Talk:Mata mata

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles articles

South America: Brazil / Colombia / Ecuador / Guyana / Suriname / Uruguay / Venezuela / French Guiana Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is supported by WikiProject Brazil (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Colombia (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Ecuador (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Guyana (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Uruguay (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Venezuela (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the French Guiana work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Captivity section is inappropriate

In a web for a life being species adding a section about its captivity handling is out of place. A depiction in another web related to that may fit. Definitively not here. I recommend to rename it to habitat conditions or parameters to resue the already appropriate content in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.29.167.135 (talk) 21:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

out-of-date

According to the "Turtles of the world, 2011 update" the binomial name is Chelus fimbriata. Was previously in this article as Chelus fimbriatus. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 01:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I checked your ref. and made the changes. Also added a redirect. Dger (talk) 17:03, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The images at commons want to be moved or adjusted. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:09, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories when described?

Ok not sure what to do about this one. The Category for when this species was described was recently changed. Now that change was correct as it was not described in 1741, no probs there. However if you look at the naming of this species it was originally described in 1765 (Testudo terrestris Fermin 1765:51 (nomen rejectum)), now we dont use the name Testudo terrestris because of the ruling by the ICZN where they decided we would use Testudo fimbriata Schneider 1783:349. My question though is that although we dont use the name Testudo terrestris Fermin 1765:51, the species was still originally described that year. Not in 1783. What should we do here? Or will we just run with the year of the first valid name? Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 05:31, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be 1741 because names and descriptions prior to 1758 are invalid (apart from Clerck's 1757 spider names). On other wikipedia pages where a species has an older, invalid name (such as here), the year of description is regarded to be the year it received its current species name, which in this case would be 1783 Elspooky (talk) 08:28, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to its 1765 description, which although nomen rejectum is still a valid date for the declaration of this species to science. I am basically asking what this category is really about. When was the species formally declared to science? or when was the currently accepted name for this species actually proposed. Two different concepts. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 10:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The latter one Elspooky (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re-arranging this one a bit

Just forewarning that I intend to change the way this page links a bit. There are two fossil taxa in the genus Chelus, which do not currently have pages so I am going to make a page for the genus and those two species. This will require that this page links to the genus (instead of it being a redirect) and the family does also. I will write the necessary pages and do this over the next couple of days. Cheers. Faendalimas ^talk 17:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mata mata. 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.cnah.org/pdf_files/851.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111011173155/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/04/giant_fossil_matamata_turtles.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2011/04/giant_fossil_matamata_turtles.php

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) 12:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nose, and neck frills

Hi, is the elongated nose horn hollow and used for breathing? Also the neck frills are curiously feathery, is it possible they have some oxygen-gathering capacity when submerged? thanks 92.0.22.87 (talk) 08:50, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]