Talk:Turtle/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Land turtles and water

Can land turtles swim, or at least float? What happens if they fall in water? Danceswithzerglings (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC) 'land turtles' are called tortoises please post this message on the tortoise page not here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.18.111.126 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 February 2010‎ (EST)

Pending changes

This article is one of a small number (about 100) selected for the first week of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

However with only a few hours to go, comments have only been made on two of the pages.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially.

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC).

Hatching?

how long does it take for turtle eggs to hatch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.163.208.81 (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Varies from species to species. oknazevad (talk) 18:21, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Flipping over

Maybe I missed it, but turtles are usually unable to flip over when they end up on their backs, right? Tisane ^talk/_stalk 18:49, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Turtle anatomy

If you are interrested :

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Titimaster (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Vernacular use of "tortoise"

In terms of recent edits, I'm unaware of any animal called a "tortoise" in common terms that isn't *actually* a member of Testudinidae, at least within US english, which is what the sentence under dispute is about. Unless there is an example, it should be reverted to prior form. Mokele (talk) 13:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

What about box tortoises, which aren't in Testudinidae? When I referred to "common speech", I wasn't speaking of common names of particular species, I was referring to an American non-specialist seeing a shelled reptile on land. He's most likely to say "there's a turtle", but he's not going to check which species it is before calling it a "tortoise", because in common speech (as opposed to common names of particular species), all fully land-based (as opposed to semi-aquatic) turtles are called tortoises. oknazevad (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone refer to box turtles as tortoises - IME, I've only ever heard "tortoise" used for actual tortoises, though people often call them "turtles" (which is also technically correct). If you can find a citable source of someone using tortoise for a box turtle, then we should make the change, but I seriously doubt it - even the extremely ignorant would just default to "turtle" for all chelonians. Mokele (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

"A box turtle is one among the different species of turtles and is also known as the box tortoise. The specialty of this tortoise is that it possesses a large dome shaped shell which has a movable hinge on its lower part." (Emphases mine.) Taken from the pet care article here. I think it proves my point, as a pet care source would be more knowledgable and accurate than an average layman, but not as rigorous as a biologist, exactly the sort of middle ground I was referring to.oknazevad (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh, I guess people really are that stupid. Well, go ahead and change it back to your version. Mokele (talk) 03:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not "stupid" it's just the difference between technical writing and informal, common usage. Not everyone is an expert, and Wikipedia is as much descriptive as prescriptive, that is it describes what people do. oknazevad (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the point here is that the article does not make a clear distinction between a turtle and a tortoise. I defer to experts to explain, but it seems to me that a tortoise lives its life almost exclusively on land. --74.107.74.39 (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Turtle, tortoise, or terrapin

This section cites no source, aside from the etymology of the word "terrapin." Does anyone have a reference for this before it get eliminated? ViniTheHat (talk) 18:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

No references here. The (mis)usage seems borderline colloquialism. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:09, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm adding one from the San Diego Zoo. Eliminating this would be a severe mistake. While common usage may not be as precise as scientific usage, it's not incorrect. We must be cautious not to fall into a prescriptivist trap. oknazevad (talk) 20:17, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Could this page be called 'Chelonians' or 'Testudines'?

Wouldn't it make sense for the 'turtle' page to refer to actual turtles (aka sea turtles in the US), to avoid confusion? Chelonian is a name which can refer to the order in all English speaking countries, whereas it's only in the US that the word turtle is used in this way. It could be noted on the turtle page that they are called 'Sea turtles' in the US.--Jcvamp (talk) 15:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Um, "turtle" in the US and other english-speaking nations refers to more than just sea turtles. Mokele (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, it to be a particular Britishism to reserve the word "turtle" to just the sea-going species. In general, throughout the English speaking world, "turtle" is used as a generic descriptor of all shelled reptiles. Which is why this is the parent article for all shelled reptiles, and why it already includes a section on the varying usages of "turtle", "tortoise" and "terrapin".oknazevad (talk) 16:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

We have a template to warn that an article doesn't represent a worldwide view of the subject, yet we've gone with the North American usage for the title to this article. Testudines would be much better and more neutral. The article itself states that Australians use the word tortoise for the land animal, so "throughout the English speaking world, "turtle" is used as a generic descriptor of all shelled reptiles" seems inaccurate. I'd propose gathering more views from other Wikipedians. 193.0.104.224 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to support the renaming of this page to Chelonians. Is there a template to facilitate a discussion on it? Dislogical (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem with "Testudines" is that its simply an uncommon term used mostly by those "in the know", and runs full afoul of WP:COMMONNAME. As for "neutrality" concerns, I don't see what's non-neutral about using a common term for the title of a main article that already covers the regional differences in the usage. oknazevad (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Even as a native UK-English speaker, I prefer the current name of "Turtle" Bluap (talk) 00:06, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Lifespan?

Save for a passing use of the adjective "centenarian", there seems to be no explicit mention of some species' notoriously long lifespan. Perhaps this could be added to the 'ecology and life history' section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.245.70.191 (talk) 00:40, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

What are calipash and calipee?

