Talk:Solomon Islands skink

Proof read
(requested by Mike)

Taxonomy and etymology

 * title is a misnomer - it's all etymology.
 * ✅ "Its common names refer to its fully prehensile tail ..." What common names?
 * Taxo is coming...
 * I'd like to see a bit more of the higher level classification, and what their closest relatives are. -- Philcha (talk)
 * Me too, it's a bitch finding that stuff where I can source it reliably. Scincidae is not as well organized or researched as Iguanidae (my specialty).--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Distribution and habitat

 * The map doesn't help to identify the speices' ranges. For this type of task I like Template:Annotated image - Opabinia has 3 in a row! But I think the map would need t obe changed to another bg colour, as blue is not good for readability.
 * "The nominate subspecies ..." - jargon.
 * I see no reason for 4 1-sentence paras. If necessary you can move the map up above the heading to compensate.

Biology

 * ✅ Re the measurements, Template:convert is nice because it does the arithmetic and handles the spacing per WP:MOS. OK, MOS should not be such a big deal for GA, but the temlpate's so hnady I even use it in Talk pages!
 * ✅ "Like snakes, they "smell" by flicking their tongues and use of a Jacobsen's organ" is awkward and you should explain the jargon (e.g. chemical sensor in the roof of the mouth).
 * ✅ There are 2 paras about dimensions.
 * Now just one.
 * Well one and a bit, but a sub-section explaining differences between the sub-species is good. -- Philcha (talk) 20:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to make "Diet" and "Reproduction" sub-sections of "Biology". Or perhaps "Appearance" and "Behavior", with the latter including reproduction, circulus and diet. BTW if you like such yucky stuff, have a look at Mollusca (the para opposite the radula image) :-)

Diet
*Pothos has a new genus name - botany's like that, if I were a conspiracy theorist I'd mutter darkly about textbook sales ...
 * Should mention why Pothos (or whatever) is poisonous and to what (e.g. birds eat a lot of berries that are poisonous to us), and why these skinks are immune.
 * I'm not a botanist, I'll stick with what I know and come back to this.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 03:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Googling for "pothos toxic" and then "pothos toxic skink" showed me lots of hits. Of course most are not WP:RS, but the same phrases in Google Scholar should give you what's needed. -- Philcha (talk)
 * Got one..and added a footnote!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice! Now I think the article needs to explain the skinks' immunity - is it specific to these species, to skinks in general, to reptiles in general - or is Pothos really only toxic to humans / mammals, like a lot of berries that birds eat?-- Philcha (talk) 08:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll run this down, because I know that iguanids can eat it as well.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Reproduction

 * "Solomon Islands skinks reproduce by viviparous matrotrophy" - I have a degree in Classical Greek so I understood "matrotrophy", but it's neither wikilinked nor explained.
 * Sorry to be a pain, but "matrotrophy" wikilinks to live birth, which does not explain the term. I'd dunk "matrotrophy", as the next part explains the "placenta". -- Philcha (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I added a footnote, let me know if that's adequate.
 * Ultimately you're in charge, but IMO the footnote is not hugely clearer and "matrotrophy" is unnecessary. -- Philcha (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "the female provides a placenta not unlike like that of a mammal with a gestation period of six to eight months"
 * ✅ does the gestation period go with "mammal" or "placenta" or "female"? How about "... the young are born after a gestation period of six to eight months", which also explains "gestation period"?
 * a placenta? A true placenta? See
 * Yes.
 * I doubt if it's a placenta in the mammalian sense. The mammalian placenta is produced by the embryo, hence cutting the cord after birth; it penetrates the wall of the womb (do skinks have one?) and absorbs oxygen & nutrients (but not blood and hopefully not antibodies!) from ma's bloodstream, and dumps wastes into it. Several non-placental animals, including viviparous sharks, produce food-supplying structures in the birth canal, but these: are part of ma; AFAIK don't supply oxygen (AFAIK!); do't absorb wastes from the young. -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly don't know if they have a womb in the sense that mammals do. I've never cut one open.  Literally all of the literature concerning this topic refers to it as a placenta, I'll keep digging, someone is translating some other German sources for me...maybe I'll find it there? That or I'll fire an email off to one of the Doctors who wrote the original articles.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "The neonate is of a large size"
 * ✅ "neonate"
 * how large? OK, you give the vital stats at the end, but why not up-front? Can you add a comparsion to the size of the respective mothers? Then your "a human mother giving birth to a six year–old" will be in perspective - BTW that phrase is a great find!
 * Just moving the sizes didn't finish the job, in fact it's confusing as it now looks like "disparity" refers to the difference between the young of the 2 species. I think a table might be good, with a column for each species and rows for sizes of mother and newborn; caption "Large size of newborns relative to mothers" and repeat the ref at the end of the caption. See for example Small_Shelly_Fauna, where the tabl e cleared up something the GA reviwer found confusing but where the sources seqgue between "skeleton" and "biominerlaization".


