Talk:Monitor lizard

Taxonomy
Should the class not be reptilia or at least some mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.26.217.95 (talk) 07:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sand Monitor Pictures
Hi, Can you lizard experts please help these two images find a home?

I know nothing about lizards, so I don't know what species of lizard this is, hence I have no idea where these images should go. All I know is that people referred to them as "sand monitors". Advice sought. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 06:31, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an arcticle in goanna called sand goanna I presume it would go there.--βjweþþ (talk) 17:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I added a very basic stub at sand goanna, but people who know about lizards really should double-check it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you - I added a very basic stub at sand goanna, but people who know about lizards really should double-check it. -- All the best, Nickj (t) 23:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Venomous?
this article says that some monitor lizards, including komodo dragons, are venomous, but the komodo dragon page says that they are in fact not venomous, they just harbor 50 strains of bacteria, which I've heard several times before. I would change it but it says that's a new theory so for all I know they may have found true venom in komodo dragons, whichever is the case, either this page and the venom page should be changed or komodo dragon should.--CallmeNiel 08:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I had thought it was rather well accepted that this was a common myth about monitors (especially the Komodo Dragon). Moreover, the Goanna page appears to suggest that Monitors do not produce venom. Since the article cites no references, I've editted to list it as such. If references aren't added in the future, someone should remove the disputed text.--Anthony Liguori 16:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Image moved
I moved the image of the Nile monitor down into the section where it actually appears [right now, on my monitor...I've got Civ3 running, so I think my res is currently 640x480]. The reason I did this (it doesn't change the appearance at all on my monitor) is because all the [edit] tabs were clustered down by the species list, whereas now they're all at the "right place"s. I don't know if this is a software problem or a browser problem (I'm using FireFox on a Windows box right now). Just in case anyone's wondering why I made such an apparently pointless (at first blush) edit... Tom e rtalk 05:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

oaran / warnen story
Uh...this oaran / warnen story is really suspicious. That w is pronounced with a v sound (a sound Arabic doesn't even have), and so is just as likely to be confused with oaran as almost any other word. Is there some better source for this legend, perhaps citing specific naturalists? &mdash; Laura Scudder &#9742; 14:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources Added, some Information Removed
Does the "waran" story sound better now that the "w" turns into a "v"? However, with your objection, it seems we should be skeptical about "waran" meaning "monitor" in Arabic (which pg. 3 of this big Varanid tome claims). Do you know if the arabic word is still correct?

I removed the bit about varanids being the "most advanced" lizards; evolution does not have a direction. I also removed the bit about "unhinged" jaws, as even snakes don't unhinge their jaws. They've got a pretty amazing joint, an ability to move each side of the mouth separately, and the joint has amazing freedom of movement, but it doesn't disattach, or "unhinge." My quick persual of the big varanid tome I referenced didn't give me anything special about their jaws, and when I feed varanus exmanthicus mice, they don't seem to have particularly special jaws. I also took out the bit about "no fangs" because varanids aren't the only ones with venom and no fangs; snake fangs are a special snakes-only adaptation.

