus the toxins that makes it venom). I just don't see any of these other proteins as being a toxin.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

You keep saying 'plus the toxins that make it a venom'. Exactly what are you referring to? These sorts of proteins are exactly what make it a venom. But you cannot seem to grasp that, just as you can't seem to grasp that a protein rich in cysteines (but making up only a couple percent of the total protein) is not the same thing as the free amino acid cysteine. This displays a fundamental lack of understanding not only of toxinology but of basic biochemistry as well. This article, and the preceeding Nature paper, passed rigorous peer-review by experts in the field. It is entirely inappropriate for you to play gatekeeper based upon your own misunderstanding of an entire field. This is of course the inherent problem with wikipedia. If you feel you have substantive objections, then write a letter to the editor of PNAS and we will rebut it. If your arguments hold up, then it is appropriate for the wikipedia entry to reflect this. However, in the interim you have produced nothing of any substance and thus it is inappropriate for you to attempt to filter the information posted on the page. Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not "playing gatekeeper" and I don't misunderstand the entire field. I have objections to this paper. You claim to be a man of science, yet can't stand to see anyone scrutinize your work. I have no idea how this passed a peer review, unless you stood in the hall and shouted down any questions or called people names for daring to disagree with you. I guess you're of the camp that nobody should question anything. Either you hold strongly to what you believe, or you're afraid the entire thing will collapse like a house of cards because of one man's objection. Your work is reflected in the article, why are you flailing your arms and acting like a child because I don't march 100% in lockstep with you?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with scientific criticisms. But you have levelled none of any substance. Your lack of understanding is underscored by your fundamental inability to distinguish between a protein and an amino acid. My only concern is that you are attempting to censor other people's contribution to the relevant page (as detailed above) while you yourself do not posses the knowledge or training to understand what it is you are trying to criticize in an uninformed manner. You have not detailed a single objection of merit. Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 14:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Kwamikagami you have nailed it. It is all variations on a theme. Just as there is a tremendous diversity in the venom system of the snakes e.g. our recent paper that looked at over 100 species spread across the full taxonomical diversity http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2008_BGF_Evolution_of_an_Arsenal.pdf and also a recent review we published on the entire Toxicofera clade http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2009_Fry_Toxicofera_review.pdf Evolutionary tinkering is the consistent theme. With various combinations independently selected for, reflective of the different niches occupied. All in accord with the fundamentals of evolution. We are not arguing that the venom system of varanids the exact same as that of the heloderms. No more than we would put a garter snake in the same classification as a cobra (even though both are technically venomous). Rather, they share a common ancestor and have proceeded along different paths. The heloderms utilising grooved, but delicate, teeth to predate upon animals not much wider than their head, with venom being the primary killer. In contrast, the komodos predate upon very large prey, utilising the combined tooth-venom arsenal, with the teeth being the primary weapon and venom exaggerating the effects, and then swallowing them in chunks carved out by the robust, serrated teeth. As for what makes a venom: our definition is a secretion, produced in a specialised gland in one animal and delivered to a target animal through the infliction of a wound, which contains molecules that disrupt normal physiological or biochemical processes so as to facilitate feeding or defence by the producing animal. As long as the producing animal can break the dermal layer, then the venom can be delivered. Delivery systems can range from ungrooved teeth all the way through to hollow, hypodermic needle like fangs. Just as in other animals there is a huge variation in venom delivery system (such as in the Conidae venomous snails which range from simply secreting it into the water to paralyse gills of fish prey through to venomous harpoons). Venom predates intricate delivery systems since in the absence of venom there cannot be a selection pressure for an advanced delivery system. Something that passes the bloody obvious test. But normal dentition is enough to cause a wound for venom to flow into. As for whether these proteins are the active ingredients, there is a wealth of evidence supporting this in the references of the papers I have listed above. These are indeed some of the most well-defined and well-characterised toxin types of any venomous order. I must say that I find it quite suprising that someone like Mike with such an obviously poor grasp of venom has been central in the editing of relevant wikipedia pages.

Cheers, Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Bryan, if I have an "obviously poor grasp of venom", it is only of your overlysimplistic definition. My definition would include presence a relevant toxin, of which you have not demonstrated in this instance. I do not consider the Komodo to be venomous in the same way as the heloderms, elapids, or vipers. I am sorry you cannot accept the notion that not everyone is mesmerized by your findings; I see it as an attempt to redefine venom.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:25, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

We have in fact demonstrated the presence of multiple toxins homologous to well-characterised ones from other reptile venoms. Thus we are not redefining venom at all but rather applying previous knowledge to a new taxon. Whether or not you choose to see that is your problem but it is inappropriate for you to apply your ideology to a wikipedia site.

Bryan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 02:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

There was originally no need for Mike to review venoms, and he was instrumental in, if not solely responsible for, getting this to Featured Article status. That takes a lot of work, so I quite understand him wanting to ensure that it doesn't now turn to garbage. I was in a similar situation with Rongorongo, which attracts all sorts of crackpot "experts" with sometimes scores of published (though not peer-reviewed) articles, all of which are absolute garbage, and with others threatening to take me to the UN for human rights abuses if I don't let them add gibberish to the article (and I mean "gibberish" in the sense of it being literally unintelligible). Being in linguistics, I've also seen supposedly peer-reviewed journals like Science publish garbage, like the original human language having clicks because both Hadza and Juǀʼhoan have clicks and the authors don't know enough about the evolution of language to figure out how that could otherwise have happened. But except for being bitten by venomous-but-not-dangerous colubrids like Psammophis and Telescopus sp. (I was never fast enough to grab a monitor, so I don't know about them), and being bright enough to at least be careful when handling puff adders and Thelotornis when evacuating them from elementary schools, or when playing with black widows and rattlers in my back yard, I don't know anything about venom, so I can't evaluate. But I do think we need to follow guidelines here. We have a published peer-reviewed study, and it's not being given undue weight, being restricted to one paragraph in the body of the text and two words in the introduction. If Bryan's study turns out to be garbage, his colleagues will make hay of it soon enough, just as people did with the Science clicks article, and we can reevaluate then. Until then, we have a peer-reviewed article by an author we've long used as a source in this article, vs. an editor whose bullshit detector is going off. Mike, keep your eyes open for the rebuttal that will surely come if you're correct, but meanwhile I think we need to follow policy rather than Truth. —kwami (talk) 15:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And if it's not "garbage" and the scientific community holds it as they did Klauber's writings on rattlesnakes in 1956 that: "salivas of harmless animals or even the protein found in egg whites for that matter are toxic when introduced to the bloodstream"; I'll be the first to say I was wrong. However, at this time I don't hold that the proteins uncovered in this study have anything to do with venom as it is known. I'm also going to not respond to veiled ad hominem attacks which I would think are beneath someone claiming to be a doctor, again he has not said here that CRISP is toxic and keeps trying to change it into a false argument about me not knowing the difference between amino acids and proteins. I believe there will be a response from the scientific community, but I digress. I hold to Kardong's thesis: "Human saliva is toxic with clinical manifestations if injected subcutaneously, yet we do not conclude that humans use their saliva as venom".(Kardong, 2002)(Bonilla, C.A. , Fiero M.K., Seifert W.(1971) Comparative biochemistry and pharmacology of salivary glands,electrophotetic analysis of the proteins from human parotid and reptillian(Duvernoy's)glands. J Chromatogr. 56: 368-372) As with Komodo saliva, "toxicity is a byproduct and not an indication of a biological role. The role is determined by how the secretion contributes to the animal's survival."(Kardong, K.V. 2002. Colubrid snakes and Duvernoy’s “venom” glands. Toxin Reviews 21: 1-19.) I maintain that Komodo's are not venomous. Sorry I don't have a PHD, I have to work for a living and never had the luxury of living the life of a professional student. I am even sorrier if my mere High School education allowed me to see that the Emporer had no clothes. My problem was not with the article, itself or it's findings as I have said repeatedly, I just don't agree with the spin placed on it by the news and whomever had to translate it for them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:21, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

