Talk:False gharial

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the False gharial article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	False gharial is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Indonesia Low‑importance

	Indonesia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Southeast Asia: Laos Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Southeast Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Southeast Asia-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Southeast AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Southeast AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Southeast AsiaSoutheast Asia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Laos.

Vietnam

	Vietnam portal This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

crocodylidae or gavialidae ?

English version of the False Gavial is indicating it is a gavialidae..

French version is indicating it is a Crocodylidae (including in the Taxon box)..

Neither are siting sources for this information... I have therefore added a 'CN' tag for the line describing the False Gavial to be a gavialidae.

--Ivan —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ivan Scott Warren (talk • contribs) 11:28, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sited.--Mr Fink 15:25, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks ! (unfortunatelly, the cite doesn't point to anywhere !) Ivan Scott Warren 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to fix it, but can't get it to work.. Not very at that.. sorry. Ivan Scott Warren 16:07, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And (not meaning to be a party pooper..) but access to that article requires a subscription! (the abstract itself only hints at the actual contents)..Ivan Scott Warren 16:13, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was the only one I could find at the moment. I remember hearing about an immuno-assay being done that was the basis for it. This may be that paper, but, we should look again on Scholar.google again later.--Mr Fink 20:04, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is apparently another paper that is referenced by the reptile database on T. Schlegelii : Willis, Ray E.; L. Rex McAliley, Erika D. Neeley and Llewellyn D. Densmore III 2007. Evidence for placing the false gharial (Tomistoma schlegelii) into the family Gavialidae: Inferences from nuclear gene sequences. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 43 (3): 787-794. I have not read the paper nor found any online copy of it (and there is 99.8% chance I wouldn't understand it ANYWAY since I am neither a zoologist, biochemist nor a herpetologist). But (from the title) that would seem to be a definite source. (PS : L. D. Densmore III seem to have contributed to both papers). Ivan Scott Warren 14:16, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read ALOT about false gharials, all said they were crocs. -Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 20:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

has this been resolved yet? Gharials are called crocodilians, not crocodiles, in the Wiki article, and in that same article False Gharials are listed under Family Gavialidae. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not as far as I know. Croc taxonomy and phylogeny is pretty nightmarish in a lot of ways, and based on conversations I've had with folks about it, I'm glad not to be working in that area. Honestly, most of it won't be resolved until we invent a time machine. HCA (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, your typical "snake pit" taxon, yes?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple, the morphological and molecular analyses disagree with one another. Morphological analyses put Tomistoma in with crocodylids, so paleontologists tend to place them within Crocodylidae. Molecular analyses pair Tomistoma with Gavialis, so extant biologists put them in Gavialidae. They are most certainly crocodylians (members of Crocodylia, the crown group), but whether they're crocodylids depends on which dataset you believe. See Brochu 2003 for more detail. Troodon311 (talk) 21:40, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

unexplained image removal

It's not a bad picture. Why was it removed from the article?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.137.62 (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genus or not?

Is this species considered to belong to a monotypic genus is it the only *living* member of this genus, but has some known cogeneric members from fossils? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.93.64.238 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Size

~ Little is known about this species' size other than they may very well reach around to 20 feet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebirdop (talk • contribs) 23:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:53, 19 January 2012 (UTC) There is a skull belonging to this species which measures 41.5 inches in total length so that puts the length at well over 20 feet probably 24 feet if you compare the length of the head of a normal specimen with it's tail.[reply]

The biggest false gharial skull (and longest modern crocodilian skull) is actually 84cm or 33.1 inches long. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on False gharial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090428150539/http://icb.oxfordjournals.org:80/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/831 to http://icb.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/3/831

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who uses "Tomistoma" as an alternative common name?

What sources are there that use or state that "Tomistoma" is a common name of the false gharial? It would be helpful of the people claiming this could, you know, provide reliable sources for this claim. PPS, @Bromar00:, there is actually an appreciable difference between being a monotypic genus and the sole surviving species in a genus filled with extinct and fossil species, of which the false gharial falls in the latter.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A name is common when it has been commonly used by various authors for a looong time, e.g. for several decades. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but, my question is who has been using "Tomistoma" #sic as a common name for several decades?--Mr Fink (talk) 13:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bromar00:, can you find scientific articles, rather than zoos, that use "Tomistoma" as a common name?--Mr Fink (talk) 00:51, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that scientific articles are far better sources than websites, see WP:RS !! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:04, 9 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]