The venom bit is in Nature, so I put the actual scientific article as the reference. I know most people can't read it, but, as it's something many are skeptical about, I thought going for the most reputable source would be the best move. Of course, even the 2004 varanid tome I keep yacking about says varanids don't have venom and use icky bacteria, although it does say that they have proteins that are like venom in their mouths. I think Nature's editors summaries are freely available, so I'm putting that up, too, as the same reference as the article. I'd really like feedback to make sure that summary is readable and the source convincing. Enuja 03:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Arabic waral, not waran
Being a native Arabic speaker, the last letter is L and not N (ورل) and has always been pronounced like that in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and other places. I saw it written this way in books and on the internet. Even the Arabic translation of the Bible (Lev 11:30) spells it with an L (see here for example. So, definitely, the Latinized sources that say "waran" or "varan" (V and W being the same sound in different parts of Europe) are definitely wrong. --KB 06:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your amazingly swift response! What is the definition of the Arabic word "waral"?  (I both want to be sure we are talking about the same word, and I want to make sure the meaning is as I explain it on the page.) Enuja 07:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding is the ورن (waran) version is a colloquial pronunciation, not an archaic pronunciation. It can be hard to find written evidence of this, because it's spoken, not written, but here is an example of a youtube video named by an Arabic speaker https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ny8l0fRsQw
 * "في عالم الصحراء اغرب انواع الضباب ( ورن)"
 * "The strangest types of lizards in the desert (waran)"
 * But it is absolutely certain that German has a word "Waran", meaning "monitor lizard", so it doesn't really matter if Arabic ever pronounces it with an 'n' or not, the German borrowing is pronounced with an "n" (and with a "v"). The first use of "monitor" to refer to the lizards, as far as I can tell, is when Linnaeus gave the name Lacerta monitor to the Nile monitor in 1758. Linnaeus, of course, was a native German speaker who was writing in Latin, so it would be unremarkable for him to accidentally translate what is formally "Waran" as if it was "Warner" and so get Latin "Monitor". Linnaeus made a number of mistakes in his Latin, such as using catus instead of cattus for the domestic cat.
 * Speaking as someone who works extensively with historical linguistics, the "waral" -> "Waran" -> "monitor" story is extremely believable. I am going to add that theory back in to the page as one of the possibilities, since all sources which approach it from a linguistic point of view consider that to be the most likely origin of the name, while the other explanations look like classic folk etymologies. Aidan (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Best link to use
I removed two recent edits. One was either vandalism or a test (inserted "math" and "blah" and changed formatting. The other may actually warrant discussion, but I suspect that my choice is fairly uncontraversial.  A link to front page of Sanctuary Asia  was replaced with a link to a forum post .  Although the forum post does appear to be the photographer decribing how the photo as taken, I, personally, have very little faith in the veracity of things posted on blogs.  If someone can convince me that this is a reputable source, I'd be very happy with having that information linked, as it is more detailed and interesting than a link to Sanctuary Asia's website. Enuja 08:02, 22 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How about using the link to the cover art only? http://www.sanctuaryasia.com/adminimages/coverfeb2007.jpg Enuja 05:55, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the link to the sanctuary asia magazine all together. I was looking over WP:EL (the external links policy), and the link to a picture of fighting varanids doesn't really seem like "important" trivia, and the page already has perfectly good pictures of varanids.  I don't think I like the fact that this page has a "trivia" section at all; pop culture mentions of varanids seems like a more appropriate section, and a simple cover wouldn't go in such a section.  Enuja 08:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparent Intelligence
I consolidated the sources in this section. However, I'm a little concerned about possible copyright violations from the Answers.com Varanidae page. I'll get to reading that page more carefully and editing this page to avoid copyright violation, but it would be great if someone got to that before I did. Enuja 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reply on "Apparent Intelligence"
I wouldn't worry about it too much about the reference to the Answeres.com page - the information is also contained in: ^ King, Dennis & Green, Brian. 1999. Goannas: The Biology of Varanid Lizards. University of New South Wales Press. ISBN 0-86840-456-X, p. 43, which I have also referenced

I am more concerned about the request for a citation on the account of the wounded Lace monitor in Cooktown requesting eggs. This is from the observations of myself and my partner, Jo Wynter. I carefully referred to his matter under the qualification of "informal observations" hoping that would be sufficient to report it here. Perhaps it isn't. Do readers think this is good enough? John Hill 07:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm not worried that "Answers.com" is an unreliable source, I'm worried that instead of paraphrasing the source, your use of the source might qualify as a copyright violation.
 * No, it isn't acceptable to put in this encyclopedia anything you have observed yourself. Everything must be attributable, which means that you can't include any "original research."  Now, it's perfectly okay to get your observation published somewhere and then to cite yourself, but it's not okay to put on Wikipedia something that you discovered yourself.  Incidentally, while not good for an encyclopedia, that's a really interesting observation; if the goanna is still coming to your house, you might want to get someone else out there to document its behavior.  Enuja 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't acceptable to put in this encyclopedia anything you have observed yourself. Everything must be attributable, which means that you can't include any "original research."  Now, it's perfectly okay to get your observation published somewhere and then to cite yourself, but it's not okay to put on Wikipedia something that you discovered yourself.  Incidentally, while not good for an encyclopedia, that's a really interesting observation; if the goanna is still coming to your house, you might want to get someone else out there to document its behavior.  Enuja 03:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