First, you were the one equating CRISP proteins with cysteine amino acids. So this was not an a false argument advanced by me but rather one you have stuck with. Thus highlighting the fundamental flaw in your understanding of venom evolution. It is up there with your strawman argument that "all venomous animals have forked tongues, therefore if an animal has a forked tongue it is venomous". A complete non-sequiter. What can be said, however, is that 'all venomous reptiles have characteristic protein-secreting glands (that are not homologous to any salivary gland) and that the proteins secreted are not salivary proteins but rather proteins normally secreted elsewhere in the body that are recruited through gene-duplication events, with subsequent mutation to potentiate a previously useful activity or to derive new toxic activities. Therefore, any reptile possessing homologous glands and producing homologous proteins, is venomous.' Second, CRISP toxins have been isolated and characterised from a wide range of reptile venoms previous to this study, with pathophysiological activities as detailed in the table I of the paper. All of the proteins found in the Komodo Dragon venom are of well-characterised toxin types. You have not refuted at all that the proteins we uncovered are characteristic protein toxins found in other reptile venoms and indeed you don't seem to even grasp that these proteins are what make the venom toxic. Yet you blindly state that they have nothing to do with venom as it is known. This is completely wrong. These proteins are the typical toxins I would expect to find in any snake venom and indeed you could grab pretty much any viper and isolate kallikrein or CRISP toxins. Indeed, the kallikrein toxins for example are responsible for much of the edema and coagulation disturbances seen in viper venoms. Reptile venoms use proteins as their toxic weapons. I don't know how much clearer I can state that. You profess to be concerned about the spin yet your 'criticisms' are entirely focused on the article, being fueled by your fundamental misunderstandings of venom evolution and basic biochemistry. As for the Kardong point of view, we have delt with that in several articles that appeared prior to this one. We are going in circles here. You cannot seem to grasp basic venom biochemistry and I have run out of patience. It is editors like you that make wikipedia suffer in quality. Bye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.72.46 (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mike, you've accused Bryan of making veiled ad hominem attacks, yet yours are not veiled: "flailing your arms and acting like a child". You've been repeatedly insulting. We have a peer reviewed article, and you haven't substantially justified your criticisms since Bryan joined in here. (You made a start, but then never followed up.) Given a choice between Bryan's published POV and your largely unsubstantiated POV, we go with the source. Sorry, but if you don't like it you can go to arbitration. I'm glad you brought this article to FA, but that doesn't justify your current behaviour. kwami (talk) 17:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

And that's fine. I have no problem with that. If that's what consensus says, then by all means go with it. Besides, my opinion means nothing. Even if I successfully refuted this study, it would be Original Research and not allowed to be included in the encyclopedia. I am not a doctor, nor do I pretend to be one. However, when a peer-reviewed rebuttal by men of science is produced, I will see it is included with as much zeal as this one has been.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:03, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

As you should! kwami (talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Too many pictures

There's like a two dozen of pictures in this article. Komodo dragon's tail, Komodo dragon's foot and tail, Komodo dragon's foot, tail and claws, Komodo dragons at the zoo, Komodo dragons at the other zoo, etc. That's really not necessary -- I get a feeling every member that photographed one had to post his/her photo just because. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.129.108.185 (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

venom

We present evidence of venom published in Nature, but finish up by disputing it with Fox News? Are we serious?

Also, where's the link to the archives? kwami (talk) 20:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a noted Doctor's opinion (an evolutionary biologist, at that) quoted in two seperate articles. Is there no room for disagreement here?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

There's plenty of room for disagreement. But we weren't presenting objective disagreement, but rather favoring one side. I cleaned it up a bit. kwami (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the article was extremely biased toward the pro-venom camp. I had to bring some balance to it that was in print as private unpublished correspondence from other scientists is not acceptable on Wiki.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The latest David Attenborough documentary on the BBC, Life, just stated that recent evidence shows the Komodo to be venomous, and therefore the "largest venomous animal in the world", whereas this article takes a while to say anything of the sort. I wouldn't trust Fox with looking after my cats for the weekend, but personally I'm inclined to trust the BBC over wikipedia... --Tomsega (talk) 20:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

size not due to gigantism

saw an article on yahoo - said they migrated from australia - they found fossil records from 300K years ago - there was an even bigger lizard in austrlia once. the sentences in the intro should be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.3.8.7 (talk) 03:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

First Hunt

reference should surely be made in the artcle about the bbc camerman who recently filmed a komodo dragon hunt for the first time as part of the current Life series on bbc 1 http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nj6dr/Life_Reptiles_and_Amphibians/ 86.158.122.35 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Added to this should be the reference to the above programme (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nj6dr) and the inclusion within the saliva/venom area that the BBC documentary "Life" filmed the Komodo dragon using it's venom in an attack water-buffalo.. The slow acting venom took weeks to fully work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ouchiko (talk • contribs) 13:40, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Komodo dragons

Did you know no one knows how long of a life span these rear creatures have. wierd i but true —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.129.66.121 (talk) 23:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't discuss this guff here. The Komodo dragon lives for 30 years, and I know that. 92.28.21.68 (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

It's in the article actually: "Komodo dragons take about three to five years to mature, and may live for up to 50 years." bibliomaniac15 06:23, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

komodo dragons were first founded by europians in 1910 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.5.145 (talk) 00:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Although the Komodo dragon only reaches 10.3 feet lengths of 20-23 feet long have always been reported but never confirmed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 22:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Phil Bronstein

did he lose his toe or have to have tendons reattached? There are 2 contradictory paragraphs about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.105.138 (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Danger to humans" it is incorrectly stated that Phil Bronstein was attacked at the SF Zoo. It was in fact the Los Angeles Zoo.

Fixed, thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 04:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Danger to humans

In the section "Danger to humans" it is incorrectly stated that Phil Bronstein was attacked at the SF Zoo. It was in fact the Los Angeles Zoo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smg9779 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Danger to humans

I've removed a paragraph from the Danger to humans section because it was an exact copy of the source text. Please don't add the bit back to the article without rephrasing the text to avoid copyright violation. Thank you. Jafeluv (talk) 14:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Komodo Dragon

The weight should say 150 kg, (330 lbs.) It was entered wrong by whoever.

wrong try again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.250.177.251 (talk) 15:35, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Wild speculation...

"The Komodo dragon has also been observed intentionally startling a pregnant deer in the hopes of a miscarriage whose remains they can eat, a technique that has also been observed in large African predators."

