Talk:Megalochelys atlas

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles

Palaeontology

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology

Weight is too high

Although an estimated weight of 4 tons is mentioned in some books, it is undoubtly not true. This animals were very large, but a simple calculation shows that a 2,5m long tortoise would never weigh so much. 2,5 tons seems as upper limit, but not 4 tons.

The 1981 and '82 Guinness editions (perhaps others aswell) gave quite detailed – and much more plausable – information on the subject: carapace length 165 cm (65 in), carapace height 89 cm (35 in), total length 244 cm (96 in) and estimated weight 852 kg (1,875 lb) for a specimen found in 1923 from the Siwalik Hills. Compared to the largest Galápagos tortoise individual, named Goliath (carapace length 137 cm/54 in, width 103 cm/40½ in, height 69 cm/27 in, weight 417 kg/920 lb), it was more heavily built: a 165 cm carapace would suggest a weight of 728 kg (1,605 lb) with Goliath's proportions. Also note that the largest known chelonian Archelon ischyros is usually estimated at 2,000 kg (4,500 lb), so 2.5 to 4 tonnes is just absurdly high.

One must take care not to confuse total lengths with carapace lengths, for these yield radically different results when estimating weights. The carapace of T. atlas seems to account for some 2/3 of its total length – I wonder if this applies to the Galápagos tortoise too: if so, then Goliath should be about 203 cm (80 in) long. That 1.80 m height seems a bit odd, but I suppose it could have extended its neck that much from the ground.

--Anshelm '77 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim sounds valid, but in order to be eligible for inclusion in the article it needs a source. Otherwise it's considered original research. As for the height, that is based on a picture I saw in a book where its size is compared to that of a human figure next to it- they are about the same height. Jerkov 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced as it is, the 4 ton claim is original research in the first place. Dysmorodrepanis 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Guinness was the source for the 852 kg – as mentioned – though it would be nice to know what was Guiness's source in the first place. The 4 tonne weight is at least in The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals (Palmer 1999) as well as its predecessor The MacMillan... (Dixon, Cox, Savage & Gardiner 1988). But the purpose of my ranting was to point out how ridiculous this claim is. Sourcing problems and OR issues were the reasons for me to decide on sticking to the discussion page. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 00:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Genus?

Serious work needs to be done on this article. The original genus was propbably Colossochelys but perhaps Testudo - the former was established by Falconer & Cautley in 1844, but it may be that they did this as an afterthought of the species description, i.e. some months later or so.

No post-1978 source on Google Scholar uses Testudo. And most seem to favor Geochelone. In fact Testudo seems the most unlikely genus for this beast, even if it is used in the loosest possible sense.

By the way, never, never ever cite taxon authors in running text as here, if it can be avoided by any means. It is precisely right as it is written - Geochelone atlas (Falconer & Cautley, 1844) - but how should non-biologist readers tell that the parentheses are a (correct) part of the full taxon name and not a grammatical necessity? Even many molecular biologists are unable to do it right these days! So always use the taxobox or at least use smallscript for taxon authors/dates; mistakes are otherwise introduced and perpetuated. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assigning to Testudo probably originates from a time when many genera now considered distinct (Asterochelys, Chelonoidis, Chersina, Dipsochelys, Geochelone, Indotestudo, Manouria, Psammobates and the recently extinct Cylindraspis) were lumped into it. See taxonomic notes at The TIGR Reptile Database. I see that Wikipedia recognizes only six of these genera. If the other genera are indeed valid, With Testudo split into this many generea, I wonder would atlas necessarily fall into Geochelone, and if Colossochelys is indeed now a valid genus. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My money's on Dipsochelys and/or the Indian Ocean "Geochelone"s if it belonged to a crown genus. doi:10.1002/ajpa.20437 uses Colossochelys, which according to Google Scholar seems to have found the favour of recent paleontologists (for whatever little research there is on this critter). I'd say move it to Colossochelys atlas; it can't really harm. And there is the Mascarene Plateau and Raphinae and Nasikabatrachus and the Sooglossidae - we can mention these but we cannot put "T." atlas in Dipsochelys; not even use it as a synonym. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colossochelys atlas is the correct binomial for this taxon per the literature that is out there. As such the article should be moved to Colossochelys with redirects from Testudo atlas. --Kevmin (talk) 14:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The genus is monotypic, so the article should be moved to Colossochelys. FunkMonk (talk) 00:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved this to Megalochelys atlas as this is the valid name for this species. The withdrawn name mentioned by Auffenberg was referring to the species name not the genus. In any case that cannot be done under the ICZN code. Hence this name has been reinstated. There are 2 described species and 3 undescribed but reported species in the genus. I will add these in in due course. Cheers Faendalimas ^talk 14:29, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to Megalochelys then, monotypic genus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No has 2 described and another 3 undescribed species. will add them soon. Faendalimas ^talk 17:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even then, it would be better to have this article cover all the species, since they'll just be stubs anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Undescribed ones probably, let me see how it goes, this is quite a famous fossil because of its size etc. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite needed

Just to let people know, particularly @Animalparty yep this article needs a rewrite. At the moment I am trying to get the parent taxon sorted Testudinidae which is also way out of date, it required I make some changes here also to keep it all linked and making sense. I will get to it as I can, unless others want to try it. But I agree with your tag. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]