Talk:Turtle/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

pre-FAC

Chiswick Chap, before we nominate I think we should spotcheck the sources in the subsections "Breathing" and "Differences between the two suborders" since we didn't write those. Maybe Faendalimas can help? LittleJerry (talk) 23:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry ok the breathing section where it says Some species have large cloacal cavities that are lined with many finger-like projections. in first paragraph I would change cavities to bursae as what they have is a modification of an existing structure. I actually have a photo of the bursae in an Elseya dissected out if people think its not too gory for here.

On the differences between the suborders, another point is that in Pleurodira the pelvis is fused to the carapace and the plastron, connecting to the 7th, 8th pleurals and the pygal of the carapace, and to the xiphiplastron of the plastron. In Cryptodira the pelvis is free floating within the carapace. I have photos of this also if people want them. Considering all turtles certainly utilise head retraction for protection, they pull their heads in when alarmed, it is certainly a major function. Only specific types of turtles, eg Chelodina and Hydromedusa in Pleurodira and Trionychids in Cryptodira, use the retraction mechanism to enhance strike and gape behaviour. So I would not tend to agree with the source your using for this.asfoiwrhgaehjiwfhziadwjuifaehouhsFfndjsHFDJKFNXCZMLBHDFJDFSJKANJKNBADSJHFJKDSLNGJKBSJFBKJLFGDNJKGSBDZJDTGHILZGSces seem ok to me. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 00:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks. Yes, perhaps the dissection would be a bridge too far. I've adjusted the wording on retraction as suggested, and added a mention and ref for the pelvis difference. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Faendalimas, the article states that " In Pleurodira, the pulley is formed with the pterygoid bones, but in Cryptodira the pulley is formed with the quadrate bones" and the source cited states "Cryptodira and Pleurodira, the extant lineages of crown-group turtles, each exhibiting the trochlea in different positions—the former by a roughening or a process on the otic chamber itself and the latter by a lateral projection of the pterygoid". Is that an accurate paraphrase? LittleJerry (talk) 18:13, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry yes thats reasonable, just remember though this is largely descriptive of living taxa, there is some variation in fossil forms, particularly older ones that technically predate Pleurodira/ Cryptodira. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 19:26, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Faendalimas, two more things. 1. Does "bursae" refer to fluid-filled sac or saclike cavity in this context and 2. Can you find a source for the last sentence of the second paragraph? LittleJerry (talk) 23:51, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

LittleJerry The cloacal bursae are two sacks, one either side of the cloaca, that are possessed by all turtles. However in most they are used for water regulation, eg tortoises store water in them to prevent dehydration, also freshwater turtles use them for neutral buoyancy. In the cloacal breathers they have heavily vascularised the structure allowing them to absorb O2 from the water. Was not sure which paragraph you were meaning for the ref. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 02:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Faendalimas, I was referring to the second paragraph for the "breathing" subsection. Now that you mention use of the sacs in buoyancy and water storing, should these be in mentioned somewhere? LittleJerry (talk) 02:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

"order Chelonia or Testudines"?

Great article but the opening sentence seems a bit confusing. Could be read as turtles belong to one of two different orders. After a bit of research I see that they all belong to one order, Testudines, and Chelonia is a synonym. Further on, the article sheds some light on this but not very well. Also, if Testudines is the preferred name, why does Chelonia get precedence? Glendoremus (talk) 22:32, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 23:42, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

need to be careful with this one, a number of years ago Bour argued that the correct order is Chelonii and the PhyloCoders often use Testudinata badly. To the extent this caused an import into the Catalogue of Life having turtles split across two Orders, this included families and genera being split between two orders. They are one of the few groups where the fossil taxa outnumber the living taxa. Chelonia is more like a vernacular name in usage, afterall turtle workers refer to turtles as Chelonians and are often referred to as Chelonologists. However this argument finally plays out, currently the correct order is Testudines. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:57, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

In relation to this, there's even a disambiguation page (for good reason) for Chelonian (disambiguation). Which refers to the order of Turtles (Testudines) and also to the genus of Chelonia. So in that light I thought it was strange that the paragraph that mentions the name "Chelonian" here doesn't at least mention that that word is also used for members of the genus Chelonia sometimes. I added a little by-sentence to hopefully clear that up in an elegant way (see edit history).

