Talk:Aliger gigas

Largest mollusk?
I've placed a contradiction tag on these two pages thanks to the conflicting information regarding the largest mollusk in north america. It seems clear the Conch is smaller, and that they are both mollusks, but I'll leave the solution to someone who knows more for sure to make the needed corrections. Corpus juris 02:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for your note. Invertzoo (talk) 22:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Apple Murex
In section 6.4 "Interspecific Relationships", paragraph 2, it seems that "Chicoreus pomum" is given as the formal name for "apple murex". However, I checked out the references cited for the article, but could not find any mention of apple murex in the references. Does anyone have a source which can confirm this? Or even just professional knowledge which can confirm it?

I ask because the Chicoreus pomum wikipedia article makes no mention of apple murex. If these two things are related, that article needs to be modified to reflect the relationship between the two names. I am willing to make that modification, but I have no solid proof (other than section 6.4 of this Eustrombus gigas article) that the two are really related.

Also, if I have this all confused, and this (Eustrombus gigas) article does not mean to assert that there is a relationship between Chicoreus pomum and apple murex... then I hope someone can reword the apple murex sentence to make it clearer to non-experts like me who are interested. Thanks. Fallendarling (talk) 03:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello there Fallendarling! Thank you for your feedback. It's a pleasure to know that you're interested in the article, for whatever reason. Now, to answer you. I'm a malacologist, not a specialist in the group, but yet I believe I can clarify this situation. First things first. In taxonomy there are scientific names we biologists designate as synonyms; They are called so because they are different names, and yet are used for a same taxon (in this case, a single species). The classification of organisms is an ongoing process. New names are proposed now and then, and sometimes species are transferred into new genera, and so on. It happens to be that Chicoreus pomum is the current accepted name for this species, and there are several synonyms for it. You may have heard about the "apple murex" as Murex pomum, for example. So Murex pomum and Chicoreus pomum are one and the same. You can check this out, and many other marine species at the World Register of Marine Species website. Now, on to the common name. The common name is indeed Apple murex, as you will be able to see in page 131 of Leal (2002), for example. Feel free to add this reference to the C. pomum article, if you wish to. Best wishes! --Daniel Cavallari (talk) 12:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

File:Lobatus gigas 01.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lobatus gigas 01.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on June 7, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-07. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 19:55, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

US spelling?
Recently it seems that an IP address editor changed all of the US spelling in this article to British spelling... I don't know how well thought out these changes were. This species is a New World species and it seems not unreasonable that the text should be in American English, although you could argue that the Caribbean islands that used to be part of the British West Indies still use British spelling. Does anyone have an opinion on this? Invertzoo (talk) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Per request, edited this. Feedback encouraged! Comments:


 * Left a tag to address a "some said" statement.


 * Which countries adopted the proposed import ban?


 * It would be good to see pics of the animal, in and out of the shell.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to comment that the animal doesn't really exist "out of the shell" unless you are doing a dissection, because the shell is part of the animal, in the same way that your skull is part of your head. A shelled gastropod is not like a hermit crab that can change shells and exists independently of the shell. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 15:06, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)~

"In Andean prehistory, Aztecs used the shell as part of jewelry mosaics such as the double-headed serpent.[68] "

This doesn't make sense, the Aztecs were in Mexico, not the Andes, the Inca were in the Andes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.64.47.29 (talk) 23:24, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
 * True indeed. Fixed it.--Daniel Cavallari (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lobatus gigas. 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/20120305152402/http://www.revistasusp.sibi.usp.br/pdf/azmz/v37n2/a01v37n2.pdf to http://www.revistasusp.sibi.usp.br/pdf/azmz/v37n2/a01v37n2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090707134201/http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/19/E19-08-3.pdf to http://www.cites.org/eng/com/AC/19/E19-08-3.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:49, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Lobatus gigas. 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://archive.is/20130114164045/http://192.204.19.100/museum/digital_collections/shells/chenu.php to http://192.204.19.100/museum/digital_collections/shells/chenu.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110714143620/http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=queenconch_4434.pdf&objid=-1595&dltype=product to http://research.myfwc.com/engine/download_redirection_process.asp?file=queenconch_4434.pdf&objid=-1595&dltype=product
 * Added tag to ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/i0256e/i0256e.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210124/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201103.pdf to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201103.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150923210130/http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201109.pdf to http://www.conchologistsofamerica.org/publications/pdfs/201109.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130129175206/http://gia.metapress.com/content/v1005136k21m0777/ to http://gia.metapress.com/content/v1005136k21m0777/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101021005816/http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2003/057.shtml to http://www.cites.org/eng/notif/2003/057.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110606222430/http://www.conservation.bm/queen-conch/ to http://www.conservation.bm/queen-conch/

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Images
Some of those images could be useful for the article: --Snek01 (talk) 21:46, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23329535369/in/photostream/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23588931242/in/photostream/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23374019763/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/24008051975/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23892467072/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23635047250/
 * https://www.flickr.com/photos/rstehn/23822177012/

Has anyone considered nomination for featured article?
A quick read over of this excellent article seems like it should be considered for featured article. Just a few ref fixes here and there. Has anyone considered this? Mattximus (talk) 15:06, 24 February 2019 (UTC)