The terms "calipash" and "calipee" redirect here, but there is no explanation as to why, nor any other mention of them. What do they mean, and how do they relate to turtles? 69.255.171.55 (talk) 02:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Try using Google - the first 8 links all give definitions of calipash. Bluap (talk) 01:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Classification

The evolution and systematics section indicates that all recent phylogenetic morphological and molecular studies place turtles somewhere within Diapsida. It then states "the debate is far from settled" and cites a bunch of studies that agree with the diapsid hypothesis. Where are the conflicting studies arguing that turtles are anapsids? If there aren't any, or if they're in the minority, the debate looks pretty settled. The text as it reads now suggests a general consensus on the diapsid hypothesis. If this is not correct it needs to be balanced out. For the record, in a Google Scholar search of the past 10 years I cannot find any phylogenetic studies suggesting turtles are Parareptiles/Anapsids. The debate right now seems to be whether or not turtles are closer to archosaurs or lepidosaurs, not whether or not they're diapsids. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• There is Lyson et al.'s 2010 paper that included an analysis that recovered turtles as parareptiles. The phylogenetic position of turtles was also discussed in the chapter written by Lee et al. in 2004 book "Assembling the Tree of Life" (the chapter Resolving Reptile Relationships: Molecular and Morphological Markers, pp. 451-467), where it's stated that: "The morphological–molecular conflict on turtle origins (or, more accurately, higher level reptile phylogeny in general) thus remains unresolved. Combined analyses (Eernisse and Kluge 1993, Lee 2001, C. J. Raxworthy, A. L. Clarke, S. Hauswaldt, J. B. Pramuk, L. A. Pugener, and C. A. Sheil, unpubl. ms.) still place turtles in the traditional position outside diapsid reptiles". These do indeed seem to be in minority nowadays though.--37.31.6.53 (talk) 22:23, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Total Number of Different Species of Turtles Should be in Opening of Article

This could also be followed by a brief breakdown of total numbers for sub-types like freshwater, saltwater, brackish water and terrestrial. 98.173.62.28 (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to provide the content here that you would like to see (remembering to provide references/links as appropriate) and someone with the magic ability can easily put it into the article for you. DMacks (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Rhodin, Anders G.J.; van Dijk, Peter Paul; Inverson, John B.; Shaffer, H. Bradley; Roger, Bour (2011-12-31). "Turtles of the world, 2011 update: Annotated checklist of taxonomy, synonymy, distribution and conservation status". Chelonian Research Monographs. 5: 000.165. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2012-01-22.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

The first two pages in the pdf (page 000.165-000.166) gives some information about extant turtles. "currently(as of 2011) with 322 species and 123 additional subspecies, or 445 total taxa of living turtles and tortoises." I'm not sure what can be said about the number of extint turtles. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 June 2012

In Turtle#Fossil_record pls change "Neonate" to "New-born" so that the average reader can understand what is written.

203.59.61.115 (talk) 04:20, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

not sure this one is needed. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 08:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Done It's needed, not because "neonate" is hard to understand (it's in any standard dictionary) but because it's inaccurate. The word refers exclusively to newborn mammals (and usually to humans). For that reason, "newborn" also would be inaccurate. I'm wording it per the cited source. Rivertorch (talk) 06:54, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

not going to change this but check your reasoning. Many words in anatomy and physiology have their roots in human medicine but they are utilised far wider nowadays. Hatchling turtles whilst they still have the yolk sack attached are correctly called neonates. My postgrad supervisor studied temperature dependent sex determination, this was a major area of his study and publication, they were refereed to as neonates in all peer reviewed literature. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 10:41, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

If "neonate" (or any other term involving birth) is commonly used by in the scientific community to refer to reptiles and that's reflected in the literature, then I stand corrected. (I did check five general reference dictionaries for the common definition: four specify human newborns, while the fifth broadens the described usage to the mammal class.) Since the source mentions nestlings as well as hatchlings, I'm guessing there's some value in using both words here. (Although the common definition of "nestling" seems to encompass "hatchling". Hmm . . . the plot thickens!) Rivertorch (talk) 18:40, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

In Turtle#Fossil_record pls correctly format Carbonemys Cofrinii as Carbonemys cofrinii and link to Carbonemys.

203.59.61.115 (talk) 04:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

done, Faendalimas ^talk 08:26, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Dubious

"the superorder Chelonia". No source for this. Suggest that it is removed. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 11:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Palaeontologists tend to use it, but they have a bad habit, my own view, of naming every clade, to me that's a little over the top. I will dig up some refs for you, I know I have been meaning to, been reviewing papers, tied me up. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:38, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok I have been looking into this, maybe Sun you could find the various discussions on this over several pages and put them all here? If you would not mind. Anyway we do need to discuss this.

• Alright then first up the superorder Chelonia, I agree we should remove it, it is a habit of some biologists with no foundation in either the rules of the ICZN or in general usage. It has been used in places but not in others. I would recommend we remove its usage. Faendalimas ^talk 14:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

• Chelonia removed from the turtle article and also as a parent in Template:Taxonomy/Testudines. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Chelonii

Order Testudines. According to the arguments of Dubois and Bour (2010; 2011) this name is unavailable as the order name for the turtles. The reason is that the original name from which it is supposedly derived is also Testudines credited to Batsch (1788) and under the rules of the ICZN you cannot have the same name for the Family and the Order, the name Testudines for the family is a pluralisation of Testudo the genus name and is intself not available as a family name being replaced with Testudinidae which is the family name for the family of turtles containing the genus Testudo. The first name that is available is the name Chelonii (Latrielle, 1800) which was designated as the name including the family Testudinidae by Gray (1825) making this the oldest used and properly designated name for the order of the turtles. This arrangement was recommended by Bour, 1981 as the most correct name for the group. I managed to discuss this issue with Roger Bour, one of the main researchers in this area, he reiterated the information in the papers by himself and Alain Duboit listed below.

