Talk:Noronha skink

Comments

• who is H.M.S. Chanticleer? L.G. Andersson?… and all of the other scientists that are unlinked
  • HMS Chanticleer is a ship. :) I linked it, and also Tschudi in the text. For the others, I don't feel it is necessary to link them, since they are likely not notable. This is similar to what is done in literature FAs like Ode on a Grecian Urn, which don't link all critics.
• the first sentence of "19th Century" is long and feels run-on
  • True. Fixed.
• junior synonym needs explanation
  • I linked it; do you think that suffices? The first sentence of Synonym (taxonomy)#Zoology is quite clear here.

Yes, good enough. Sasata (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• what does the colon mean after a synonym (taxobox)?
  • It is a new combination. For example, the combination Euprepis atlanticus was first used by Mausfeld et al. 2002, who transferred the Noronha skink from Mabuya to Euprepis. They get the authority for Euprepis atlanticus, with the colon in between to indicate that they did not create a fully new name (basionym in ICBN-ese, I think). What about introducing a footnote to the synonyms section that explains this?

Sure, an explanatory footnote would be nice, and will help dissuade those future editors who may come and "help" by removing them :) Sasata (talk) 05:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Done.

• image caption with Trachylepis maculata does not need ending period. Or replace the comma with "is" and keep the period.
  • I was able to trim it further.
• link/define mottled. Is it mottled yellow below, or just yellow below?
  • Just yellow. I'll see what I can do to improve that piece.
    • Edited.
• in the second paragraph of description, before jumping head-first into an explanation of scale morphology, maybe an introductory sentence explaining to the reader how scales are an important character used to distinguish between different species (I'm assuming they are)
  • Good idea. It seems herpetologists are obsessed with scales the same way mammalogists are obsessed with skulls and teeth, but the introductory sentence was helpful (garbled sentence). The introductory sentence is helpful, and I added it.
• "…snout to vent length is 80.6…" is -> was (and several occurrences following)
  • Changed.
• prose needs some massaging throughout for better flow, but it's pretty close already
  • Please do give specific examples; I'd like to have as much of that as possible resolved before FAC.
• Good luck at FAC, I'm sure I'll find some more to comment about at that time! Sasata (talk) 05:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the comments! Ucucha 13:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Looks like it is nearly an FA already, to me. Is it found on the smaller Noronha islands? The lead says endemic to an island, and no further mention is made in the text of distribution, but the distribution map caption mentions the archipelago. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 17:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Thanks; I'll bring it to FAC soon after Sasata has left another round of comments.

I'll leave more comments in a day or two, just need to get more than a 10-minute stretch of free time :) Sasata (talk) 17:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

No need to rush. :) Ucucha 18:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• • No one really talks about the other islands. Most studies were explicitly conducted on the main island. The only exception I think is Branner 1888, who says mice are plentiful on Ilha Rapta (the largest islet) but there are not rats. Unfortunately, he doesn't mention whether the skink also occurs on the other islands. I made it just say "island" now. Ucucha 17:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

(Round 2)