 * "Individuals have been documented to stay within the group for several births without being expelled." Eh? Do you mean mama doesn't kick the kids out when she gets preggie again?
 * Nope
 * Then I think you should be more explicit. In many species, including many maternally devoted mammals, ma kicks the kids out when she gets pregnant, or even when she starts coming into season. Great ape mothers stay "unavailable" for several years to avoid kicking the kids out before they're ready. Humans are very unusual in their capacity to rear several seasons' worth at a time - I didn't realise skinks were unusual in a similar way. It's a selling point for the article, milk it! -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "Some individuals will remain in the group in complete harmony for longer periods." How long?
 * It varies, part of the problem is the majority of the written documentation is on captive animals. I'm reading more tonight, but I think some of the long-term individuals stay because they're in the same cage/habitat.


 * ✅ I suggest "This protectiveness of young is a rare occurrence in reptiles but is shorter in duration compared to protective behavior exhibited by a typical mammal"
 * Good one


 * ✅ "The Solomon Islands skink was listed as such because of the large numbers of lizards being exported, the small region to which the skink is native, and combined with its low reproductive rate, leave it vulnerable to overcollection" ??? How about "The Solomon Islands skink was listed as such because the large numbers of skinks being exported, the small region to which the skink is native, and its low reproductive rate, leave it vulnerable to overcollection"?
 * ✅ "Consumption for food by natives and excessive export has also affected wild populations" duplicates the export bit. I'd drop that then combine the "jungle tucker" with logging - they have the same ref.
 * ✅ I just noticed there's even more about export. I'd consider placing "jungle tucker" and logging up front, then combining all the export stuff.
 * Will do.

In captivity
An excellent suggestion, when I get the exact number and a source I'll put it in!
 * "The Philadelphia Zoo has bred these skinks over multiple generations" - how about "The Philadelphia Zoo has bred N generations of these skinks" - with value of N?
 * ✅ "These skinks" in 2 successive sentences and then "Corucia" - I'd forgotten the genus name. I sugges you go back through the text and use the genus name about every 3 - 5 sentences. And it shoudl be italicised.
 * Fixed, that's one of the gremlins trying to help, he means well but doesn't understand wiki.

*" which can be a useful marker for tracking digestive passage in individuals" sounds like and ad for one of these "probiotic" yogurts - "aids digestive transit". What does it really mean?
 * I just pulled it.

Hope I haven't been too nit-picky! -- Philcha (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * All good and valid points, thanks...I didn't add that last bit, about the "marker", I'd remove it but old kid keeps putting it back.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Tell your helper that the point needs a ref and more reader-friendly wording. With a bit of guidance such editors can be very useful - Wikiproject Chess has one who, after a few gentle hints, became very productive and recently got a Barnstar for his contributions. -- Philcha (talk) 07:34, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Points that perhaps should be covered
Back in 1992-93 when I was living in Florida, I was part of the "reptile circuit". I remember standing in a barn on the West Coast of Florida after a Solomons shipment had come in, noticing that the new skinks being brought in had the same size and shape of the skinks I was keeping, but the colors were vastly different. Some had hades of blue, some dark chocolate brown, etc. I was younger and very concerned with "subspecies" and which island this one came from, etc. The importer told me "They're all the same species, so pick what you want." And that was the end of that one. I wish I would had more time and money back then to have bought as many varieties that I saw for my own studies(I was more of a snake guy, though). There is much speculation in the literature about speciation etc, same as with Cycluras, but all it does is remind us of how much we still have left to learn.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It struck me after I'd switched off my computer that there's nothing about how the skinks got to these islands.
 * Is there any evidence of island speciation? I read something last year (? New Scientist) about a species on a Mediterreanean island that split into 2 species in a very few centuries. It would be another chance to add a "Wow, that's interesting" sizzle. -- Philcha (talk)