References

• Batsch AJGC 1788 Versuch einer Anleitung, zur Kenntniß und Geschichte der Thiere und Mineralien, für akademische Vorlesungen entworfen, und mit den nöthigsten Abbildungen versehen. Erster Theil. Allgemeine Geschichte der Natur; besondre der Säugthiere, Vögel, Amphibien und Fische. Akademische Buchhandlung, Jena
• Bour R 1981 Etude systématique du genre endémique malgache Pyxis Bell, 1827 (Reptilia, Chelonii). Bulletin mensuel de la Société linnéenne de Lyon 4: 132–144
• Dubois, A. and Bour. R., 2010. The distinction between family-series and class-series nomina in zoological nomenclature, with emphasis on the nomina created by Batsch (1788, 1789) and on the higher nomenclature of turtles. Bonn zoological Bulletin 57(2):149–171
• Dubois, A. and Bour. R., 2011. The authorship and date of the familial nomen Ranidae (Amphibia, Anura). Alytes, 2011, 27 (4): 154-160.
• Gray JE 1825 A synopsis of the genera of Reptiles and Amphibia, with a description of some new species. Annals of Philosophy (2) 10: 193–217
• Latreille 1800 Histoire naturelle des salamandres de France, précédée d’un tableau méthodique des autres reptiles. Villier, Paris

Proposal I would suggest that we follow the lead of Bour, 1981, and update the order for this group to Chelonii and stop the usage of the unavailable name Testudines. Also that we remove the usage of the name Chelonia as a superorder. This would be in keeping of the works of Duboit and Bour (2010, 2011). In all honesty they are probably about the only people actually researching this properly. Faendalimas ^talk 14:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Going to be a big change. Chelonii already has several meanings. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:52, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yep it is and this is why I would like to see this discussed first, get consensus and understanding. Before we do anything. Remember these higher order names are based on other names, Chelonii is based on Chelonia. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to add the alternate argument. If you look at the 2010 edition of the Checklist we use by Rgodin et al. (2010). At annotation 4 on page 137 they make a counter argument. First up the ICZN does not have any hard and fast rules above the level of superfamily, as such one could argue that there is no rules to force any changes here, and further that exactly what those changes should be is difficult. Hence they have retained the name Testudines for the order of the turtles. They do acknowledge that this would be something that will eventually have to be addressed. Therefore as an alternative we could continue to stay in tune with the IUCN checklist, but that we should acknowledge and make clear this is what we are doing. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 00:15, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

One way to make it clear is add both and a footnote explaining the situation. Two questions, if Chelonii is an order what would be the superorder? Do you have a link to the paper of Bour R 1981, Dubois, A. and Bour. R., 2010 and 2011? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:16, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Added both in the article lead. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 23:16, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Addition of original research on Turtle

(Moved from User talk:Oknazevad)

This edit on turtle re-inserts original research into the article. The source that you mention given no verifiability to the contents making no mention language issues such as Australia, America English or British English, or use by vets or scientist that is required. I trust that you'll make amends by either reverting your edit or fix the problem . Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 11:42, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

If your we're to read the source, instead of just dismissing it outright as you've tried to do multiple times, despite it clearly being from a reliable source, you would see that it explicitly refers to the scientific use of "chelonians" as a term for turtles, tortoises and terrapins. I question your comprehension on this matter, and will not revert or otherwise alter my edit, as it is properly sourced to reliable sources. oknazevad (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

It says nothing about the different language variants. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 14:54, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

"For instance, in Australia only sea turtles are called turtles–everything else is called a tortoise!" This is straight from the cited source, located here for those just joining us. I think the San Diego Zoo is a reliable source. I note that I've objected to your removal of this section before, on the same grounds: it is sourced to a reliable source and covers a topic of general interest concern. If you feel the source is inadequate, then find a better one, but don't remove a sourced section on one of the most common questions about turtles just because its not a scientific journal; remember we are writing a general interest encyclopedia, not a specialist publication. And it should be descriptive, not prescriptive. oknazevad (talk) 16:35, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

So you found one sentence that I didn't dispute and use this as a claim that all the disputed sentences are correct. Well it does not work that way. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The onus is on the person who adds or restores material. So I've therefore re-added the tags until the section is appropriately sourced or rewritten. Regarding finding sources myself, I've looked many times. A look at sources shows the claims in the section is mostly fictional. For example the idea that in Australia everything other then a sea turtle is called a 'tortoise', falls flat when you check Australian sources like here, here, here and here. By the way I'm not against the section existing, only that it' contents are appropriately sourced. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 17:36, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Although in the past, like 3 decades ago, Australians did tend to separate sea turtles and tortoises as you say this was a local error built up over time in the absence of any true tortoises. It is wrong however and has been changed in recent decades. Most Australians do now publish our native species as turtles. Much of the more recent literature uses the terms as per general acceptance internationally. A web page is not a good source, not compared to literature that has to go through the rigor of peer review. If you find a web apage that says something different this is not an opportunity to add to Wikipedia but maybe first you should look at why. If there is no rigor in the statements of the web page, and there usually isn't, then I would recommend following the literature. Faendalimas ^talk 04:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The last example provided by Sun Creator (Australian Museum > Eastern-Snake-necked-Turtle) contains the following sentence:

The terms turtle and tortoise are often used interchangeably and can cause some confusion. In the past, all freshwater turtles were called tortoises and marine turtles were called turtles. The more recent convention has been to restrict the term 'tortoise' to the purely land-dwelling species. As such, Australia has no tortoises.