After copying, pasting, comparing in word, and highlighting similarities between the answers.com and wikipedia texts, I see that the similarity isn't that extensive; I'll just edit the article to get rid of it. Here are the similarities in green, with words you omitted in brackets:
 * Varanid lizards appear to be [much] more intelligent than [most] other lizards. The most surprising finding comes from research done on captive V. albigularis by John Phillips at the San Diego Zoo. It appears that some species can count. Careful studies feeding V. albigularis specimens with varying numbers of snails show that they can distinguish numbers up to six.[5][4][6]
 * At the National Zoo, in Washington, D.C., Komodo dragons, [individual] V. komodoensis, apparently have different "personalities" and can recognize each of their keepers. [4]
 * V. niloticus has been observed to cooperate when foraging. One appears to act as a decoy to lure the female crocodile away from her nest while the other one opens the nest to feed on the eggs. The decoy then returns to also feed on the eggs.[7][4]

As you can see, I'm fine with the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th and 7th sentences. It's only the 1st and 5th sentences that I'm worried about. But I had to go through the Answers.com text with a fine toothed comb to figure all of that out, and now I'll need to edit the two sentences that I have trouble with. It would have been really nice if you'd just written the wikipedia text while not looking at the answers.com text, or knocked yourself on the head if you are one of those unfortunate soles with perfect recall, because then it never would have looked like plagiarism to me and I'd never have done all of that silly work.Enuja 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've edited the section. I'm still not happy about the grammar, but I think it's no longer a copyright violation or plagiarism. Enuja 05:10, 7 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Apologies for wasting so much of your time. I will try to be more careful next time. I like your new wording but have just added in "seem to" as a qualifier in the final phrase. John Hill 05:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem! If I didn't want to waste my time, I wouldn't have done the word by word comparison.  ;-)  (Yes, I'm procrastinating.)Enuja 05:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal of venomous animals category
Why is it misleading to put varanids in the category of venomous animals? The category isn't "animals with venom dangerous to humans," or least I'm assuming it's not. Varanids do have venom, and this interesting, so a person should be able to happen across this interesting fact as they peruse the category for venomous animals. Enuja 23:31, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Size variation
Evolution of Varanid Lizards Eric R. Pianka Department of Zoology, University of Texas http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~varanus/varanus.html

- Interesting article foccussing on variation in sizes of Varanus species. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 19:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

size
you need to mention average sizes in this articles —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.151.19.246 (talk) 19:49, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

yes, how big are they? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.200.148 (talk) 21:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
 * it varies between species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.57.105.21 (talk) 04:59, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

most derived
Article currently reads: "Monitor lizards are considered to be the most derived lizards,"

Does that mean anything? It doesn't seem to. Derived means "originated" or "descended", usually used with "from".

