Talk:Barbados threadsnake

Wording
just changed the wording a tad, it is surely near, and not at, the limit of how small a snake could be. Surely another snake species could be discovered just a millimeter or two shorter on average that would still have viable offspring that could find something to eat. Mwv2 (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty sure the young are at the minimum size. And at that size, the millimeter or two would make for large differences in the infant:adult size ratio. I'd bet that it's as small as a snake can get and survive birthing, though. And theoretical are pointless unless there is a smaller species found(it's like saying a chihuahua is as small as a dog can get - probably not true, but the difference is too small to bicker over). BioTube (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I think it is still more accurate to describe it as near the minimum size. Even if it couldn't be shorted by a millimeter or two, it could still be shorter by some non-zero amount. For example, one picometer is a non-zero amount that probrably could be removed from the snake without compromising it's ability to survive. Such a difference, however small, is still enough to make the statement that it is at the minimum size inaccurate. To be at the minimum size it would have to be exactly equal to the exact minimum size. Unless we can determine in some way what the exact minimum size is, we can't accurately say that any snake is at the minimum size.

the fact that there are not yet another specimen of snake smaller says that it is truly the smallest known species of snake yet known, I have found this same snake in La Morita Mexico about 50 miles south of Monterrey Mexico, I still have it preserved in a syringe full of alcohol, although the one I found defiantly can see. E.Theodore Breedlove: Biological Science Technician.

216.36.188.184 (talk) 18:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding newly described species
It may seem fun to keep up with the popular press, but just remember that as a newly described species, this name is not yet considered valid according to the taxonomy (ITIS) that is followed in this series of articles. That's because, although the name, L. carlae, may be valid according to the ICZN, it usually take a while before a consensus develops among the experts in this field and they decide to recognize it or not. If not, then it will be synonymized with another valid species, e.g. L. bilineatus, after which we will find ourselves merging this article into that one. --Jwinius (talk) 12:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Great job
Great job all contributors on making this article a great source of info! StevePrutz (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blog source
I've just removed the following: Some residents of Barbados report that it is referred to locally as, the poison lizard'', although it had never been described scientifically. ''. While quite plausible, it's only a blog post, and there is no indication that the writer is a particular expert. Thus, it's not a RS reliable source in the Wikipedia sense. Ramphotyphlops braminus comes in various colorations, with a behaviour similar to L. carlae, and it is widespread in Barbados, so confusion is quite possible. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

featured article
Is this article ready to be suggested as a featured article? It looks good to me, but this is not my field. Kdammers (talk) 10:31, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Venom
Can someone get more info regarding the venom of this snake ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmoskramer (talk • contribs) 10:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Width of snake
Is it certain that the snake is 24.26 mm wide in the photograph? Given that it is just under 10 cm that would give it a very unophidian aspect ratio of 4:1

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Barbados threadsnake. 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/20080806185328/http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Worlds_Smallest_Snake_Discovered_on_the_Caribbean_Island_of_Barbados_21414.html to http://www.efluxmedia.com/news_Worlds_Smallest_Snake_Discovered_on_the_Caribbean_Island_of_Barbados_21414.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14453-worlds-smallest-snake-discovered.html

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) 21:01, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism?
The article says that this snake is found "on the Caribbean island of Barbados and India." I find it difficult to believe that this one species has such a discontinuous distribution unless it was introduced to one of these locations (perfectly possible, of course). Anybody know? Kostaki mou (talk) 19:55, 4 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Yeah that doesn't belong there. Removed. I'm not sure it's exactly vandalism because I've seen similar information added before. Might be getting confused with other threadsnakes by foreign language speakers. —DIYeditor (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

"Smallest snake" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Smallest snake. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:07, 20 September 2019 (UTC)