"Intentionally"? "Technique"? So the lizard, which probably startles most of the creatures it comes across seeing as it eats them, knows that the deer is pregnant and...? I'm not surprised that the appearance of a Komodo dragon or a lion is startling enough to cause a miscarraige but the belief in premeditation, while it may be true, is hardly anything more tangible than circumastance and speculation. The result wouldn't fill the things belly. It's just weird and if you can prove something like that you should say how, and if you can't prove it, it should claim speculation or preferably it should get deleted. ~ R.T.G 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement and will just add something I have learned about the Komodo Dragon. It is a long grass hunter. It sneaks up as far as it can without being heard. Then it makes a dash and being the largest lizard in the world it will startle anything it makes a run for. Being the dominant predator on the island with large families, it probably attacks everything when it's massive belly is not full (speculation). It is not nimble enough to hold a bull down like a lion or tiger can but if it gets just one bite in the things backside the work is all done. Just need to follow the bull and within a day or two it drops down covered in plague like disease, festering unbelievably from the bite wound. In that it does exactly what it did to the deer. Startles it and follows it around eating whatever dropped dead. Maybe there is proof that it did this on purpose with the deer, but you'd have to explain what was different to startling the bull (and you can see a whole family benifit the startling of a cow on Youtube National Geographic, the virulence of the thing, so beyond any other creature, fascinates them). If there is evidence to why it seems to do this to the deer intentionally please add it but otherwise it startles things and follows them around for food anyway. Perhaps the study is dated... Note: the article only covers what happens when a dragon bites a human. Apparently captive dragons do not produce such virulent bacteria in their mouths, also not noted. ~ R.T.G 12:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference is old, 1987, and it is reasonable remove the statement and to ask for a direct support or a second article confirming something of this nature. In addition, if it is true, then, yes, including the information about how the researcher verified it would be appropriate. --KMLP (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Apologies for replying so late, but I've added the fact again with a citation. It's been observed and recorded in Walter Auffenberg's The Behavioral Ecology of the Komodo Monitor, which was the first large-scale study of the Komodo dragon's behavior. bibliomaniac15 23:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

"deliberately harassing". I don't think that is good enough. If I wrote "...monkey can open nuts with tools." and then left it at that I would be very sceptical. Some monkeys can of course open nuts with tools but there is a little more to it than that. ~ R.T.G 23:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

~If the maximum theoretical size for crocodile monitor is 12 feet then what would the theoretical maximum size for a Komodo dragon be Mokele? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 16:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

komodo dragons have a "third eye"

don't komodo dragons have a "third eye" on the top of their heads that can sense light? i don't see any mention of this eye in the article but a web search turned up information about a light sensitive organ with eye-like properties such as a cornea, lens and retina. i'm not sure if there is such an organ or not, but if there is, it should probably be included in the "sensory" section of the article. thank you for looking into this. Eromines (talk) 16:10, 22 December 2010 (UTC)Eromines

It's known as a "parietal eye." The tuatara is most well-known for having one, although many lizards have them as well. The only direct source I can find saying that Komodo dragons have one is in an article in Smithsonian magazine. Richard Eakin's The Third Eye indicates that Komodo dragons have a very large parietal opening in their skull where the parietal eye would be, although he makes an utter error in saying that it's from Ceylon. :P Its close relatives, the water monitor and the Bengal monitor most definitely do though, so I suppose that's more weight in saying that it has a parietal eye. bibliomaniac15 23:01, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Quality

I've been working on the Komodo Dragon for quite some time now in the German Wikipedia (see de:Komodowaran). It's not complete yet, in some days a friend of mine will get Auffenbergs book and add some more information. I know, you might think "Why is that german guy out here to complain about our work?", but hopefully you're not that upset. Some criticism on this article:

• Far too much inconsiderably anecdotes, it's not in the interest of an Encyclopedia to tell everyone the curious incident of Phil Bronstein in the Zoo, you can find it twice in the article.
• Danger to humans - completly overrated. As far as I know, there has never been a comprehensive review of Komodo Dragon attacks on humans, so one should not do a list of all attacks since the fabulous Bronstein accident. It should say something like: The media and local people reported attacks on humans, though such incidents are rare and there has never been a comprehensive review of komodo dragon attakcs".
• Parthenogenesis: This is not as important in Komodo Dragon biology as it seems in the article right now - information on ZW gender determination belong in a seperate article, and please throw out the speculations referenced by BBC. There hasn't been research on parthenogenesis in wild komodo dragons, so just mention in a line after "natural" reproduction something like "Komodo Dragons in Zoos were occasionally reported to reproduce via parthenogenesis; this is due to the ZW gender determination in this and related species [other Varanus species also exhibit parthenogenesis]"
• In captivity: Far too long, 5 sentences which conclude everything written right now are enough.
• Conservation: In scientific sources, you will read the population on Padar became extinct due to prey loss, not due to volcanic activites etc.
• Information on biology: Too many unscientific sources cited. The article contains misleading or false information.

Best regards, --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Guess that's why it is a featured article, gene.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:43, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and thats why nobody reacted for 2 months. I know the literature on monitors, as I worked on them in the german Wikipedia for a long time, and some information is just wrong. The female lies on the eggs to incubate and protect them until they hatch around April - damn thats incredibly wrong, they can't even incubate eggs as they are ectotherm. Everybody should know this basic fact about lizards, and nobody notices this flaw in such a long time. You should get some got literature yourself and check the article for mistakes. --Martin-rnr (talk) 18:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Didn't see that before or the "pups" comment...hmmm, looks like some people have been screwing with it since then besides typical vandalism. I'l let biblio know. Sorry I took you for a troll,--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I wish I had Auffenberg's book. Can I use your help? bibliomaniac15 21:49, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

1. Actually Bronstein is mentioned once in two sentences, the English wikipedia does not like the use of run-on sentences.
2. Completely disagree. As a matter of fact, there are reports of attacks by these lizards vs people increasing since the "Nature Conservancy" decided to play the role of meddling busybody in the islands. All the same, I do not know what you are reading, but we have two short paragraphs on Dragons and humans and at least in the English version it more or less states what you are claiming.

Cuz I wrote them myself after my complaint, and at the same time removed false information which was included in the article. And you removed my paragraphs.

1. Disagree. Again, this is a featured article, as such it is not written in a clipped format like a waiter scratching notes out to a chef. Additionally, this article is part of the print and disc versions of wikipedia and needs to be more comprehensive than what passes muster in other regions.

The ZW gender determination system is irrelevant in a single species article as it occurs in many other species including (most likely) all Varanus. Most parthenogenetic dragons die in their eggs. This mode of reproduction has never been observed in nature.

1. Please bring forth the sources on Padar and local extinction, thgis would be a great help. Please learn how to format them properly if you want to include them in the article.
2. Agree to a point, the stuff about the presence of proteins found in some types of venom being found in a gland has great potential to mislead people. Apart from a mama dragon brooding her eggs, what do you think is misleading or incorrect. After reading through your list of complaints, I don't see much, especially nothing to warrant slapping a tag on a Featured article as you have done.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 22:20, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

I do not have the time yet do give you a complete and comprehensive review as I got things to do in RL and I am participating in the de-WP writing competition. But I'll try to get you a review as soon as possible. You can look it up at user:Martin-rnr/Komodo dragon when I start reviewing the article. I got already 4 possbile mistakes or uncertain information in the first paragraph of "Ecology". And when you call my complaints "unfounded", I advise you to remember that I will put quite some time into improving this article, and do not aim at violating your pride. --Martin-rnr (talk)

Nothing to do with pride, everything to do with being respectful when you edit. Biblio put a lot of work into this piece and it was vetted at FAC, GA, and is part of the Reptile project. Don't make threats and I'll help you as much as I can, but seriously, before you start mucking around here, learn how to format sources and write in comprehendable English.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:52, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

So I just wrote down some points on the first paragraphes. I hope I will be able to add more points in the next days/weeks. Since I don't have access anymore to the books by Auffenberg and Murphy et al, I can provide you with their information by taking the sought information out of the German article (where it is referenced). As well there are many open access scientific sources linked at de:Komodowaran#Belege. I might also send you scans out of the books Varanoid Lizards of the World, Advances in Monitor Research III amd Advances in Monitor Research II. --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good! I have Varanoid Lizards of the World here, Auffenberg is partially available on Google Books. Scans of the others would be nice if you have them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

