Jump to content

Talk:Mexican beaded lizard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleMexican beaded lizard has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
October 2, 2008Good article nomineeListed
Did You Know
A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on September 26, 2008.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the venom of the Beaded Lizard (pictured) has been found to contain several enzymes useful in the manufacturing of drugs to treat diabetes?

GA Review

[edit]
This review is transcluded from Talk:Beaded Lizard/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

A good read with good images and meets all the criteria overall. However, I'm going to ask for a second opinion to check whether it is broad in its coverage. Peanut4 (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how it can be much broader. I'm not a zoologist so there may be some important topic I don't see is missing.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I edit paleontology articles, and am no herpetologist. You might want to look at Gila monster (GA already) and another GAs you can find in category "Reptiles" Although I saw no glaring gaps in Beaded Lizard's coverage, both before and after comparing with Gila monster, I thought the "Taxonomy" section was a bit light - I'd expect to see 3-4 levels of the "family tree" (phylogeny), with some explanations of the similarites and differences between close relatives. However standards for paleo and neontology may be different - neontology seems to run mainly on Linnean taxonomy, but this quickly breaks down in paleo and and I'm used to seeing cladograms with explanations of synapomorphies. I did notice a lot of poor writing. I don't mean WP:MOS minutiae, which outside the scope of GA, but e.g.: ungrammatical and ambiguous participle in "First described by Arend Weigmann as Trachyderma horridum in 1829, he renamed it Heloderma horridum six months later"; ambiguity in "Except for their underside, the majority of these scales are underlaid with bony osteoderms" (the under side of the scales?); unexplained jargon "autotomize" ("drop off to distract predators"?) and "Jacobson's organ" ("in the middle of the palate"?). Hope this helps. -- Philcha (talk)

After taking some advice from second opinions the article looks nearly there. Just a couple of points to address, could you

  • Take a look at the taxonomy section for levels of family tree, etc, as above,
  • some of the terms listed above.
    • "First described by Arend Weigmann as Trachyderma horridum in 1829, he renamed it Heloderma horridum six months later"
    • "Except for their underside, the majority of these scales are underlaid with bony osteoderms"

Thanks. Peanut4 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cleared those up, either I typed those out late at night half asleep or someone else cleaned up my prose(99.9% sure thats how the osteoderms clutter happened).

Do you want me to do a taxonomy tree like in Helodermatidae#Taxonomy or a paragraph and a half like in Gila Monster#Taxonomy ?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:56, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Helodermatidae

  • Genus Heloderma
    • Heloderma horridum, Beaded lizard
      • Heloderma horridum horridum (Wiegmann, 1829)
      • Heloderma horridum alvarezi (Bogert & Martên del Campo, 1956)
      • Heloderma horridum exasperatum (Bogert & Martên Del Campo, 1956)
      • Heloderma horridum charlesbogerti (Campbell & Vannini, 1988)
    • Heloderma suspectum, Gila monster
      • Heloderma suspectum cinctum (Bogert & Martên Del Campo, 1956)
      • Heloderma suspectum suspectum (Cope, 1869)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:

Having taken some advice, and seeing your responses, I'm now satisfied that this meets the GA criteria. I have just noted the requested move however. If Beaded Lizard is moved to Beaded lizard, then the change needs to be reflected throughout the article. Good luck with any future expansion. Peanut4 (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re future expansion, as a paleontology editor I usually include, in addition to a Linnean taxonomy like yours, a section "Evolutionary history" with sub-sections "Fossil record" and "Phylogeny" (this = evolutionary "family tree"). The core of "Phylogeny" wouldbe a cladogram, usually using Template:clade - see for example Opabinia#Classification. I've done a quick Google and found:
Give me a call if you need help with any of this. -- Philcha (talk) 22:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving title

[edit]

I don't think the page should have been moved or renamed. Changing lizard to lowercase in the text is one thing, but I do not think the title should have been changed. Will the same happen to every other reptile/amphibian page like Cane Toad?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Old talk

[edit]