A very recent book by Professor Chris Daniels and the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (A guide to urban wildlife : 250 creatures you meet on your street. HarperCollinsPublishingAustralia Pty Ltd. Sydney, 2011. ISBN:978 0 7333 2803 9) has a section entitled "Freshwater tortoises" (pp.146-8) which commences with the following paragraph:

Traditionally in Australia a 'turtle' is a marine species and a 'tortoise' is a freshwater or terrestrial species whose limbs are more designed for walking. Australia supports six populations of the world's seven species of marine turtles, but does not have any species of fully terrestrial tortoise. Freshwater tortoises have paddles or webbed feet designed for swimming whereas terrestrial tortoises (such as the giant Galapagos tortoise) have stumpy, solid feet which are far more suited to walking on land. Moreover, all of our freshwater tortoises are from the family Chelidae which are in fact the 'true turtles', yet they have strong, clawed, webbed feet that allow them to walk on land as well as to swim. They are all long-lived (60 years or more) carnivores, mainly feeding on crustaceans, tadpoles, insect larvae, worms and sometimes on small fish. Hence our freshwater tortoises are not tortoises (even though we call them that) but are freshwater versions of marine animals with feet for walking and swimming. There is now a major move to call them freshwater turtles. This confusion is one reason why scientists stick to long Latin names and do not use common or colloquial terminology. so for now we will use the term 'freshwater tortoise'.

I've mentioned this WP discussion to Prof. Daniels who said that he doesn't have any objection to the use of 'turtle'. Amongst his various roles (outside the usual academic/institutional sphere where it seems the use of 'turtle' has recently become more established, as shown by the examples that Sun Creator provides above), he is very involved in organising a number of citizen science projects as well as giving talks on biodiversity issues on public radio. His terminology is therefore a reflection of common public usage, where 'tortoise' is still very widely used in the media (e.g. Milang students release rescued tortoises back into Lower Lakes or Tiny western swamp tortoise sticks a neck out for threatened species at Adelaide Zoo or in official documents (Volume 3 - Adelaide Airport Sustainability Plan - Airport Environment Strategy December 2009. Ch. 21 Land and heritage management, p.150).

On the other hand, this media story (High-tech Murray River turtles get GPS does use 'turtle', so it seems that this term may be slowly gaining wider acceptance, though I suspect that, as with another recent local controversy over official changes to the common names of commercial marine fish species (Different kettle of fish with new names), there will be lingering resistance for some considerable time.

The fact that this WP discussion is taking place at all is (IMHO) a reflection of the poor state of many articles on Australian biodiversity topics, and is one of the reasons I am canvassing the setting up of a WP:GLAM project with the South Australian Museum. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 04:36, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The difficulty with this discussion is it is clearly aimed at retaining language that is outdated. I am Australian btw even though I currently am in the USA and have published widely on Australian Turtles, I described 5 species and a genus. I am not saying that to pull the "expert" rubbish, that's not my point, I am saying that to point out I am very familiar with the literature and this argument. John Cann has published many popular books on turtles, his books from the 1970's and 1980's use the term tortoise but by 1996 he changed this to turtle. Now I know he was not too happy with this but he was also aware that although Australian's as a local common term use the word tortoise that on an international level this was not only wrong but misleading. The term tortoise at an international level refers to any member of the family Testudinidae, whereas all members of the Chelonii are referred to as turtles, hence Australian species, both marine and freshwater get the term turtle. Different parts of Australia seem to hang on to the older names longer than others, I am well aware that in many circles in NSW and Victoria that the term turtle is pretty much used throughout, however in SA, WA etc the term tortoise is still used. Qld is about 50/50 and the NT uses turtle for the most part. In Scientific circles the term turtle is mostly used and most recent research papers will use this term for the Chelidae. The one that if I recall correctly clinched it for John Cann was Carettochelys a freshwater turtle with flippers, John could not bring himself to call that a tortoise and it clearly breaks the freshwater/ marine rule of the older nomenclature.

In the end scientists prefer scientific names as a general rule, this is because the name also gives you the relationship, not because of confusion over the terms tortoise and turtle. Common names say nothing about how species are realated to each other. So its because the scientific name portrays information in itself that makes them important. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:45, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request on 11 November 2012

The earliest known turtles date from 215 million years ago,[4] making turtles one of the oldest reptile groups and a more ancient group than lizards, snakes and crocodiles.

According to Li et al. (2009), the earliest known turtles date from 220 million years ago (Odontochelys semitestacea)[12]. I propose that this sentence should be changed from "The earliest known turtles date from 215 million years ago,[4] making turtles one of the oldest reptile groups and a more ancient group than lizards, snakes and crocodiles," to "The earliest known turtles date from 220 million years ago,[12] making turtles one of the oldest reptile groups and a more ancient group than lizards, snakes and crocodiles."

I propose that a new paragraph is added to the end of the “Shell” subsection as follows: “It has been suggested by Jackson (2002) that the turtle shell can function as a pH buffer. To endure through anoxic conditions, such as winter periods trapped beneath ice or within anoxic mud at the bottom of ponds, turtles utilize two general physiological mechanisms. In the case of prolonged periods of anoxia, it has been shown that the turtle shell both releases carbonate buffers and uptakes lactic acid.”

I propose that an additional sentence be added to the "Systematics and evolution" subsection: "Through utilizing the first genomic-scale phylogenetic analysis of ultraconserved elements (UCEs) to investigate the placement of turtles within reptiles, Crawford et al. (2012) also suggest that turtles are a sister group to birds and crocodiles (the Archosauria)." This addition could follow the sentence of the third paragraph of this section that reads, "A molecular analysis of 248 nuclear genes from 16 vertebrate taxa suggest that turtles are a sister group to birds and crocodiles (the Archosauria)."