You got Pianka & King? Allright. Advances in Monitor Research are the proceedings of Varanus symposia held in Germany. In No III there are the following papers relevant to the Komodo dragon: 1. a paper by Uwe Krebs examining monitor intelligence inculding Komodo Dragon tameness, 2. an article by B Fry and H Scheib about monitor toxins, but this article is rather aimed at monitors in general than at the Komodo Dragon specifically 3. a report on the first captive-breeding of Komodo dragons in Europe; not that spectacular. In Advances II, there are 2 papers on the thermal biology of the Komodo dragon. I'd appreciate if I could concentrate on reviewing the article, and hand the real writing work over to you. If you can't find an answer to my questions in your literature, just let me know and I'll look it up on de-WP. --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

• Could an expert in the subject matter please add an entry about the danger of these animals. The point of Wikipedia is information. After glancing at this article someone could be forgiven for thinking they are safe. As much as people would like this to be true, it isn't - people have died. We need to document the world as it is, not as we would like it to be. Takenthesmeg (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• This one should be reliabele, but I'm not a native speaker and it might be bad language : Komodo dragons avoid encounters with humans. Juveniles are very shy and will flee quickly into a hideout if a human comes closer than about 100 metres. Old animals will retreat in less distance in a slow trot. Only if cornered, they will react aggressively by gaping their mouth, hissing and swinging their tail. If they are disturbed further, they may start an attack and bite. The bite may also induce envenomation, which is reported to cause dizziness, swelling of the wound and shooting pain (note: I don't know if i remember it properly, but in Auffenberg you can read about one fatal case in which Auffenberg makes bacteria responsible for death. One migh also note this as a rare effect of envenomation, but I'm not sure). In very few cases Komodo dragons were reported to have attacked and killed humans. Most of these reports are not reputable, and those which can be reconstructed prove mostly as defensive bites. Only few cases were verifiably unprovoked, and can be credited to abnormal dragon individuals which lost their fear towards humans. References: Auffenberg, Effect of Envenomation: Fry et al (2006) in Nature. Best regards --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Auffenberg cites 2 fatalaties, one which occured in 1931 on a 14-year-old boy and reported by deJong in 1937 and deVoogd in 1950. Auffenberg interviewed the victim's father. Victim was bit on the buttocks by a 7' long dragon (so severely it ripped away a large amount of flesh) and the kid bled out in 30 minutes. I'm sure he went into shock over a giant lizard biting off his ass cheeks, but someone else might say it was the effects of bacteria. The other was an attack in the 50s on a sick man. Nobody witnessed the attack, they found his body the next day, his remains were eaten by lizards, but who is to say he didn't die from his sickness and the lizards ate the flesh off a dead body? The death from infection story happened in 1947. A man was petting a lizard that was tied up, lizard lunged and tore off the guy's bicep. Villagers "heard" that he died a week later from an infection in the Ruteng hospital, but this was never confirmed. Although I'm sure there are properties in the Komodo's saliva other than bacteria (Auffenberg described the saliva as reddish and copious to aid in lubricating chunks of food going down its throat, I wonder if the proteins they say were discovered are somewhat digestive in nature?) to include anything on envenomation would be speculative at best, Original Research at worst.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, Arbuckle (2009, Biawak) says that PLA₂ might aid digestion in many species of monitor lizards, but in the Komodo dragon it is almost 100 % sure the venom is used for predation (Fry et al 2009, PNAS). You can look up all the evidence (http://www.pnas.org/content/106/22/8969.full). The envenomations in Fry et al (2006, Nature) are very likely to be caused by venom, as the effects started very fast and bacterial sepsis takes time. Even Varanus scalaris bites were reported to cause envenomation, and scalaris measures less than one metre and is unable to "tear buttocks apart"! If you believe in Kurt Schwenk: He never published a scientific answer in a journal, so we can't take his doubts as serious. If he had a good response to such an important paper, each scientific journal would love to publish it. Best regards --Martin-rnr (talk) 10:54, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Kurt's quote is from a journalist phoning him up for a quote (not uncommon), but his skepticism about the functionality of this venom is actually a fairly common viewpoint in the field, and worth keeping in, though the extensive quote seems a bit jarring in the page. I doubt he'll write it up anytime soon, as he's generally a pretty busy guy, like just about every research scientist. Maybe something more subtle like "blah blah blah Komodos have venom blah blah, but some scientists are skeptical that the venom plays a role in subduing prey compared to shock and blood loss (cite refs for Kurt)". Mokele (talk) 11:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

But one should remember that the venom causes shock and blood loss, and therefore those two things can't overweigh venom as they are themselves caused by venom. And the quote might be out of the context. I'd prefer to leave doubts out of the article as long as it is not properly published. --Martin-rnr (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

You have to show all points of view, and Schwenk is not the only scientist who is skeptical, just the only one who has gone on the record. There are 3 others that I know whos papers on other topics have been cited in numerous other articles on wiki that feel the same way. Remember this is not about what you believe, only what you can prove. I still don't know why a 7 foot lizard would have to envenomate a rat.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First: Adult dragons do not prey heavily on rats, as I pointed out on my talk page. Look it up in Pianka & King, 50 % deer (and the rest boars & bufallo & other large animals). Second: Could you please link these papers? Would be very interesting to read. And I do not think we have to show all points of view, we should show those points which are relevant to scientific work atm and those which are reliably published. News pages are no sources for scientific topics. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

On your Second point: No, you are not understanding me, I apologize if I was not clear. Several scientists, 2 of whom are professors at universities and 2 of whom are curators at major zoos, all of whom have been published heavily on this subject matter (monitors, heloderms, venom, etc) feel as Schwenck does. They have not published this information nor have they been "quoted". It is personal correspondence which cannot be used in the article as a source, I'm not going to out them either. However, a major news agency quoting a scientist in the same field is a reliable source, I am sorry you do not agree with it, read up on NPOV if you get a minute, I would think the german version would be held to the same standard.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:55, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

We both have different opinions, and we won't get along. This is your district, so let's leave Schwenk in the article. But as long as Schwenk does not give better reasons than "misleading, false, blood loss ..." I won't include it in the German article. Beside that, I hope my paragraph on dragon attacks will be included in the article. --Martin-rnr (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

If you choose to not get along, that is up to you. I don't think we disagree as much as you might think, again it is not a matter of opinion, I just want an accurate article. Science is based on observable phenomena not opinions. If the animal preys on buffalo, pig, and deer, why inject the venom into a rat? Why have no "kills" by the animal been autopsied for envenomation? The presence of one or several toxins do not make a venom. For years I was skeptical about Auffenberg regarding the bacteria. However, looking at Auffenberg's study and Fry's and the gentleman you mentioned above I could draw a conclusion that, the saliva has some pharmacological properties. I am not yet convinced that this makes it a venom...perhaps after further research is published, that may change. I guess it depends how you define venom. Physicians and pharmacists look at it one way; biologists, herpetologists look at it from another. I am not concerned with what you put in the German version, that's up to you; if no German sources disagree with what they are being told, there's not much you can do. Didn't you delete the "Dragon attacks" or am I thinking of another user?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It preys mainly on those big animals, and if it injects into an occasional rat, it might help digestion as you suspect. I'd guess the kills haven't been autopsied because they are rare and occur on small Indonesian islands with no dense population. And interest in this fact only arose shortly due to the new insights into Varanus glands (they were btw also seen in V. exanthematicus, Fry et al 2009 J Proteomics). I deleted the old passage on dragon attacks, as those were only some examples referenced by newspapers. I wrote some new paragraphes entitled "Behavior towards humans". Then my new version was deleted ([7]). --Martin-rnr (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Tag