Grammar

 * its - belonging to it; it's = it is -- Philcha (talk) 13:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Formerly regarded as a monotypic genus(Corucia), there are currently two recognized subspecies of the Solomon Islands skink: the Common Monkey-tailed Skink (Corucia zebrata zebrata) and the Northern Monkey-tailed Skink (Corucia zebrata alfredschmidti)" is a painful case of dangling participle. Also I suspect the existence of 2 sub-species does not save Corucia from monotypy. -- Philcha (talk) 14:22, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Pothos and red fecal matter
Corucia zebrata does not produce urine. Their wastes are fecal matter, solid urates and excess water. If the animal eats pothos it may ejest waste in a red color. However this is trivial and is only sourced in the Satter reference as fecal matter turning red. The one source stating it is urine, is not a published peer-reviewed scholarly source. It is a decently written thesis self-published by the user on various animal forums.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:50, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * In order to compromise, I have included the material about pothos turning the skink's feces red as a footnote. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:11, 6 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Here are my issues with the edit:


 * Lizards do not produce urine. Their excrement is :feces, solid urates (usually chalky white), and excess water.
 * The one trusted source used in the article which mentions the red excrement is Satter (2007) published by the SouthWest Herpetological Society. In that source the author states that consuming pothos turns the animal's feces red, but nothing about the solid urates or even the excess water turning red.
 * The editor is attempting to use a spurious "thesis" as a source. Actually there are two of them: under the last name of Schnirel.   While both are reasonably coherent and well-written, they do contain factual errors in addition to questionable logic.  Neither have been published in a peer-reviewed journal, by a zoological institution, or even a herpetological society and are little more than well-written  posts on internet forums.
 * Rather than engage in discussion, the editor inserts the controversial changes to promote Schnirel's writings at the sake of the work of real herpetologists. He even went so far as to delete references to Dr. Kevin Wright (Veterinarian and Curator of Reptiles at the Philadelphia zoo with a personal fistory of working with the species for close to 30 years) and Dr. Gunther Kohler (who described the subspecies for the first time and is responsible for naming 5 other species in the past 10 years).  When asked to discuss, the editor logs out and edits as an IP address.
 * All that aside, the information in question is trivial at best, it does not advance the reader's knowledge of the species and I don't see it as worthy of anything above being a minor footnote to hobbyist reptile keepers.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:37, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

This diff is by an anon IP but looks very like an old "friend". Time to ask an admin for a checkuser? -- Philcha (talk) 14:26, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, how's this...my skink ate pothos on Sunday and not 15 minutes ago evacuated the contents of her cloaca on my shoulder. The solids were brownish green, the urates were white, but the water was brownish red.  How exactly do i source that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 04:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Mike, that's clearly WP:OR :-)
 * However at present the article has nothing about red s**t. If the "old friend" or an anon IP re-introduces it without WP:RS, I suggest looking for admin remedies, i.e. blocks. -- Philcha (talk) 10:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Behavior
This article has a very well detailed account about the lizard, but is a little lacking in the details about their behaviors. The lead is especially great at laying out details of the lizard, but some of the information mentioned there is not discussed anywhere else in the later sections. It mentions they have social groups in the lead but then doesn’t really expand on it in the article. Information regarding how they behave in group environments and what benefits it brings them or how they compete for resources would be good. It also doesn’t mention what common predators there are for the lizard, it just talks about how humans have caused their populations to be damaged. Maybe some more detail about natural predators that they have in the wild would be helpful. It also mentions they are aggressive towards those not in their family, but doesn’t go into detail on what behaviors they exhibit to display their aggression. Do they simply show displays of aggression to scare each other off or do they actually have fights over territory? Emshen526 (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2021 (UTC)