P.S. And yes, I know there's already a link to the disambiguation page at the top of the artile. But still it doesn't exactly improve the readability of the applicable paragraph about naming, that isn't so much as mentioned under There.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 23:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henry Dahl.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Petrikyv, Apairofwoolsocks, Inquisitio scientiae. Peer reviewers: Apairofwoolsocks, Nsabo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 February 2021 and 28 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Brownkr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2022

Turtles: food

Sea turtles were at one point also a desired meal by sailors. The highly available, tasty, and slow moving animal was was often kept in the food storage as an available food source. However, the Florida Statues, Chapter 360, eventually protected sea turtles in the United States as endangered animals. Ultimately, sea turtle soups and foods became illegal in 2004. Goosette (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

<3

I like this article! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtles are people, too! (talk • contribs) 15:24, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 May 2022

Turtle#As pets

Replace "turtles are among to more popularly traded species" with "turtles are among the more popularly traded species" 172.112.210.32 (talk) 14:57, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. — Coolperson177 (t|c) 15:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excellent work!

As turtles' #1 Fan I am glad to see Wikipedia took the time to feature its article about our chelonian friends. 2600:8801:13AA:DA00:A932:2610:9CBB:38EA (talk) 02:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, sir/ma'am, you are in fact not the #1 fan out the green friends. That would be me and only me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turtles are people, too! (talk • contribs) 15:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

French" torte" ???

In the etymology chapter, it would be worthwhile to indicate that "torte" is Old French (the source mentions the 13th century). This word doesn't exist in current French. By the way, even if this information is seriously sourced, I have doubts, being unable to find this form with the meaning of tortoise in french dictionnaries. It means turtle-dove or song thrush (in Old Occitan) or pie in the North of France. Basilus (talk) 07:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Turtle

Turtle 2401:4900:3E2D:8F04:E915:17E2:EBD:F4F9 (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Recent edit

just querying here recently the term hidden neck was removed by @Hemiauchenia: rather than revert I ask for an explanation. First it is a well used term, I certainly use it in teaching turtle morphology as do many herpetologists. But more important it is the literal meaning of the term Cryptodira as against Pleurodira which means side-necked and this seems ok. So I wonder if this should be removed as it seems to have utility here. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 22:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

The terms have pretty unequal usage in the scholarly literature. "Side neck" [1] and "side necked" [2] get thousands of results on google scholar, while "hidden neck" [3] and "hidden necked" [4] get an order of magnitude less. From looking at the dates, the term "side necked" for Pleurodira seems to have more historic precedent, with "hidden necked" being a more recent coining. I'm fine adding it back, but I'd rather that we mention both taxa primarily by their order names Pleurodira and Cryptodira with the names sidenecked and hidden necked in brackets. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sorry missed the reply to this. I agree that the correct terms are better to be more prominently displayed, hence would agree with the english meanings of the terms being in brackets. The main reason for inbalance is the greater subdivision of the Cryptodira, there are 19 living families of turtles of which only 3 are pleurodires, so the cryptodires are generallyy called after their family group names, eg soft shells for Trionichids, Sea Turtles for Cheloniidae, tortoises for Testudinids etc. In other words turtles are basically assumed to be cryptodires unless otherwise stated. But it was more so people understood what the word Cryptodire means that I prefered the term hidden neck stays in at least in some context. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 01:29, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