As my concerns on user:Martin-rnr/Komodo dragon and the discussion above continue to be ignored, I consider putting a tag on the article. --Martin-rnr (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, why don't you walk on up to the Wizard, ask for some Courage and make the changes yourself without throwing ridiculous tags on the article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Because I do not have the time to make a big revision of an article in a foreign language. Hopefully I will complete user:Martin-rnr/Komodo dragon soon. Btw: Stay polite. I do not think that the article gives a wrong image of the subject right now, but in my opinion it needs some corrections and a review (attention from an expert capable of meeting your formatting and language standards). --Martin-rnr (talk) 16:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a complete outsider, this seems comparable to a rocket scientist consultant offering unsolicited advice to a successful rocket scientist company. The consultant is telling the company that they're incorrect. But instead of offering specifics, the consultant just slaps a negative sign on the the company's building and goes on his way. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:57, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

For specifics see user:Martin-rnr/Komodo dragon. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The chances of an expert helping with the article simply because of your expert tag are slim to none. An expert either would've have either helped out before, or would do so regardless of your tag. However, the existence of the tag would make a reader (who are probably 99% of the users accessing the article) question the veracity of the article. --CutOffTies (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

And that's exactly what I want: To advert the readers that this article needs some cleanup with reliable and scientific literature (Auffenberg, Murphy et al, Ciofi in Pianka & King). The role of venom should be pointed out in the article, as this is currently the most reasoned (and most likely true) thesis on envenomation by Komodo dragon. The article needs more scientific sources and exact information, this is especially important in this case as there is a lot of sensationalism on Komodo dragons. Some important information is missing, some (in my opinion) irrelevant informations are included, and also a few informations (egg tooth, extinction on Padar due to volcanic activity) are afaik wrong. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's the quote from the source on Padar, its not Der Spiegel its National Geographic:The lizards also inhabited the island of Padar until about 1980, when they mysteriously disappeared. Researchers believe that there are either very few dragons here, or they have become extinct.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

"Mysteriously" is not a reason I'd give in an encyclopedia article. Even the more serious media often give misleading or false informations to attract a bigger audience. This source is much more reliable and attributes extinction on Padar to loss of prey, as does the 2002 book by Murphy et al. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what's in the source, dude, click the link and read it yourself.

Dragons on Padar, the third largest island in KNP, became locally extinct in the 1980s, possibly as a result of reduced deer abundance caused by illegal harvesting (Sastrawan and Ciofi 2002). The article still attributes extinction to a wildfire. If you wish to ignore my criticism, please tell me so I can spend my time on more rewarding acitivites. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not your fucking secretary, but since formatting citations seems to be challenging for you, I'll do it for the good of the article and the project. Thanks for the cite, why don't you give me a chance to format it and rewrite the section before you come in here acting like Wilhelm Badass. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Calm down, this has nothing to do with WW2 as you said in the history, and I do not intend to degrade you to a "secretary". I'm glad you play the "secretary" for the good of the article, because my english is not that well and I was never before confronted with citation templates. I'll help you in any way I can, and if there is some information you just can't access I will include it in the article (and maybe even cope with citation templates). --Martin-rnr (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm calm, you need to learn how to read sarcasm. The templates are easy, I can even show you the quickest way to use them.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually if there's a template that can convert URLs to academic style refs, I'd love to know it. Half the time I just copy & past the JSTOR URL in between some ref tags and leave it like that. Mokele (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm, I want to say I saw a template for that (JSTOR), but can't seem to find it. Maybe I'll go and make one.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, so you want information that is "most likely true", but not fully proven?--17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Stay polite. At the moment the article is (just my opinion) coined by someone willing to approve NPOV, but still very convinced by the bacteria theory. Current scientific discourse suggests the role of proteins in envenomation as more likely than bacterial sepsis, and this should be pointed out in the article. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nobody is being impolite to you. The presence of certain proteins is pointed out as well as Auffenberg's research on sepsis.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Though you might disagree I find sarcasm very impolite. Fry et al (2009, PNAS) delivered a huge amount of evidence. Venom production is very cost-intensive for an organism, so why should the Dragon produce such large amounts of very potent venom if the Dragon doesn't use it for predation? If there is one guy (Mr Schwenk) doubting their findings in a newspaper article, then it is not NPOV to mention his doubts on this article, it's a total overrated inclusion of a spontaneous comment of a single scientist (and the quote is most likely out of the context). We can both accuse each other of POV, but I think it would be better if we came to an agreement. I'd appreciate a little anticipation by you. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Not everyone in academia is as convinced as you seem to think. Remember, the bulk of this text was written before Fry ever published, and while he *does* have evidence, the most difficult part to prove is still missing - the relative contributions of venom, bacteria, and mechanical trauma to the death of prey items in nature. I'm not saying he's wrong, just that, contrary to what you seem to suggest, the jury is still out on exactly how important this venom is. I know Dr. Schwenk personally, and he's a damn good scientist, and frankly, I'm on his side - much of the evidence is circumstantial, and there are many unanswered questions. For instance, what if the venom glands are really only important while the monitor is in an intermediate size where it can no longer forage like a juvenile but still isn't big enough and strong enough to handle the prey that full adults catch? Or if the venom's primary effect is speeding digestion of such large items rather than subduing prey? I'm not saying these are true, but they *are* legitimate concerns that have yet to be tested. Speaking from an academic perspective, I'd be surprised if this gets resolved any time within the next decade or even two. Science is many things, but fast isn't one of them. Don't just assume that the newest, freshest research must be right - 9 times out of 10, the picture is far more complex and subtle, and takes decades to emerge fully. Mokele (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Allright, convinced by politeness and competence. Let's leave the "Saliva" chapter as it is. --Martin-rnr (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

You appreciate anticipation from me? Umm I'm not even sure what that means.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't know if the german wiki just has varanid specialists milling around looking for work, I'd expect such a tag on about half of our monitor articles here, not the one that is Featured. I'm suspecting a certain point of view is looking for support.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the sensationalism on this topic and the importance of it which makes me putting this tag, because especially the articles often consulted should be very accurate and well-referenced with scientific sources. --Martin-rnr (talk) 17:16, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Diet

I'm curious about this edit — V. komodoensis is the species, so why refer to the "diet of big speciems"? Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 21:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions and inconsistencies

Says takes 3-5 years to mature in one section, and 9 years in another. Says may live to 30 years in one section, but up to 50 years in another. Need to make consistent or indicate range of estimates. Can't have it both ways in the same essay.~Mack2~ (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference 13 (Darling, T.)

I don't know who contributed reference 13.

Was wondering how a 40p illustrated book for 4-6 graders became a scientific reference on this topic (and used FOURTEEN times)? Surely there are better resources, especially the Fry study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lagomorphmom (talk • contribs) 23:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Rather interesting. I'm just an observer of this article, but after some cursory searching, I see that a version from 2007 has the citation: It's been here quite a while. I'm curious if others feel the source should be removed, replaced with a more academic one, or left alone. --CutOffTies (talk) 23:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not doubt the validity of the information of the current source, but obviously an featured article (viewed 118,248 times in 2011-05) should have more academic (and recent) sources. --Furado (talk) 22:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Hore

refrence to ka

I know that ka refers to 1000 years but it says the "the arrival of early hominds by 880ka" 880ka from what point of reference? should this say 880,000 years ago? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urholygod (talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest living Lizard

While this is indeed true, shouldn't it be mentioned that a number of extinct lizards such as Megalania and most genera of mosasaurs grew to a much larger maximum size? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC) Hence the word "living"...

Oras?