If it's found in Mexico and South America it must be found in Central America too. Could someone check on the facts here? -- Barfooz (talk) 03:46, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is not found in South America; Guatemala is in Central America--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

venomous lizards

[edit]

has not the kimodo dragon been found to contain venom and not just from bacteria in it's saliva? Bloodkith (talk) 02:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Several types of lizards have been found to be venomous [1]. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can update the article(s). 67.121.232.218 (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the concerns above. The article currently states "Beaded lizards...are the only lizards known to have evolved an overt venom delivery system." However, the Category: Venomous lizards lists 4 species one of which is the Komodo dragon for which I thought the evidence was irrefutable.__DrChrissy (talk) 14:38, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no proof that monitors have venom, it is still wild speculation.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:35, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm - Wild speculation? Perhaps you would care to comment on [2] and [3]. The original research can be read at [4]. __DrChrissy (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I've read it. They found a gland and they found some proteins that are found in venom and perhaps they had a common venomous ancestor. Depending on what day of the week you ask, they are venomous or venomous only in an academic sense. That is, if it gets headlines "it's venomous", If it is scientists, snake keepers, hobbyists or politicians, then its "not an effective system and from an evolutionary perspective".--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. Is the argument then that the function of the apparatus remains to be demonstrated? Yes, they have venom glands, yes they produce venom, but it has yet to be demonstrated that Komodos kill by envenomation?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:40, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That depends as there are several arguments made across the board. One is that "they have no means to envenomate", another is "presence of proteins found in venom do not make it venom", then there are others that claim "there is no evidence that it is a venom gland", etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. In the interests of getting a balanced approach to this, could you provide some pointers to sources of these criticisms.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:55, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the sources on Schwenk in the Komodo article. Dr Ken Kardong has delivered numerous lectures on the subject too. Here is one which speaks to the paper you cited: [5]--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 18:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I found the comments by Schwenk to be rather dismissive but without giving a basis for this. However, I put this down to rather selective reporting by the reporter. I was rather hoping to get original articles showing it is NOT a venom system. The .pdf you kindly included was published in the same year as the Fry et al. (2009) paper and so could not directly address these findings of Fry, however, it does make the point that biological signficance may be overlooked by some researchers. I'll look at the Komodo article again and edit accordingly. Thanks for your help__DrChrissy (talk) 21:11, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you read through it, you'll find it speaks directly to that research and that paper is cited throughout.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The paper I am referring to is Fry BG, Wroe S, Teeuwisse W, et al. (2009) A central role for venom in predation by Varanus komodoensis (Komodo Dragon) and the extinct giant Varanus (Megalania) priscus. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 106: 8969–74 doi=10.1073/pnas.0810883106. As far as I can see, the Weinstein et al. paper does not cite the Fry et al. (2009) paper or list it in the references.__DrChrissy (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, gotcha. I thought you meant the one that appeared in Nature and the earlier work. My mistake.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conservation Status

[edit]

The article says that less than 200 live in the wile, but still the conservation says its 'Least Concern', I think this needs correction.Bsathya4 (talk) 10:45, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IUCN still has the species as "Least Concern" and there are many beaded lizards in captivity and in the wild. The part that you are having trouble comprehending pertains to the subspecies in Guatemala, which has a diminishing population.-There is nothing to correct-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:33, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly all things considering we should have a separate article for the Mexican Bearded Lizard and a General Bearded Lizard article. Or delete the link to the Mexican Bearded page which simply redirects to this one.

Orphaned references in Beaded lizard

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Beaded lizard's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "McD99":

  • From Mamushi: McDiarmid RW, Campbell JA, Touré T. 1999. Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, Volume 1. Washington, District of Columbia: Herpetologists' League. 511 pp. ISBN 1-893777-00-6 (series). ISBN 1-893777-01-4 (volume).
  • From Snake: McDiarmid RW, Campbell JA, Touré T. 1999. Snake Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference, vol. 1. Herpetologists' League. 511 pp. ISBN 1-893777-00-6 (series). ISBN 1-893777-01-4 (volume).

Reference named "ITIS":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 15:12, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

Towards the top of the article, the beaded lizard is said to be threatened to extinction with just ~200 left in the wild (and is protected as a result), and yet in the information table to the right, it's stated as "least concern." So which is it? 87.112.230.175 (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Beaded lizard. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Beaded lizard. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:32, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mexican_beaded_lizard&oldid=1203987573"