References

Crawford, N. G., B. C. Faircloth, J. E. McCormack, R. T. Brumfield, K. Winker, and T. C. Glenn. 2012. More than 1000 ultraconserved elements provide evidence that turtles are the sister group of archosaurs. Biology Letters 8:783-786.

Jackson, D. C. 2002. Hibernating without oxygen: Physiological adaptations of the painted turtle. Journal of Physiology 543:731-737.

Li, C., X. C. Wu, O. Rieppel, L. T. Wang, and L. J. Zhao. 2009. An ancestral turtle from the Late Triassic of southwestern China. Nature 456:497-501.

Ccevo2012 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done Great observation! Nature is more WP:RS too. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

All three added now. You could be more clear on where you want the text to be added. I just added them at the end of each section for now. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 03:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Largest Turtle ever

Why the hell isn't Stupendemys listed instead of Archelon? This is information well known for ages now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.154.214.153 (talk) 16:43, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ernst quote

"Any animals with a backbone and a shell made of bone is classified as a turtle in the order Testudines, including terrapins and tortoises. Similarly, all leopards, tigers and lions are cats." - Ernst, Turtles of the United States and Canada, page 3. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been discussed at length in the talk section above and does not need repeating here --Shoobydo (talk) 09:04, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Not correct

"The use of the terms turtle, tortoise, and terrapin is not straightforward.[34][35] All animals with a shell and backbone are classified as turtles, and the word turtle is used to describe all members.[36][37]"

Not true in common use in the UK, where the land animals are never called turtles.

"In general use, the term tortoise usually refers to any land-dwelling turtle,[37] although in Great Britain, tortoise refers to any turtle other than a sea turtle,[35]"

This seems to be saying that the UK is unusual in that the term tortoise, elsewhere restricted to land-dwelling animals, is also applied to freshwater animals. This is also incorrect in common UK use. 86.130.67.106 (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In the UK, "Turtle" only ever refers to sea-dwelling turtles. Not to mention this important fact smacks of linguistic prescriptivism.

Also, the reference for the quote is from the book "Turtles of the United States and Canada", and quite understandably the authors prefer the North American colloquialism, but that does not mean you can apply the same statement globally.

Why not just list all the different colloquial usages for the word Turtle?

--84.215.224.190 (talk) 07:04, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm also from the UK. Some people incorrect name for sure but not all. Here 'I Have A Yellow Belly Turtle' for example is a land based turtle being called a turtle. Here is another which says 'I Am Selling My Turtles And Complete Set Up'. Just because the UK has no native turtles and that most turtles in the UK are tortoises, and those traditionally in the media have been tortoises (Blue_peter_pets#Tortoises only has tortoises, Timothy (tortoise) etc.) misleading some to think that land based turtles are all tortoises, but does not mean everyone is ignorant of turtle naming. Besides Wikipedia is about educating the misinformed not reinforcing the ignorance. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 13:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Well put Sun. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 19:03, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the two examples you link are yellow bellied turtles which lives in both the land and water.

I'm not sure that proves anything other than the complexity of the discussion. I'm not from the UK but lived there for many years and I know that Brits use Turtle for the water-based turtles only. They would never refer to a tortoise as a turtle. To most brits they are two distinct species. Whether this is true or not in your or my opinion is a moot point, common usage should still be reflected in the article. I think the Oxford English dictionary sums up the varied UK (and other nations) usages nicely.

Turtle (noun)

1 (also sea turtle) a large marine reptile with a bony or leathery shell and flippers, coming ashore annually on sandy beaches to lay eggs. Families Cheloniidae (seven species) and Dermochelyidae (the leatherback) [mass noun] the flesh of a sea turtle, especially the green turtle, used chiefly for soup.

2a freshwater reptile related to the sea turtles and tortoises, typically having a flattened shell. Called terrapin in South Africa and India and tortoise in Australia. Order Chelonia: several families, in particular Emydidae and Kinosternidae North American any reptile of the order Chelonia, including the terrapins and tortoises.

3a directional cursor in a computer graphics system which can be instructed to move around a screen.

Having read through the rest of the discussion here, I don't think the issue has been properly addressed in the article. Even the scientific definition of turtle has a North American bias. Can we find a non-N.American citation for completeness? Also, I suggest restoring the list of common usage that was removed recently. --Shoobydo (talk) 21:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

well I guess there is

• TERRALOG: Turtles of the World, Vol. 4 - East and South Asia(v. 4) Holgar Vetter, which is German and English published in Europe.
• Australian Freshwater Turtles by John Cann, which is Australian
• Tortoises, Terrapins & Turtles of Africa by Bill Branch, an African book, Bill Branch is from Madagascar.
  

Also most if not all modern scientific articles, no matter where they are published define turtle as any member of the Order Testudines, Tortoise as any member of the Family Testudinidae, and Sea Turtle as any member of the Family Cheloniidae or Dermatemyidae. So basically if its not a Tortoise or a sea turtle it is a turtle. It is not a North American view it is the view handed down from the IUCN which is based in Switzerland. So therefore yes there is leftovers of an old terminology that was so wrong its unusable in pocjkets around the world, but it is antiquated and wrong, so we should be up to date as Sun said and inform, not reiterate outdated and incorrect terminology. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 17:07, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Are we talking at cross-purposes here? It seems like a mostly agree with you.

What I am specifically questioning is whether it is globally correct scientifically or otherwise to name this entire collection of shelled animals as Turtles.