Are Komodo Dragons actually called/known as Oras? I was brought to the Komodo article from a link in Velociraptor talk page. Somebody mentioned that Oras could eat 10x their body weight, with ora leading here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.252.114.222 (talk) 11:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Parthenogenesis

It appears to have been documented again, this time in the United States. Article on yahoo today discussing how all that's left for confirmation is to do some D.N.A. tests on the babies to reconfirm the mother hadn't stored sperm from a male before her being moved to her current zoo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_fe_st/odd_komodo_dragons is the link for as long as it works.

the point of two sex reproduction is to mix varried genes, so she would not produce a male to mate. Why is so hard for you to accept she produced offspring off her diploid cell? it is evidence that the female of the species exsists first and is the creator of the male. "budding" an other term for asexual production is afforded to the case when the female clones herself to produce a daughter. Why was this not discussed?

Lizards regenerate in general. you can cut a tail off and it grow another. Wish someone studied this animal more thuroughly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.220.93.6 (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Man eaters

Can anyone confirm or deny Komodo dragons eating humans?--MacRusgail (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Rats, cats, dogs, pigs, and crows eat humans. As far as hunting them down, it's at most quite rare. — kwami (talk) 23:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

They are somewhat different. Except the dogs perhaps. But the hunting aspect should be mentioned/debunked in passing.--MacRusgail (talk) 14:12, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Lieutenant van Steyn van Hensbroek

The reference for vSvH is to the Daily Mail which is as newspapers go not a fantastically reliable resource. I did a little digging to see if I could get any better; the person appears to be Lt-Col. Jacques Karel Henri van Steyn van Hensbroek, born 1881 in Mojokerto, died 1944 in Batavia, Suriname. http://www.erelijst.nl/jacques-karel-henri-van-steyn-van-hensbroek

He crops up again in stories at the time of his death - he'd come out of retirement to fight in the resitance, and died as a prisoner; see The collapse of a colonial society : the Dutch in Indonesia during the Second World War, by Louis de Jong. He appears to have been awarded the Resistance Star East Asia, see here: http://www.onderscheidingen.nl/decorandi/wo2/dec_s08.html and here is a record of his grave: http://srs.ogs.nl/slachtoffer/148268/jacques-karel-henri-van-steyn-van-hensbroek/

In Herbert Wendt's "Out of Noah's ark: the story of man's discovery of the animal kingdom" (1959) and "The Guinness book of animal facts and feats" (1976), the story plays out a little differently from what is written here - JKHvSvH was the Governor of Flores, and he was requested to investigate the 'land crocodile' rumours by Ouwens, not the other way round.

I can't see records of him having been the governor of Flores but something like that would leave a trace. Anyway, it's a start if someone wants to research this. Bazzargh (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Weight and Size

The article says the weight is "up to 70Kg". That's not very heavy for a 3m long lizard. Other references like the National Geographic online article http://animals.nationalgeographic.com.au/animals/reptiles/komodo-dragon/ put it at up to 150Kg and the book Killer Creatures by Claire Llewellyn put it at 200Kg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awarner (talk • contribs) 02:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you be WP:bold and make the edit with appropriate in-line references.

I actually suggest the opposite - caution. The current source is a very well-respected one, and the estimate is probably better than either suggested above for several reasons. First, it's pretty much in line with what you'd expect - 6-8 foot water monitors and Blackthroats are typically in the 30 kg range, and the latter species is quite-heavy-bodied. Second, Komodos are well-known to consume huge meals that are a sizeable fraction of their body weight, thus dramatically increasing the measured weight. Third, like any big animal, they're prone to exaggeration and mistaken sizes - is the 200 kg record simply a mis-reported 200 lb lizard? Lastly, all monitor lizards are prone to obesity in captivity, so very heavy captive animals may simply be obese. HCA (talk) 18:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You make very good points about how bodyweights might vary markedly in this and other species - I encourage you to point this out in the article. (Has made me wonder about other animals such as elephants - these are notoriously over -weight in zoos. Are our average bodyweights from these "abnormal" individual?) I was looking at the National Geographic as being a reputable source of the Komodo bodyweight, and my own thoughts that given a 2m human probably weighs approximately 100kg, a 3m Komodo could easily weigh more - even taking into account that the tail is thin.__DrChrissy (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In the "Description" section, there's actually a pretty thorough section about weights, including captive vs wild, average vs. max, full belly vs empty, etc. The comparison with a human is tricky because of the drastically different morphologies, and the tail is about 60% of the length (if intact). After all, water monitors are about 2/3rds the length of Komodos (though more slender), and it's rare to find one that's more than 30 kg without being either obese, near-Komodo-size, or gravid. Assuming isometric scaling, a 3m one would be about 100 kg, which lines up pretty well with the current text.

I definitely think that for many animals on WP, we should include averages, to counter-balance the maximums, since maximums aren't all that informative. HCA (talk) 20:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that. I have found the following article which gives good scientific sources of data for bodyweights and body lengths of Komodo dragons, and omits data from individuals that have recently eaten. Hope this helps.[8] __DrChrissy (talk) 14:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Excellent find! Looks like even 3m individuals don't top 100 kg, which makes claims of 150 and 200 kg pretty dubious. HCA (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It might still be worth including these extremes, but with strong qualification, e.g. "It has been claimed that ...., however, these claims appear exaggerated when compared to scientific survey data".__DrChrissy (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe just "Larger weights have been reported, but are of uncertain validity" or something like that? HCA (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't feel strongly about this, but if specific references exist I would be tempted to use them, but with the strong qualification such as as you have suggested. I'm afraid any book as emotively named as "Killer Creatures" probably needs to be identified as possibly inaccurate.__DrChrissy (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 April 2014

Kenneth V. Kardongis a professor as Washington State University, not the University of Washington State. 76.115.190.131 (talk) 02:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Done, thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Lifespan

"They (young Komodos) take 8 to 9 years to mature, and are estimated to live up to 30 years."

Is quite clearly contradicted later on by:

"Komodo dragons take approximately three to five years to mature, and may live for up to 50 years." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.230.131 (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture

The Komodo Dragon scene in Skyfall (The 2013 Bond film) was a very memorable depiction and deserves an entry in the "In Popular Culture" section. It can easily be referenced with the IMDB synopsis page at http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1074638/synopsis?ref_=ttpl_ql_3 210.225.231.10 (talk) 07:44, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Wild mass

I recently reverted the "wild usually weigh around 70 kg", since scientific studies proved wild adults average 7.9-23.5 kg, depends on the island and size of prey, 70 kg is quite large and exceptional. Please don't re-revert, discuss here before doing so. Editor abcdef (talk) 06:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted because this has been discussed on the Talk page previously and your rather swinging deletions were of verifiable material which for some reason your descrive as being random and guesswork. I agree that some of these data may be suceptible to inaccuracy (e.g. had the Komodos just eaten), but this can be (is) included in the text. There are several reliable sources indicating they can weigh over 100kg e.g. [9], or the average mass is 70kg e.g. [10]__DrChrissy (talk) 15:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The problem is that, while peer-reviewed sources are usually superior and preferable, the paper cited does not parse out juveniles and adults (it specifically states that the study captured everything but the highly arboreal yearlings). While this is a very understandable limitation (assessing sexual maturity isn't possible visually AFAIK, and more involved mechanisms would have been cost- and effort-prohibitive on a sample of this size), it also means that the average of the sample isn't very representative - a similar study on humans would probably give an average height of maybe 4 feet due to the inclusion of children. It's useful data from the population-dynamics and ecological perspective of the paper, but not really useful for the simple question of "how big is an adult Komodo dragon"? The reference could be useful with regards to the smaller animals on the two other islands, but I'm skeptical that these are true adults - Komodos can swim between islands, and it's possible that large adults may simple emigrate from these islands. HCA (talk) 17:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