age of turtles

Xiphactinus88 I see you reverted my changes to the age of turtles. on the grounds I take it that the phylocode representation of turtles only includes those in order Testudines, you deem the stem turtles such as Proganochelys etc, as outside turtles. Only turtle paleontologists use Phylocode for one, all living turtles and the fossils when combined are deemed under ICZN code. So as this page is about living turtles with discussion of their ancestors all these turtles including Proganochelys etc are in the Order Testudines. This makes them all turtles. Even the paleontologists may refer to Proganochelys as a stem turtle, they still refer to them as turtles. I fully understand Phylocode, I can see how your arguing this but the ascertation is incorrect. Testudinata = Testudines they are the same rank, Phylocode is not the accepted taxonomy of turtles by the vast majority of turtle workers, not even all paleontologists accept it. I suggest you discuss the issue here rather than keeping on reverting. I will switch it back to how it was now. Please use the talk page to make suchh a dramatic change as deciding that all pre jurassic turtles are in fact not turtles. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 03:01, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Faendalimas (sorry if I'm addressing you incorrectly) You say that not everyone recognizes phylocode. Maybe you are right. But in this case, a huge number of Wikipedia pages should be completely rewritten. The vast majority of publications of the last 15-20 years follow the phylocode. Probably only in paleontology but do you agree that this book and this page. can be trusted? I've seen a lot of Wikipedia pages that refer to much less reliable sources. In Dieter's book I see a lot of references to other works of the last... two hundred years? If such books are not reliable sources, then what is reliable? Wouldn't this source be left at least in the section about evolution? Xiphactinus88 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, from my perspective as a taxonomist and paleontologist for turtles (see my user page) that particular book is actually focused more on other reptiles with only cursory coverage of turtles. So I do not consider it a formative reference for turtles. Its only a cohort of paleontologists using phylocode largely led by Walter Joyce who is a friend of mine and a colleague but all other sources use ICZN code, largely the TTWG 2021 checklist of turtles, and follow authors such as Thompson et al 2021 also. Among many others. I consider the primary science references as the best source. When I add fossils to Wikispecies I convert their classifications to ICZN complient nomenclature. In this as I said Testudinata is a junior synonym of Testudines and technically an unavailble name, its only available because Joyce et al used phylocode to resurrect it which under phylocode rules can be done. But they all belong to the order Testudines. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:36, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I will look through all the turtle pages here and see whats been happening, I mostly edit on Wikispecies as its my home wiki and have not done considerable editing here for a while, though I was one of the reviewers of the Turtle page when it was put up for this recently. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 12:39, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