Do any of the references you mention support this sentence,

"All animals with a shell and backbone are scientifically classified as turtles, and the word turtle is used to describe all members." ?

or this one

"The scientific term turtle embraces the species known in general usage as tortoises, sea turtles and terrapins as well as all turtles, which term is commonly used to refer only to swimming species."?

I do not agree that general usage should not be reflected in the article. The second sentence I quote is in the article now and quotes North American common usage only. The fact that other common usage is not included is biased.

Further comment: I skimmed through several articles at the IUCN and could not find an example of all Testudines being described as Turtles. In fact, I found this definition several times: Testudines (turtles and tortoises) for example here. This suggests that the view that all Testudines can be called Turtles does not originate from the IUCN as you claim. --Shoobydo (talk) 19:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Well that they say turtle and tortoise is correct they are refering to tortoises ie Testudinidae and Turtles ie everything else. If you want to be completely correct the Testudines are known as Chelonians which is of course subdived into many smaller titles. But the term Chelonian (from Chelonii the correct name in all likelyhood for the group) is largely restricted to scientific circles. So as a general term we refer to all Chelonians as Turtles and have names for some of the subgroups. So all I can do is point you to the offical checklist of the turtles of the world by the IUCN TFTSG HERE. Note that when collectively speaking they refer to them all as turtles. This is also the list we go by on WP for taxonomic considerations. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou for the link, that is an interesting read. However, I don't see where the report collectively refers to Chelonians as turtles.

The very first line of the article is this "The diversity of all turtles and tortoises (chelonians)..." Surely "and Tortoises" would be unnecessary if that were true? After the opening line Chelonians are never assigned a common name, Turtle or otherwise.

Further more, the report itself is not an official checklist of common names and states this explicitly. The checklist includes English common names for all taxa. We have tried to provide the most commonly used names, although occasionally we have provided two or more names. We do not support the practice of designating “official” or “standard” common names for species, as that is the domain for scientific Latin names. Instead, common names tend to evolve and vary from area to area and over time, as well as with language and cultural context. Native vernacular names for certain species are often..extensive and imprecise, and we do not list such names here. However, in the conservation arena, the use of reasonably widely recognized and appropriately descriptive common names is critically important for communication purposes, and so we include English common names here. --Shoobydo (talk) 17:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Your over-reading and misinterpreting that. Note that document is aimed at researchers who work on these species. It is an official list of scientific names. As scientists we do not use common names but they included them where they were known for information purposes, but that as scientists they do not believe in the creation of official lists of common names as that is the realm of scientific names. Only those names should be official. Where they say turtles and tortoises it is an acknowledgement that some species may be called turtles, some tortoises. By putting the next part in Brackets ie (Chelonians) they are stating that's what they are all called. This is not about any particular countries view, it is the accepted terminology for turtles world-wide. There is no official list of common names because they have no attachment to the species they represent, unlike a scientific name. Hence it is generally advised to use scientific names. But that list is as close as you are going to get. If you are worried about a North-American view gaining a foothold... well dont, in parts of that document the North Americans did not like it either and have had to learn to adapt and put up with it. I was involved in both reviewing and writing a part of it. I am not one of the authors but I am acknowledged in the paper. I am not American, parts of it are different to what I learned as a kid, but as a scientist I became more aware of naming conventions and the need for universal names for each species. Local common names are almost useless in telling anyone anything. I think it is the job of WP or any encyclopaedia to be as widely acceptable, and useful as possible. That it acknowledges the need to educate all to have a common understanding of the world. As a species we classify everything we see, it all starts with classification and names. These names need to be universal and we the readers need to adapt with change not resist it. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:24, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an addit the reason they are all turtles is because the word Chelonii is a derivative of Chelonia as per Chelonia mydas (Green Sea Turtle) as it is a turtle and is the root of the name of all turtles hence all of them are turtles. Chelonii = Testudines but the later is not actually a valid name. So Chelonii and its meaning take precedence. That's basic nomenclature in action. Faendalimas ^talk 04:33, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I have not misinterpreted it. I understand perfectly well that it is a list of scientific names and the need for global consistency of those scientific names. This is not even up for debate!

I was addressing your earlier comment regarding Chelonians where you said this,"So as a general term we refer to all Chelonians as Turtles"

I found no proof of consistency for this statement in the article you provided. Now you are saying the contrary, "Where they say turtles and tortoises it is an acknowledgement that some species may be called turtles, some tortoises"

I must also address this point,

I think it is the job of WP or any encyclopaedia to be as widely acceptable, and useful as possible. That it acknowledges the need to educate all to have a common understanding of the world. As a species we classify everything we see, it all starts with classification and names

I strongly disagree with the highlighted part of this statement and it goes against Wikipedias core policy of Neurality. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. --Shoobydo (talk) 06:34, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

What part of NPoV does that have issue with? I am not involved in the usage or creation of common names so have nothing to gain from promoting one over another, in fact as I rarely use them I am just offering opinion here. In fact as it states in the policy "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not" these usages of common names are as I pointed out in a previous discussion held on to by 2 or 3 states in one country, hardly a majority. So please since I have often had to deal very carefully with the policy of NPoV as I am a researcher and writer on these species outside of WP I am familiar with it. I mean seriously your promoting the use of outdated terminology. Is that not the same NPoV issue you accuse me of? I don't mind if there is mention of local terminology for various species. But it is important for people to realise that names have correct usages too. Your first two lines, yes it is an official list of scientific names, which I pointed out, but I also explained how the word turtle is derived, that is implicit in the names, no scientist is going to explain that because scientists don't wast time and money on the bleeding obvious.