In popular culture

Under the "Conservation" section, there is a subsection called "In popular culture". That is out of place, should not be included. Also, it is trivial and has no sources. 203.215.117.50 (talk) 01:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the section up a level so it is out of the Conservation section - well spotted. I agree it is trivial, but these sections do tend to appear on animal pages. Feel free to argue for its removal though.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:54, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2015

Jegao.UCDavis (talk) 00:08, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

References

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. You've mentioned a reference but not a change to the text based on it. —C.Fred (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Still no change requested. —C.Fred (talk) 00:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Venom in the Komodo dragon

I don't get why there is a paragraph refuting the hypothesis of a venomous Komodo dragon based on a scientist's opinion (here Kurt Schwenk). I believed that Wikipedia articles are based on peer-reviewed articles, not on some newspapers presenting people's opinions, even if they are those from experts. If everyone agrees with my opinion, I would like this section to be removed.--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 22:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Christophe. There is a WP-wide problem here for science articles - in my opinion. This is about primary and secondary sources Wikipedia:Primary Secondary and Tertiary Sources. WP prefers secondary sources, in this case a newspaper. The WP-logic is that if a secondary source exists stating a fact or opinion, this has been fact-checked by the newspaper and is therefore more reliable than a primary (including a scientific publication) making the same statement. So, if an expert is quoted in a newspaper, this is a secondary source and is actually considered to be a robust source WP:RS. Hope this helps.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi @Christophe Hendrickx: I am in agreement with @DrChrissy: here. This is a big issue, I focus on many taxonomic issues which inherently rely heavily on primary literature, however, In discussions on this, and I think you were involved in this DrChrissy, what science considers 2nd and 1st class papers is a little different to mainstream. That is good review papers are technically secondary source however still have a scientific underpinning by genuine reference to the primary literature, whereas a newspaper article is just an opinion piece, with no referencing or fact checking in general. Just my two cents on this, go for good review articles and fix it. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 23:30, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Woaw, I was deeply unaware of this king of problem on WP. My Goodness, if WP prefers secondary to primary sources, then it looses all its credibility. I have some very hard time understanding this choice, and this is an extremely sad decision. If a newspaper on the Internet stating the opinion of a random guy is more appropriate than the expert's theory who actually studies the subject for many years, and tests it with hypotheses and facts, knowing that the study has been peer-reviewed, then I don't know why I should contribute to WP again. Very sad news indeed, I really hope that this idea (that I find extremely stupid) will change in the future. This is really for the best of WP and its credibility. --Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 00:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Dont missunderstand their point, which is also valid, they have made generalized rules for all types of research information, I dont think it reduces credibility so long as there is room to maneuver. Science and other areas have different perceptions of what is Primary and Secondary information. For some areas secondary literature is actually safer, as it least as reviews it fact checked, eg Biographies, History, Entertainment Industry. It has an issue because it is a broad preference that does not account for subtle differences, and science is one where certain secondary lit is very good, eg field guides, text books, other encyclopedia, whereas scientists in general consider newspaper articles as rubbish. In other industries they have their value. So its not a major issue except that it needs refining. Personally I use the primary and high quality secondary publications, if someone puts a magazine article in and there is primary or good secondary articles to refute I do so on a case by case basis. Remember in the end WP is an Encyclopedia, not original research. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah! You erased my text by posting yours! No problem. I was actually saying that peer-reviewed articles are, in fact, secondary sources, and not primary ones, which are evidences interpreted by everyone. I should have read the definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources before, my bad. It's much less worse than what I though, what a relieve! The question is, in what category newspapers are? As you suggest, this is a case by case basis when accepting or not, and based on the fact that peer-reviewed should be privileged in scientific articles like this one, and knowing that anyone can publish their opinion in peer-reviewed journals, opinions in non-peer reviewed articles such as newspaper should not be accepted. So I suppose that I can delete that part, right? --Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 00:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

You can if you have a ref to back up another version, remember though also be courteous, you can leave a message on the users talk page explaining your edit. They are not wrong to edit in good faith, but yes sounds to me like you can delete but I would explain. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 00:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure, I'll contact the person who wrote that to share my opinion with him/her and see whether I can delete it or not. But I'm glad you agree with me on this point Faendalimas. Thanks for your opinion guys, appreciated! Cheers,--Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 01:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Newspapers can sometimes be useful in WP science articles. When we write science for journals, we sometimes write in very technical language, or we stop short of making a definitive statement (I am expanding Pain in fish so I am seeing a lot of this at the moment). Newspapers sometimes do not stop short like that, or scientists in an interview may be a little less guarded and give exactly the quote that helps the article. I got quite frustrated at primary and secondary sources so I wrote the essay Identifying primary and secondary sources for biology articles. This may help.DrChrissy ^(talk) 10:38, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Thankyou for putting the link to your essay in @DrChrissy: it was this I was trying to recall when I alluded to previous discussions on this in which you were involved. I was one of the responders to your RfC on that essay. I think this user will find your essay handy. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 11:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Folklore and Mythology?

I'm surprised that there isn't a section describing the animal's role in Indonesian (pre-European) folklore and culture. Surely such a large unusual creature would have had some impact on the stories and beliefs of indigenous people.Mariomassone (talk) 08:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Maturing and lifespan

The article is contradicting itself about the time it takes for the Komodo dragon to mature and its estimated lifespan. The first paragraph indicates they take 8 to 9 years to mature and are estimated to live up to 30 years. However, the paragraph about reproduction indicates that they take 3 to 5 years to mature and may live for up to 50 years. WoJoVo (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Good spot, I fixed it. HCA (talk) 00:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Population on Padar yes/no?

A newly added source that gives population numbers for 2013-2015 also mentions that "populations have declined at Padar". In the next paragraph, several sources state that the Padar populaton went extinct in 1975; at least the latter of these is as recent as 2005 .

The new source (a newspaper article) seems to me to be insufficient to invalidate the finding of the second source (a study), hence I have removed the previous editor's change to this effect. However, I suppose it's possible that dragons were re-introduced since 2005. I can't find any mention in this regard, however. A clarifying source would be welcome.-- Elmidae (talk) 13:20, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Park spoke person said in early March 2016 that the komodo dragons are still excist in Padar Island, although in 1975 has stated as extinct. Possibility in 1975, there were infant komodo dragons which were difficult to find due to infant komodo dragons hide from canibalistic adult komodo dragons. The reference only said the total population and not gave any breakdown, but stated clearly still excist in small islands, but in continous decline status. More other reference(s) for clear and accurate status certainly welcome.Gsarwa (talk) 16:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Komodo dragon. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnh.org/nationalcenter/Endangered/ora/ora.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/expeditions/treasure_fossil/Treasures/Komodo_Dragons/komodo.html?aa

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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} 05:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources checked.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

Rbartocci (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC) The Komodo dragons produce copious amounts of red saliva to help lubricate food,

 Not done - that article already covers this and cites reliable sources, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Size

In the intro the size of a komodo dragon is quoted as "a maximum length of 3 metres (10 ft) in rare cases and weighing up to approximately 70 kilograms," but this is contradicted later in the article. Also, I have personally been to Komodo and seen lizards a lot bigger than 3m long. Could someone find literature substantiating this? Aantia (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

That content has suitable citations. If you have verifiable content to the contrary, please provide it. DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

Please correct the formatting of the following images, neither of which currently display:

File:Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis) 3.jpg

File:Dragon feeding.png

88.145.199.124 (talk) 02:05, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Done The two images now display. Gulumeemee (talk) 02:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Komodo dragon. 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/20150320031810/http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/02/07/2-hospitalized-indonesia-after-komodo-attack.html to http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2013/02/07/2-hospitalized-indonesia-after-komodo-attack.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:20, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Komodo dragon. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/38/3/545.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130916233709/http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2013_Fry_Komodo_bacteria.pdf to http://www.venomdoc.com/downloads/2013_Fry_Komodo_bacteria.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111209095216/http://www.komodonationalpark.org/downloads/jessop%20et%20al.%202004e.pdf to http://www.komodonationalpark.org/downloads/jessop%20et%20al.%202004e.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100412152348/http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/V/Varanus_komodoensis/ to http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/V/Varanus_komodoensis

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 21:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Komodo dragon. 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/20130927080258/http://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/whats-on/komodo-dragons-at-london-zoo,125,EV.html to http://www.zsl.org/zsl-london-zoo/whats-on/komodo-dragons-at-london-zoo,125,EV.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071008112514/http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082 to https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=apLYpeppu8ag&refer=canada

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 13:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Komodo dragon. 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/20090220164644/http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=810&issueId=63 to http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/article.cfm?articleId=810&issueId=63

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 November 2017

Komodo Dragons used to have wings before thousands of years of evolution made them lose them because the native indonesian people hunted them for their wings. This was discovered when Mcguill shaded people university dug up fossils of Komodo Dragons with wings . Smo12345 (talk) 22:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 22:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Their bite is definitely poisonous

Toward the end of episode 2 of the BBC series Life, they state plainly that the bite is poisonous, and show the entire process of relatively minor bites resulting in a dead water buffalo. Thus, the Wikipedia paragraph in which a scientist calls into question whether poison is at work, seems to me to give an unwarranted platform to a wrong opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.136.207.239 (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

The idea that a TV documentary has more weight than the considered views of a respected scientist is laughable. HCA (talk) 15:19, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, the article here never states the Komodo dragon doesn't have a venomous bite, the question is how large a role it plays in predation. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't see an issue. Komodo_dragon#Venom is about as encompassing and balanced a treatment of this facet as one could wish to have. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:38, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent photo additions

As these span a number of articles: please discuss recent photo additions by SpaceMusk at User_talk:SpaceMusk#Photo additions. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 October 2019

Saliva: A recent study discovered, that Komodo dragons’ saliva and mouth consist of 57 strains of bacteria, and approximately 90% of those are pathogenic.

Source: Paul S. Russo, Megan Devine, Stephanie M. Barksdale, Shaylyn Scott, Robert Settlage, Pawel Michalak, Kajal Gupta, Kent Vliet, Joel M. Schnur, and Monique L. van Hoek Journal of Proteome Research 2017 16 (4), 1470-1482 Pizzapie456 (talk) 03:58, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

The content of that article [11] is not actually contradictory to what's currently stated, and what seems to be the state of knowledge: they do have a number of pathogenic bacteria in their saliva, but the pathogenicity is not out of the ordinary for carnivores. The article does describe some interesting findings about their immune system, which might be integrated into the text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Melmann 18:40, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

combine topic

it would be a good idea to combine "saliva" and "venom" section into one topic.Seahawkrule (talk) 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 February 2021

The link to source #38, "Here Be Dragons: The Mythic Bite of the Komodo" is dead. Here is a working link: https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/here-be-dragons-the-mythic-bite-of-the-komodo scottmacs (talk) 00:11, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

 Done, see Special:Diff/1006462679. Thank you! Best, DanCherek (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 May 2021

There's a duplicated it DardS8Br (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Done, thank you – Thjarkur (talk) 23:19, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

parietal eye link

Please add reference and link regarding presence of parietal eye. I would myself but the page is locked. 24.3.191.215 (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2022

Student69420 (talk) 16:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC) I want to add more to tell more interesting things

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:39, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Komodo dragons (Varanus komodoensis) fighting.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 13, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-10-13. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 12:04, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

The Komodo dragon (Varanus komodoensis), also known as the Komodo monitor, is a species of monitor lizard in the family Varanidae that is endemic to the Indonesian islands of Komodo, Rinca, Flores, and Gili Motang. It is the largest extant species of lizard, growing to a maximum length of 3 metres (10 ft), and weighing up to approximately 70 kilograms (150 lb). The Komodo dragon prefers hot and dry places, and typically lives in dry, open grassland, savanna, and tropical forest at low elevations. As an ectotherm, it is most active in the day, although it exhibits some nocturnal activity. Komodo dragons are solitary, coming together only to breed and eat. They are capable of running rapidly in brief sprints up to 20 km/h (12 mph), diving up to 4.5 metres (15 ft), and climbing trees proficiently when young through use of their strong claws. To catch out-of-reach prey, it may stand on its hind legs and use its tail as a support. As it matures, its claws are used primarily as weapons, as its great size makes climbing impractical. This photograph of two Komodo dragons fighting was taken on the island of Rinca, within Komodo National Park.

Photograph credit: Charles J. Sharp

Recently featured:

• Eva Le Gallienne
• Red knot
• Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

WP:URFA/2020 FA notice

This article is a very old FA, and unfortunately it seems to have suffered from entropy since then. This feels apparent from the start of the article, with the lead being quite sparse. Much of the prose of the body is similarly stubby, with many short and disjointed paragraphs. There are odd bits of prose throughout (eg. a long quote from a "Bryan Fry", a paragraph on a single celebrity incident), which feel pasted on without much thought to the overall article. Much likely needs to be rewritten. In terms of comprehensiveness, the article is also lacking. There is a clear omission in the lack of a section explaining the range and sub-populations (and why is Gili Motang specifically mentioned in the lead?). It is strange that there is a section titled "Incidents with humans", as it makes Komodos sound like a species from remote areas where they are rarely encountered, instead of from inhabited islands where their presence must be accounted for in day-to-day life. This relates to the currently poor Popular culture section, which as is should be scrapped, but which should be replaced with a proper section on their cultural and perhaps even socioeconomic influence. Some parts of the article need sourcing, like the first paragraph of Evolutionary history. Existing sources need to be reviewed, both to remove terrible ones (there is currently a citation to deviantart), and to clean up existing ones with a consistent style and page numbers and the other FA odds and ends. As a final aside, the article could use an image of a juvenile, especially one in a tree. (This notification is made as part of Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020.) CMD (talk) 12:36, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 November 2022

Please add:

{{other uses|Komodo Dragon (chess)|Komodo Dragon (chili pepper)}}

157.157.114.157 (talk) 17:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done Done, thanks IP. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

First Komodo dragons in Europe

The article currently states that the first Komodo dragons to arrive in Europe where exhibited at London zoo in 1927, but the Dutch wikipedia page mentions that they were already exhibited in Artis (Amsterdam zoo) in 1926. The source is a newspaper https://www.delpher.nl/nl/kranten/view?coll=ddd&identifier=ddd:010659812:mpeg21:a0083 (in dutch)

Could this be corrected?

Cheers 37.232.19.101 (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 March 2024

The largest verified specimen reached a length of 10.3 feet (3.13 meters) and weighed 366 pounds (166 kilograms).

Source - https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/komodo-dragon#:~:text=Size,larger%20and%20bulkier%20than%20females.

The current heading with max length and weight is innacurate. Max length is not 9.8 ft - it is 10.3. Max weight is heavier than indicated, as well. 2001:56A:6FF4:6EAA:BC6E:CBAA:3B07:9A39 (talk) 04:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: Largest specimen is mentioned in Description subsection. Lead is general. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 09:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 July 2024

I am requesting that information be added about the recent development that Komodo Dragons have iron-coated teeth. source: https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/komodo-dragons-have-iron-coated-teeth-to-rip-apart-their-prey Christopher0020 (talk) 18:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Left guide (talk) 22:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)