By the way, yes my user name is Faendalimas, I have my real name here also in my signature for full disclosure reasons to be upfront for OR and NPOV reasons, as I am a well known researcher on turtles and many of my publications are cited on Wikipedia its better if I am up front and usually discuss things first on talk pages when editing the subject areas I work on. Here its correct to call me Faendalimas. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:19, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much all contemporary turtle workers who study stem-turtles use Testudinata to refer to the clade including all stem-turtles with a complete shell, and Testudines to refer to the least inclusive clade containing pleurodires and cryptodires. Whether or not Testudinata is codified by phylonyms doesn't really matter as the ICZN doesn't regulate the synonymy of names above family rank (see [5]) so the idea that "Testudinata is a junior synonym of Testudines and is therefore invalid due to the ICZN code" doesn't hold any water even disregarding phylonyms. None of the sources you have brought up to support your position actually take an affirmative stance on the issue of the taxonomy of stem-turtles, so I don't see clear evidence for the idea your position is supported by the majority of turtle workers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Wow, seriously you asked all the modern workers. The phylocode path is supported by about a dozen scientists that's it. No one has much of a stance on it cause everyone does consider them turtles. Seriously leave the page as it was. It was written an d reviewed by a number of actual turtle researchers, myself included. Yes I am one of the scientists your referring to. People wonder why scientists get put off editing on Wikipedia. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: I disagree with your revert as this is based on a conflict with the page Testudinata a group that most turtle workers particularly those that work on modern turtles dispute, see for example the TTWG Checlist of Turtles, CITES species lists, Reptile Database, Wikispecies, Catalogue of Life and many more. The group Testudinata raised by Walter Joyce and co is only valid under Phylocode the main reason being that under the rules of formation of names under ICZN it is mis formed as an higher order name. Yes the ICZN code does not enforce availability of names above Genus, but they do enforce formation. THe reason the name is available under Phylocode is because they do not recognise any rules for name formation, hence the name under Phylocode is a new name under the authorship of Joyce et al. Without doing a reconciliation of Phylocode and ICZN it is impossible to determine the usage of higher order names. This has been done on Wikispecies where all turtle taxa are added as ICZN names which is the valid format for nomenclature in all international checklists. You can see the publications by the IUBS Global Species List Working Group for discussions on these issues. I am well aware of the interest of a small caveat of paleontologists trying to promote Phylocode, about a dozen scientists all of whom are good colleagues, but even among paleontologists there are many that do not agree with this. However, the most important thing here is that this page is about living and fossil turtles, combined and in the greatest majority of publications about these animals all of them are considered turtles. Your not going to be able to reconcile Testudinata and Testudines and keep both because the names are used under different nomenclatural systems which at higher levels are not compatable. At present you are making the page on Turtles thats its mainspace name, innacurrate for the benefit on a small page of interest only to a small group of paleontologists. What you have reverted to here is wrong under ICZN nomenclature, which is the nomenclature accepted in science across all animal species. Sometimes you just have to keep the pages separate as they are actually discussing different points of view. BUt I think the page on Living species should reflect the nomenclature of the living species. Cheers ˜˜˜˜ Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:21, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of research on turtles living or extinct, but I fail to see why presenting both alternatives is not an option here. Put a date that includes "stem-turtles", put a date that does not. Provide supporting references for each taxonomic determination. Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:47, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I have no preference for the two approaches taken, but think it important that both are presented. Looking at other turtle articles most treat Testudines as the crown group, e.g. at Testudinata and Pantestudines. I suppose this makes sense as these articles discuss the fossil species and from what I read above many palaeontoligists tend to use the phylocode definitions. However, those articles should make it clear that Testudines is used differently by some/many taxonomists. If I then land on the turtle page I see a taxobox taking that approach with Testidinata being a parent once removed of Testudines and the age range back to the Jurassic. This all seems consistent, except possibly for the inclusion of Paracryptodira as a subdivision. The article also seems to be generally about modern turtles, with a brief section on fossil turtles.

However, a problem is that the page is titled "turtle". The English name doesn't follow ICZN or phylocode rules and I don't think people would think it excluded stem turtles. So the taxobox should either show Testudinata as the taxon (following the phylocode) or Testudines with Testudinata as synonym rather than parent (following the ICZN). In both cases the age should go back to the Triassic. If this article is only about crown turtles then it should be renamed. I don't think this would be a good idea because as a well-known animal group like turtles should have a comprehensive article at "turtle".

In short, while the article remains at turtle, the age range should go back to the Triassic. But the taxobox taxonomy needs fixing. —  Jts1882 | talk  09:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree on the Testudinata issue you point out. On wikispecies we also have Testudinata as a division above testudines with all taxa under Testudines. This was because I was asked by Walter Joyce to do this, it's a bit of a hybrid of the two systems. My view is I should collapse Testudinata in that case and keep them all under Testudines which is a more genuine reconciliation.

For this page the taxonomy would be better showing Testudines as the parent taxon. For the Testudinata page I agree with keeping as is. In the end at the purpose and aim of this article, stem turtles and turtles are both turtles hence should go back to Triassic. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 21:54, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

@Jts1882::@Hemiauchenia: could we resolve this please. Turtles generally do not get a lot of discussion. The current page is not reflective of encyclopedic level understanding of turtles. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 14:04, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I can repeat my position that the article is on turtles (an England language concept) so includes fossil turtles. So the fossil range should go back to the Triassic. The second issue what to use in the taxobox, Testudines sensu lato (Linnaean) or the phylocode Testudinata. The latter is more consistent with other wikipedia articles on fossil turtles, while the former would follow the TTWG preference. I said I didn't have a preference before, but if pushed to decide I'd follow the TTWG, which is largely followed for extant taxa. This would involve using the /skip taxonomy template which would show Sauria as the parent taxon. Personally I would prefer Pantestudines. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:24, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

How do land turtles get rid of ants and other biters?

