Talk:Amphisbaena

Massachusetts Sightings?
In a book by Eric Carle called Dragons Dragons: and Other Creatures that Never Were, he claims that the creature was sighted during the colonization of Massachusetts. Can anyone verify this information?Why?How?

Abilities?
What are these "abilities" listed here? Is this from the original myth, or some modern game? 81.233.196.49 (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed it. The whole "lunar basilisk" thing sounds especially suspect, and I wouldn't be surprised if this was from Harry Potter or something. In any case, it wasn't referenced, and the article hardly needs to have a list smack in the middle of it. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Folk medicine
The folk medicine section details the uses this creature apparently had in folk medicine. Since this creature isn't real, how could it have had any use? Perhaps it was only speculated to have those uses, perhaps folk medicine practitioners lied about it, or perhaps the uses only appear in mythological or fictional works. Either way, this section needs clarification and references.  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  14:17, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amphisbaena. 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/20050405212903/http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/amphisbaena.htm to http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/amphisbaena.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050405212903/http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/amphisbaena.htm to http://www.eaudrey.com/myth/amphisbaena.htm

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) 06:16, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

In media section
This last section appears to have the least coherence and readability. For example, in describing John Milton's "Paradise Lost," the sentence reads: "...some of the fallen angelic host are transformed into the amphisbaena, to represent the animal by which the Fall was caused, i.e. a snake. Ignoring the borderline run-on sentence aspect, let's focus on basic subject-verb agreement. "Some of the fallen angelic host ARE"? Should it not be "some of the fallen angelic host IS transformed into the amphisbaena"? Or are there multiple fallen angelic hosts, as in "some of the fallen angelic hosts ARE transformed into the amphisbaena"? My guess is that the host is singular and should be paired with the singular verb "is," but I can't be certain as I have not read Paradise Lost.

Similarly, the last paragraph mentions an Amphisbaena "in the form of an evil creature called Grimm." Upon first reading, this appears to imply a singular creature like the Minotaur, Chimera, or Manticore, and not a race of creatures like the centaurs, satyrs, or Cyclopes. However, the very next sentence states, "Of the different Grimm, Amphisbaena appears to be the King Taijitu, a two-headed snake or serpent," implying that "Grimm" perhaps is a race of creatures and not a singular monster or beast. Which is it? I am not familiar with the animated show, so I can't edit the sentence to resolve the ambiguity myself.

I understand that many contributors to Wikipedia are likely not native speakers of English, and that even native English-speakers can mangle a sentence or two, but I am often baffled by the degree of incoherency that makes it into articles. I think sometimes it is better that a section be omitted than be included with ambiguity and unreadability. That is not to imply that this "In media" section is that far gone (most of the issues are minor and correctable), but I've definitely come across a few that are. Perhaps I am being hypercritical and nitpicky. It just bothers me to read a sentence with its meaning unclear. 66.91.36.8 (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)