Ordinary Person (talk) 10:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a euphemism for "most advanced" since groups are not more advanced than others. They may just have changed more.  And varanids are, apparently, thought to have changed more from the last common ancestor of all lizards than other lizards have.  If you can come up with a better way to say that, please edit that section!  - Enuja (talk) 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll think on it. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do. I'll think on it. Ordinary Person (talk) 02:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have an account, but I'm doing a project on the Varanoid Lizards and the Emerald Tree Monitor is definitely not an herbivore. Check Varanoid Lizards of the World by Pianka nad King p228 if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.131.16 (talk) 01:19, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Distribution: "neat subcontinent"?
Sorry about my ignorance, but I've not come across this term before, and it detracts from my understanding of the subject: don't forget this encyclopaedia must cater for fairly low denominators. If it's an acronym, please indicate the expansion as a note, if it's jargon, please create an appropriate page somewhere under geography, if it's valley-talk, please delete it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.183.235 (talk) 08:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tongue shape
I think this article should talk about the shape of their tongue. I'm not knowledgeable enough myself to take upon this. The tongue of a komodo dragon ressembles that of a snake, and I've seen on the image that the tongue of Varanus exanthematicus does, too. On the other hand, the tongue of geckos, chameleons and the wall lizards living in my country do not share that feature. This may be an illustration of the phylogenic relationship between monitors and snakes. ThorinMuglindir (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Subgenera
I propose listing members species first in subgenera and then alphabetically (binomial name). cheers, Bruinfan12 (talk) 08:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Someone always changes the wrong name to that box
Yes, yes, the name of the photo says it is V. exanthematicus but it isn't. And always when I change it right, someone changes it back, claiming that it really is V. exanthematicus. It is V. albigularis, try to believe it... This gives me a headache. See: http://www.arkive.org/white-throated-monitor/varanus-albigularis/ (photos of V. albigularis) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IhMgBYGFNak/TiWUkTvSXuI/AAAAAAAABQs/FKa7pAawYIM/s1600/savannah+monitor+lizard.jpg (a photo of V. exanthematicus) Tepadj (talk) 00:48, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is strong consensus that monitor lizard is the common name for the genus Varanus. (non-admin closure) —  Newslinger  talk   02:14, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Monitor lizard → Varanus – The article is about the genus Varanus, I'm not aware of a good reason not to have that as the title. cygnis insignis 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC) --Relisting. Steel1943  (talk) 23:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support [as nominator] cygnis insignis 15:58, 7 July 2019 (UTC) as per WP:AT criteria. 20:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC) Also WP:Common names (& WP:COMMONNAME!) criteria. Goanna / non Australian taxa / and established naming all foul up a one to one correspondence with the genus and one recent common name for some species. cygnis insignis 10:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a collection of associated terms that emerge below, varanid the extant and fossil family and varanoid for the higher classification. The general usage term 'monitor' and 'monitors' are ones I see still be used in [Australian] sources, the plural usually implying more than one taxon, and 'monitor lizard[s]' providing some disambiguation is helpful here. Just some observations, I haven't attempt to quantify usage. cygnis insignis 05:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * You may want to strike your !vote above. Per WP:RMCOMMENT: Nomination already implies that the nominator supports the name change, and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line. Colin M (talk) 01:26, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I change my mind and comment without voting, and have proposed moves without a view on where it should go, that I support as nom seems obvious: if the closer doesn't notice that I think there is greater concern. That guidance might be helpful to the win or lose debaters, a type of intercourse that requires rules of engagement, I prefer discussion and recognise that there precedents and a multitude of considerations. cygnis insignis 03:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose As per WP:Common names, as species of Varanus are better known as "monitor lizards"--Mr Fink (talk) 18:13, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. There are many more people who would recognize "monitor lizard" than would recognize "varanus". —BarrelProof (talk) 05:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose Textbook WP:COMMONNAME case. Varanus will not be recognizable to most of the article's audience. Colin M (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Who are …? cygnis insignis 17:54, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * A wide range of people. Kids doing school reports. People interested in monitor lizards as pets. People who saw something about monitor lizards on the Discovery channel or in a newspaper article and want to learn more... Colin M (talk) 18:39, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I get curious who people think they are writing for, and appreciate the straight forward answer, cheers. What about the other common and local names (which I guess for herpies is varanids), of which there are numerous, common names don't work higher classifications and this page is about a very broad concept. Is the name of the genus something that readers should avoid learning, people who are interested in this subject would know the names and what refers to what. The name Varanus is neutral and accepted. cygnis insignis 19:19, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying readers should avoid learning the genus name, or that it shouldn't be included in the content of the article. I'm just saying it shouldn't be the title. Colin M (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Apparently we're living in a universe potential readers who hear about Gould's monitor on the Discovery channel will happily click through to our article at sand goanna, knowing perfectly well that these are two different names for