This is bothering me since a while because I can't find any answer. Turtles though plattered are helpless on many flanks, specially on the bottoms, sea turtles indeed suffer from bernacles and crabs for this same reason, so how land ones prevent being eaten alive from small biters? 167.58.225.208 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

how much keratin?

Turtle shells are made mostly of bone . . . . Its outer surface is covered in scales made of keratin . . . .

How thick is the keratin? Are the polygons mostly keratin? —Tamfang (talk) 05:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2023

Citation 155 needs to be fixed. I believe archive-date=November 12, 2012 should do the trick. Thanks! 2600:6C44:117F:95BE:3944:2ED4:FBF7:7480 (talk) 19:40, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done ULPS (talk) 20:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

move

this should be moved to Testudines — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:EF40:A24:EE01:9875:76C3:BC0:3C2A (talk) 06:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Why? "Turtle" is the clear WP:COMMONNAME. oknazevad (talk) 08:29, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Only in American English. If you look at tortoise in British dictionaries they describe the land animal and have a separate entry for American English (e.g. Collins). Similarly the turtle lives in the sea in the British definition. Dictionaries are a much better guide of WP:COMMONNAME than the phylogeny. —  Jts1882 | talk  10:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

We should stick to what English language scientific literature uses worldwide. And that by and far uses the word "turtle" as the common name for the whole order when not using a Latin name, because that does reflect the reality of phylogenety. Tortoises are a subset of turtles. Even Australian English, which once reserved the word "turtle" for marine species, has gotten away from that (see the talk page archives for prior discussion). Plus British English is a poor guide based on the science. There are no fully terrestrial species on the island at all, and there hasn't been a semi-aquatic freshwater species native to there in at least five millennia, when the European pond turtle became extirpated. Mentioning British usage within the article is fine, but treating it as normative for a worldwide subject and therefore something that should determine the article title is to give undue weight to one island. oknazevad (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Is turtle the name used in scientific literature? Testudines and chelonians are the names used in English scientific literature to refer to the whole group of shelled reptiles that includes turtles. I guarantee we can both find examples that support our stance, but yours is specific to one dialect of English, whereas mine is agnostic of dialect and understood across the Anglosphere.

Imposing one dialect of English over the scientific terms seems a bad move. 146.199.8.40 (talk) 09:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

How much of the top section is about turtles?

It’s hard to tell what part of the top section is turtle-specific. Things like “a shelled reptile” could be talking about all tortoises and terrapins as well as turtles. 2001:569:5657:1000:A856:2A79:F57:462 (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Those are still turtles. Despite what you may have been taught as a child, tortoises are a subset of turtles, not a separate mutually exclusive category. oknazevad (talk) 08:28, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

No, turtles and tortoises are chelonians.

All turtles are chelonians, but not all chelonians are turtles. 146.199.8.40 (talk) 09:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

It's worth noting that not all groups of animals have a handy common name, for instance there is no common name for a singular cattle. In that case we have to have prior knowledge of the animal's sex, whether or not they've been castrated, and usually just go with a very generic cow or bull (which are used to cover so many species of mammal!). The fact there is no short snappy word that is used at a pre-school level as a synonym of chelonian does not mean we need to impose one. 146.199.8.40 (talk) 09:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Except that there is, and it's "turtle". And that's how the scientific literature uses the term. The insistence that it's not a subset situation flies in the face of modern common usage across dialects and scientific usage. Just as toads are a subset of frogs, and hares are a subset of rabbits, tortoises are a subset of turtles. oknazevad (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)