I am not accusing you of being intentionally biased and I'm sorry if you got that impression. However, I would like to point out that NPoV in Wikipedia differs slightly from scientific writing. WP isn't about weighing up different opinions then only publishing the majority ones. All views should be given due weight (but not necessarily equal weight) unless held by an extremely small minority. We are not talking about an extremely small minority here though. We are not talking about 2-3 states in Australia, that was a different discussion and it does not help to mention it here. We are talking specifically about the meaning of one word, Turtle, in one place, the United Kingdom.

I am neither promoting the usage of outdated or revised terminology. I am proposing recording all uses of the word Turtle unless it is only used by a tiny minority - This is the very definition of NPoV. If you don't mind including local variants for the use of the word Turtle, then I shall (eventually) make an edit and I will bear in mind neutrality and give scientific views more prominence (although they seem to vary slightly too).

On the last comment - I don't agree that scientists don't waste their time on the bleeding obvious, in my experience that's mostly what we do --Shoobydo (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you are correct you did start this from the UK perspective, someone else started bringing up the Australian issue with Pseudemydura, I got side tracked by that. Like I said I don't mind local usages being mentioned, that used to be in there and it did not bother me that it was, I certainly did not remove it. My comment on Bleeding Obvious was a little tongue in cheek, it was from a colleage (a statistition) who did not believe in publishing statistical analysis that failed what he called the BO test (bleeding obvious) you are right though we scientists do spend a lot of time rehashing the obvious, for some reason. Anyway all I ask is that it be stated that these are local vernacular usages and the the scientific perspective, which is based on relationships and recovered phylogeny, and the principals of nomenclature may differ from these vernacular usages. I don't think that matters that they are different. But it needs to be pointed out. I will say why. There are a lot of captive care books on tortoises (true tortoises) inexperienced keepers have often bought these books and tried to treat Chelid's (carnivorous aquatic species) like Tortoises (herbivorous terrestrial species) the result is not pleasant. I have seen that happen, which is why names are actually important. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. Like I said earlier, I think we have been talking at cross-purposes and we more or less agree. I agree that names are important for the same reasons as your example illustrates. --Shoobydo (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

From a conservation perspective, however, those arguments are rather jarring. Local names are important for those interested in researching and communicating their local environmental history, and in trying to get communities involved in understanding, appreciating and protecting their local environment

To have some "foreigner" come in and impose new "common" names, in accordance with their own particular and idiosyncratic view of the world, can be perceived as being arrogant, presumptuous, patronising, even disrespectful and disempowering.

A case in point is the critically endangered "Western swamp turtle" of Western Australia (of which there are only around 200 in captivity, with a similar number in the wild). Historically their common name has been the "Western swamp tortoise" and they are still referred to by that name on Australian government websites such as the Department of the Environment's Biodiversity Species Profile and Threats Database > Pseudemydura umbrina — Western Swamp Tortoise and Western Swamp Tortoise (Pseudemydura umbrina) Recovery Plan and the 2004 document Western Swamp Tortoise (Pseudemydura umbrina) Recovery Plan; as well as on the sign outside their tank at the Adelaide Zoo, the only institution in the world outside Western Australia to have successfully bred them in captivity, and in a newspaper article (Tiny western swamp tortoise sticks a neck out for threatened species at Adelaide Zoo) reporting this recent event.

Despite all this, recent edits have changed most occurrences of the common name in the WP article from "Western swamp tortoise" to "Western swamp turtle", thereby turning the article into the sort of dog's breakfast that hardly adds to the aim of making Wikipedia a reliable and respected source.

This is just one of a number of examples that have spurred me into advocating for the setting up of GLAM projects with my local (South Australian) cultural institutions, because (in my view) with their involvement the resulting improvement in coverage of Wikipedia articles relating to local natural and cultural history topics would be of great benefit to educators and to those working in conservation, either as volunteers or professionals. Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 05:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

How am I some foreigner imposing common names when I am Australian? Which foreigner then did this to you? John Cann (Australian) who wrote "Australian Freshwater Turtles" Very localised newspapers etc and Gov documents based on material written over a decade ago are not that compelling actually. Like I said I have no issue with multiple common names, as long as its called Pseudemydura umbrina it really does not matter which common name is used to me. Faendalimas ^talk 11:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok I think we are arguing/ discussing this from completely different perspectives. You see when I discuss turtles its from the point of view of the rank that is being discussed. If we are talking about Order: Chelonii (Testudines) ie all shelled reptiles, then we are talking about turtles in general. Using the mentioned example of Pseudemydura umbrina then if we are talking about all members of the Family: Chelidae then we are talking about Austro-South American side-neck turtles, in every country they occur in (a dozen odd) they are turtles as a common name. if we are talking about the singular species Pseudemydura umbrina well its a turtle because names are inherant, but if you feel the need to call it a tortoise then add that into the species account. Its outdated, and has been changing for over a decade, but fine. If you want an example of a true Tortoise well you need to look at the Galápagos tortoise or Chelonoidis nigra. That is a true tortoise and has no relationship to anything found in Australia. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 12:17, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we actually still have a problem? The text complained of in July was changed (slightly) in August by me [1] and I hope is now clearer and more accurate. "Swimming" is really the key difference for UK general usage - if it can't swim it's a tortoise, & if it can it's a turtle. Obviously all aquatic species spend some time on land, if only to lay eggs, but often long periods basking etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