• "It is a brownish to grayish lizard…" - shouldn't start a paragraph with "it"
  • Changed.
• Maybe the lead could be a little longer, another sentence of description and taxonomy?
  • Added two sentences: mentioned Trachylepis tschudii and wrote a bit about the tail.
• might it be worthwhile to add a picture of Erythrina velutina? There's some on Flickr
  • As it turned out, someone had already uploaded an image of the flowers to Commons. The picture is in Brisbane, but the tree looks close to the pictures in Sazima et al. 2005, so the ID is probably correct. Ucucha 13:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm used to putting Latin words like nomen novum and et al. in italics (recommend in MOS)
  • I tend to see these as terms of art rather than just Latin words. The zoological Code does not italicize "nomen novum", and there are many scientific journals which direct writers not to italicize "et al.". I generally prefer not to use unnecessary formatting. Ucucha 19:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• "…based on two specimens collected by HMS Chanticleer before 1838" how does a boat collect specimens? Why mention the boat? Was this skink discovery a result of some historically important scientific voyage?
  • All I have about this is Schmidt 1945: "In addition to the type specimens collected by H.M.S. Chanticleer sometime previous to 1838, the specimens on record include only ..." and Mausfeld and Vrcibradic 2002, who tell us that the types are BMNH 1946.8.27.47 and 1946.8.27.48. Gray himself is silent about the provenance of his specimens. I suppose the ship's crew caught a few skinks, but even that is not in the source. Ucucha 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• "…for the Noronha skink, noting that it is "apparently …" is->was
  • For those three, I intentionally used the present instead of the past tense, because the conclusion is still true (the skink is still a distinctive species, maculata and punctata are still not the same, and punctata is still preoccupied [well, not quite]). But the more I think about it, the more that seems artificial, so I changed them. Ucucha 19:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• "…conclusion that maculata and punctata of Gray are not the same" are -> were
• "…point that punctata is preoccupied" is -> was
• "considered both of Gray's names as identical" identical or synonymous?
  • Synonymous. Changed.
• "He also placed Mabouya punctatissima and Trachylepis (Xystrolepis) punctata Tschudi, 1845, described from Peru, as synonyms of this species." placed -> considered
  • Changed.
• "In 2002, P. Mausfeld and D. Vrcibradic published a note on the nomenclature of the Noronha skink and re-examined Gray's original type specimens;" didn't they examine the specimens before they published the note?
  • I hope so. Changed.
• what's a keel?
  • Explained.
• "Additional molecular phylogenetic studies in 2003 and 2006" probably "published in" is more accurate
  • Changed.
• In the first paragraph of description, suggest varying the sentence structure a bit, as currently most sentences being with "the", and it is a little repetitive.
  • Tweaked a few sentences.
• suggest tweaking image placement so that they don't push in level two headers
  • Moved that around a bit.
• "Stomach contents indicate…" Perhaps "Analysis of stomach contents…"?
  • Yes.
• "During foraging, it spends less than 30% of its time moving on average." versus "Its prey is mostly mobile, rather than sedentary,[52] which is consistent with the relatively high proportion of time spent moving." contradiction, no?
  • You'd be surprised. The paper gives some other numbers, and 30% is actually high. Some lizards have proportions of time spent moving as low as 5%. Ucucha 13:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Addendum: the lowest value in Trachylepis is 1.4% in T. acutilabris and the highest is 49.8% in T. sulcata (Rocha et al., 2009, p. 456). They write: "Thus, T. atlantica should be considered closer to the active foraging extreme of the active-sedentary foraging continuum" (p. 456). Ucucha 21:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
• "The colonization from Africa is believed to have occurred within the last 9 million years." please mention how they derived this number (molecular clock calculations?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasata (talk • contribs)
  • It's not really clear. The 9 Ma age is mentioned fairly laconically by Carranza and Arnold, and actually refers to both true Mabuya (which reached mainland America from Africa) and the Noronha skink. You probably have access to the paper, so you might want to have a look. It might be best to take the thing out--it's the only numeric estimate of the skink's age I know of, but it's perhaps too vague to be useful. Ucucha 13:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am bringing the article to FAC now; most of your comments appear to have been resolved, and aided greatly in improving the article. I'm sure we'll be able to sort out the remaining points, either here or at the FAC. Ucucha 04:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Broken link check

A few indeterminate ones need replacing/refreshing. Will do them later if nobody does. AshLin (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do that myself, but please be more specific—this and this suggests all links are fine. Ucucha 16:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother. Done. Converted the Indeterminate green links in Checklinks as they are most likely to deteriorate over time. All are white (good) or yellow (subscription required) links now. AshLin (talk) 07:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Improvement points

• No mention of conservation status, threats and action. Even if it is not in danger, some specific mention should be made.
  • Nothing is known that is not in the article. The article already mentions that it is very common; more I cannot say.
• Please add a commons link to "Mabuya maculata" as the photos are stored there.
  • The link would not add anything, as all photos but one are already in the article.
• IMHO there are far too many red links. These should be reduced by making stubs or redirects. The stubs too should not be trivial but contain at least one ref, preferably an image and at least one paragraph of text with three four sentances explaining what that stub title is about. While the FA rules may not require it, a reader is not reassured by the presence of red links, once he understands what a red link means. Also, developing the 'supporting cast' for FAs and GAs is a great way to build up Wikipedia.
  • You do not have to teach me how to write an article. I will be working on these links, but am primarily developing this articles.
    • I did not intend to be rude. My apologies if you felt so.
• Please provide an external links where the entry on Noronha Skink in ITIS, GBIF and other online global species indices. Oh, dont forget the Wikispecies entry! Make one if you need to.
  • External links should only be made when they add something for the reader, and I don't think any of these do.
• A 'See also' is usually a good thing. Reptile, Lizard, Skink, Colonisation (biology), Island biogeography could be some of the links therein.
  • WP:SEEALSO suggests that a well-developed article may not need such a section. In any case, most of the terms you mention are already linked in the article (I added "colonization").
• Is any material on breeding available?
  • Nothing more than what is already in the article. There have been quite some articles about the Noronha skink in recent years, but knowledge has become somewhat unbalanced, as almost no one has studied any aspect of reproduction.

AshLin (talk) 08:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments; I replied above. Ucucha 14:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my comments were not of much utility and that one of them appeared rude. I had not looked your at user page or contribs while perusing this article for improvements. Its now obvious to me that you have a lot more experience than me in developing articles towards FA/GA. All the best for the FAC. AshLin (talk) 18:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks again for taking the time to comment. Ucucha 19:05, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice article

... and interesting topic. However, could the lead be used to describe what this is, rather than, "Perhaps seen by Amerigo Vespucci in 1503, it was first formally described in 1839. Its subsequent taxonomic history has been complex, riddled with confusion with Trachylepis maculata and other species, homonyms, and other problems. ...The enigmatic Trachylepis tschudii, supposedly from Peru, may well be the same species.