the same animal, but will be hopelessly confused and terrified if they search for "Gould's monitor" and find an article at Varanus gouldii and vow to never visit Wikipedia again? In the universe I come from, people searching for either "Gould's monitor" or "sand goanna", upon seeing an article titled Varanus gouldii, would mostly go "huh, so I guess that's what scientists call it", and having learned something will go on to read the Wikipedia article and learn even more. Also in my universe, kid do school reports on Tyrannosaurus rex, not "king tyrant lizard". Plantdrew (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No arguments with your last point. Tyrannosaurus rex is the WP:RECOGNIZABLE WP:COMMONNAME. However, Canis lupus, Haliaeetus leucocephalus, and Carcharodon carcharias are not, which is why kids instead do their school reports on the "wolf", the "bald eagle", and the "great white shark" in those cases. Colin M (talk) 03:06, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly our policies are our policies. In an ideal world, all organisms would be at the scientific name, but we have a split policy with animals at common names and others at scientific names. The members of the genus are known as monitor lizards pretty unambiguously so the two terms are interchangeable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:20, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Monitor lizard is more recognizable than Varanus. Barca (talk) 13:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Per WP:COMMONNAME. Monitor lizard has 2,140,000 Google hits while Varanus has 1,780,000....Pvmoutside (talk) 21:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, redirect monitor lizard to Varanidae (we can discuss swapping those titles). This is a textbook example of 2005 Wikipedia arbitrarily associating a vernacular name with a taxon, when the vernacular name refers to broader and narrower taxa. All of the oppose arguments are basically comparing recognizability of Varanus to "monitor lizard". Is "monitor lizard" better associated with the genus Varanus or the family Varanidae? There has been zero discussion of this. In 2005, this article covered both the genus and the family. Since then, articles have been written on extinct Varanidae genera; Ovoo (genus) links to monitor lizard, but it is a different genus than Varanus. Earless monitor lizards aren't Varanus; are they not "monitor lizards"? What makes "monitor lizard" a more appropriate title for teh genus Varanus than the family Varanidae? Encyclopedia Brittanica's article on monitor lizards equates them with [Varanidae]. All the Oppose per COMMONNAME comments so far completely fail to consider whether the term "monitor lizard" is better associated with the family or the genus. Plantdrew (talk) 04:02, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point actually - this book relates it to the genus as do some other online refs, but then again as it is the only extant genus in the family they aren't too fussed about explicitly saying it is not the family. Question is then, the extinct taxa that are outside the genus but within the family. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:13, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * So the key is whether the fossil genera Saniwa and Ovoo are called monitors or nearest-relatives-to-monitors. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I suggest that Varanus is proper as the primary topic for "monitor lizard", not Varanidae. Most people who seek "monitor lizard" are probably not looking for long-extinct species. —BarrelProof (talk) 07:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think I have come to the same conclusion. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 15:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * As for earless monitor lizards, they aren't in Varanidae, so redirecting "monitor lizard" to Varanidae wouldn't resolve that issue anyway. However, the article about them also says they are not "true monitor lizards". I will acknowledge that there is some lack of clarity in common names; that is why scientific names were invented and are considered more scientific. But I think Varanus does qualify as the primary topic for "monitor lizard". —BarrelProof (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and it sounding cooler. I don't have much to add, but I think the title should be more descriptive in this case than concise. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * That is a cool thing that some of them do. Have you seen them standing up? they think they are people! :-) cygnis insignis 03:00, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per common name and above comments. Wayyyy too many uncommon and virtually unknown Latin names are already used on Wikipedia (check out the template for 'Bears' if you can find it). Randy Kryn (talk) 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you help. what is a common name for parthenogenesis? cygnis insignis 06:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
 * How is that question relevant? —BarrelProof (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyhow, I think that in the Wikipedia sense, the common name for parthenogenesis is "parthenogenesis". —BarrelProof (talk) 19:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a thought exercise, in an attempt to falsify a blanket statement you made. The term immaculate conception is more familiar, common, and seems to talk about the same thing. One could say, "monitor lizards" are able to procreate by immaculate conception, rather than a term that few have heard of, parthenogenesis. cygnis insignis 03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
 * My impression is that immaculate conception is primarily a religious concept, not a biological one. Neither article mentions the other one, and as far as I know, religious devotees generally explain immaculate conception as a miracle of divine intervention rather than as an example of biological parthenogenesis. I doubt that most people would really consider those two terms as synonymous. —BarrelProof (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Immaculate conception and parthenogenesis are two different concepts, the former being when a mortal female conceives offspring due to supernatural intervention instead of sex, while the latter is when a female uses one of her own eggs to produce a genetic clone of herself. To say that both concepts are the same thing is akin to saying that a cookie is a cracker.  --Mr Fink (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME.  Calidum   04:59, 15 July 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Mating
How long does it last but it's the duration of the meeting course and the gestation of the eggs or the babies 74.209.55.252 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)