I like your intention but the sentence you added was little confusing. Turtle is a common name without a strict scientific definition and the article doesn't explain where or why the word is used differently. I would prefer something like this. "The common name Turtle may refer to the Chelonian order as a whole (American English) or to swimming Chelonian (British English)." Somewhere else it should be mentioned that in British English Tortoises are never called turtles. How does that sound? --Shoobydo (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Something along those lines, but I'm not sure the draft is clearer. Using "common name" is not that helpful; it isn't actually a specific name in such contexts. Better "in non-scientific usage turtle may refer..." or something. Do Americans talk of Galapagos turtles? Then there's the Australians etc. How about "In non-scientific usage "turtle" may refer to the Chelonian order as a whole in American English, or only to swimming Chelonian in British English, where non-swimming species are referred to as "tortoises"." Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Australia with the exception of some western states use the international system which is followed by the USA and Canada. The couple of states in Australia that do not, follow the British system. Please make sure it is very clear that this is local vernacular language and that it no way determines if an animal is actually a tortoise or a turtle. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 16:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Really? We are not talking about "systems", but rather vague common usage and mental concepts. I'm rather dubious that this changes at state boundaries in Australia. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

System is probably a bad word, so far as to say then they use the same method as USA. In Eastern Australia where most of the turtles are they are refered to as freshwater turtles, South Australia and Western Australia seem to hang on to a method similar to Great Britan by calling Marine species Turtles and Freshwater species Tortoises. Australia has no terrestrial turtles, unlike Europe and the USA so to them it is literally wether or not they swim in fresh or salt water. But that has been replaced in the East defining them all as turtles now just as freshwater or marine. The common names of all turtles from Queensland, NSW, Victoria and the Northern Territory are all turtle now, eg Eastern Long-neck Turtle. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 17:39, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

It's really about (say) how a child would describe an animal they saw, without knowing the species "common name". I think we'd better just say Australian usage varies. Johnbod (talk) 23:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Since the word Turtle has no scientific or official meaning and does not have a single common-use, how about this, "Turtle may refer to the chelonian order as a whole (American English) or to swimming chelonians (British English)." I'll leave it for somebody more knowledgeable to explain other English language usage, if that is necessary. --Shoobydo (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the edit. It isn't true that turtle refers to 'swimming chelonians' in British English and more importantly it isn't sourced. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 21:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It is true and I printed the source on this very talk page. Look at the Oxford dictionary definition above. I thought we had come to a consensus that there are regional variations for the meaning of the word turtle. Why do you still believe that there are not? --Shoobydo (talk) 08:53, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Re-inserted the edits with citation. Turtle/Tortoise/Terrapin section is messy snd needs more work but I think it is better to start with the scientific definitions, and here we should remember that turtle is not a scientific word, before dealing with regional variations. --Shoobydo (talk) 09:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ecology and life history - "there are no known species in which the mother cares for the young"

This statement is out dated. Recently turtles have been shown to use complex vocalizations in air and under water for communication, including hatchlings inside eggs, while emerging from nests, and in one species when they enter the water to communicate with waiting adults with whom they then migrate in a pod to other habitats.

Ferrara, C. R., Vogt, R. C., Giles, J. C., and Kuchling, G. 2013: Chelonian Vocal Communication. In: Biocommunication of Animals (Witzany, Guenther Ed.) pp 261-274, Springer eBook ISBN 978-94-007-7414-8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wst392 (talk • contribs) 01:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Turtles have anus gills

The article says that turtles have anus gills. This claim has been on the page since about Novermber 2006. I've spoken to the original editor, he is not an expert and does not have a citation to give. I can't find a citation for this claim except a cryptozoology (fake zoology) article. Does anybody have any support for this claim? TheThomas (talk) 02:52, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

some species of turtle have structures in their cloaca that are often referred to as "cloacal gills" they do allow for the absorbtion of oxygen from water. The species Rheodytes leukops is an example. Researchers at the University of Queensland have published on this in the literature. I cannot think of a specific paper off hand but it should be searchable. Faendalimas ^talk 04:05, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

There is this news article on the University of Queensland (UQ) http://www.uq.edu.au/news/article/1997/02/uq-researchers-make-head-and-tail-of-turtle-breathing The Australian Dept of Environment site talks about the Rheodytes leukops HERE http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1761 M A Gordos (2004) did a thesis on R leukops http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:106752 and mentions the highly modified cloacal bursae for respiration The Australian Dept of Environment site talks about the Elusor macrurus which "displays physiological features that allow for cloacal respiration" http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64389 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orinoco-w (talk • contribs) 07:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 January 2014

In the "A guide to reptiles of Southern Africa" by Graham Alexander and Johan Marais here is a distinction between Turtles, Cheloniidae, and Tortoises, Testudunidae.

197.221.241.158 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC) 197.221.241.158 (talk) 08:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC) Chris Magadza magadza,christopherhd@gmail.com

Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Also, please make the request clearer.

Dmelc9 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

References

cross breads

Has or is: there turtles mixed with another animal? weird I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.199.230 (talk) 02:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Some hybridisation, see above template but nothing outside turtles that I'm aware of. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 20:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Anatomy and morphology

In this section, some of the largest and smallest turtles are mentioned however, the bog turtle is left out!!! It usually reaches four inches (rarely much more than that).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What gall! If only there were a way for people to change what is on the web page.  ;-) TCO (talk) 04:56, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

I have some more suggestions for the ‘Anatomy and morphology’ section. It could be improved by providing some explanation as to why freshwater turtles are generally smaller than sea turtles. It would be helpful to add something about why some turtles contract their necks under their spine while others contract their necks to the side, and what the costs and benefits to each behavior are. I also think that the small section on intelligence should either be updated or removed; more information is needed to make it relevant.Hagerty.49 (talk) 22:46, 30 September 2014 (UTC)