I tried to access this on my mobile, from which I can usually read the first paragraph. I learned nothing. It would be nice, especially with featured articles, to have a lead paragraph that gives stubstantive information rather than speculates and follows up with nothing. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 23:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point, and I have swapped the two paragraphs of the lead to remedy it. Ucucha 05:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Nice article, including the lead, now. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The article is plentiful with images, which is great! I rewrote some lines within "Reproduction" to enhance clarity. I also modified a few sentences within "Relationships with other species." I renamed "Interaction between lizards" to "Intraspecific Competition." "Relationships with other species" was a subheading under diet; as such, I corrected it to a heading of the same level and renamed it to "Predators and Parasites." All such ecological sections, I moved underneath "Ecology and Behavior." I moved "Origin" to "Discovery and taxonomy" as a subheading. ----Spirit LG (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I really enjoyed reading this wikipedia page, I thought the writing was very engaging. However, I would suggest looking over at the citations in conservation, habitat and reproduction. Information included on Wikipedia pages should generally be sourced. In reproduction and conversation, no sources were indicated.In the “habitat” section, there seems to be some sources indicated in parentheses , but were not linked. I made some extra changes like moving reproduction-related sections under the reproduction heading. I also reworded the "Interactions with Humans" section to make the writing less subjectie. Nvytrinh (talk) 05:18, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

HMS Chanticleer collection appears to be 1831 or earlier

The List of Additions Made to the Collections in the British Museum in the Year 1831 contains (p112) a reference to "a Skink, (Tiliqua,) from Fernando de Noronha" that was "presented by the Lords of the Admiralty, from H. M. S. Chanticleer." This appears to be the specimen referred to by Gray in 1839. (The alternative possibility that HMS Chanticleer returned to Fernando de Noronha after 1831 to collect an additional skink for the British Museum collection seems pretty slim.) It's not a massively significant event in the species' 9-million-year history, but this was the type specimen, so maybe it's worth a note. Rupert Clayton (talk) 04:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And according to this chronology of HMS Chanticleer's voyages, it appears the specimen was likely collected between the following recorded stops.

Cape of Good Hope 25 Oct 1829 Refitting.

Trinidad 29 Oct 1830 Arrived from Para.

The Chanticleer arrived back in England in May 1831, which fits nicely with the British Museum donation year and the list of other specimens and collection sites provided in the British Museum list. Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the detective work; it appears you are right. The only discrepancy is that List of Additions only records a single specimen, but in fact Gray had two. Ucucha 06:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It's interesting that the Chanticleer probably collected its skink specimen in the summer of 1830, about a year and a half before Charles Darwin visited Fernando de Noronha (20 February 1832). This 1832 visit was by the HMS Beagle because the HMS Chanticleer wasn't in seaworthy condition following its previous survey voyage. Darwin spent a few hours on Fernando de Noronha, remarked on the geology and collected botanical specimens, but he doesn't seem to have noticed the skinks! Rupert Clayton (talk) 07:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Skink distribution on Noronha islets

I notice there was some discussion before FAC about whether the skink is present on the islets around Fernando de Noronha. There's a reference in Ridley's 1887 paper in the Journal of the Linnean Society (p476) that adds a little here. Ridley remarks on species presumed to have rafted to the islands and says that "almost all the species noted occur on all the islands suitable for their existence." He specifically mentions the presence of the skink on St. Michael's Mount (Ilha Sela Gineta). There seems to have been some text omitted, which makes it unclear whether the skink was also present on Rat Island (Ilha Rata). Rupert Clayton (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't see that paper now (Google Books only shows a snippet). According to Branner (1888), "Ilha Rata" is actually "Ilha Rapta" and means "Stolen Island", not "Rat Island". There is an incredible number of mice there, but no rats. He doesn't mention the skink on any but the main island. Ucucha 06:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, Google Books is happy to expand the search snippets to full text for me. Maybe they're restricting visibility based on the searcher's geo-location. Here's the most relevant part:

"Another fact of interest in connection with this sea-travelling fauna, if I may use the expression, is that almost all the species noted occur on all the islands suitable for their existence. Thus on Rat Island the Bulimus Ridleyi, the Amphisbaena and Skink are common on St Michael's Mount; the Skink is a large species, but the island, being a mere rocky peak, is unsuited for the Amphisbaena.

The last half of that is quite confusing as to which species are present where. Sadly, the skink doesn't get nearly as much detail in the formal description of the reptile fauna that Ridley got G A Boulenger to write as do most of the other species Ridley brought back (probably because it had already been described by Gray).

"The Skink was originally described from two specimens obtained on Fernando Noronha by HMS 'Chanticleer,' but has since been recorded from Demerara. The specimens brought home by Mr. Ridley are 10 in number; two have 36 scales round the body, the others 38; in one specimen the frontonasal touches the rostral and in another the two shields form a narrow suture."

The reference to Demerara [i.e. Guyana] matches Boulenger's equation of this species with Mabuia/Trachylepis maculata in your other reference. Rupert Clayton (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, whether one sees a full view in Google Books depends on location; it's related to differences in copyright law. It's a pity the text of your first quote is mangled; I think I'll just add that it also occurs on the smaller islands of the archipelago. Ucucha 19:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)