Talk:Tuatara/Archive 1

Third eye?
i'm sorry, a third eye? this could use some more explanation, as i doubt it means what it sounds like.


 * Sounds crazy, doesn't it? It really is a rudementary eye on the forehead. It looks like, well, an underdeveloped eye, and it can detect light and darkness, though not well. – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 20:14, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)


 * Is this "third eye" actually visible to an observer? I seem to recall reading that in fact this rudimentary eye is covered by skin. Is this correct? Hi There 16:32, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Ignore my previous comment please, as I see that it is all explained very well in the article! Hi There 16:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What do you suppose the Tuatara was like before it degenerated its third eye? -Izaak

Cryptic?
I am curious by what is meant by "Tuatara are notoriously cryptic..."? --Trithemius 03:55, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi. "cryptic" means that the animal hides itself well. It is standard zoological terminology...actually I'm surprised that the wiki cryptic doesn't included this meaning. I'll have a bash at starting a page this lunchtime.

Robinh 07:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

breeding at southland museum
i added a little info about the breeding programme at southland museum

This Article Is Duplicated at paleorama.com
This article is duplicated over at:

http://www.paleorama.com/Disney-T/Tuatara.php

The only difference I noticed was that they have ads and the Wikipedia doesn't. Does anyone know which one came first?Ken McE 20:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

While not pretending to be an expert, a search will reveal many similar commercial duplications. Wikipedia is not copyright so others are free to grab contents of Wikipedia, and repeat it in their "Encyclopedia" or whatever, together with all the ads and lies they like. Part of the price of freedom / anarchy :-)


 * If they do so, they are however obliged to attribute and link to Wikipedia and add the GFDL-licence, which is not the case. See Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr for futher actions. --Donar Reiskoffer 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Zoos that keep tuatara
Cut out of the article for space reasons:


 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Dallas Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo
 * Toledo Zoo

User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:47, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

While this probably should remain cut, I think it may still be interesting to readers to know where they can see tuatara should they not live in New Zealand. They aren't an attraction at many zoos, and the chance to see them is quite rare outside of NZ so is there some way to convey this information? Maybe External Links? pschemp | talk 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Do those last two have links? Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The last one is not right to the zoo, but it isn't mentioned anywhere on their website. They are there though. pschemp | talk 19:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, the new arrangement is much superior to the old list. pschemp | talk 23:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hatteria, another name
In some languages the tuatara is known as hatteria, after the old genus name (Hatteria punctata, Gray 1842). The word hatteria is also mentioned as a synonym for tuatara in Webster Unabridged Dictionary 3rd edition. Still, the word hatteria doesn't appear at all in the text of the article. Should we mention it? Tavilis 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, especially if you can reference the source. - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tuatara=living fossils
I have removed the assertion that "living fossils" haven't changed in a long time. Living fossil appear to contradict it. There've been at least one books Tuatara with "living fossil" in the title, though. Note also, wchi seems to take a different definitionof living fossil than out article: "The tuatara has been falsely called a living fossil. Though very similar to its extinct ancestors, it has developed features unique to its own modern species." Hopes that helps. Circeus 17:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't know what's happened here, because neither does it contradict the article, nor have you made any changes to either that article or this one...? - User:Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nitpicky taxobox business
Currently Sphenodontidae in the taxobox is unlnked with authority listed. The taxobox usage guidelines imply that the unlinked taxa should be the ones being discussed in the article--"Each entry corresponds to a containing group, except for the last, which should be the group under consideration." Now, if the common name "tuatara" applies to all members of the family Sphenodontidae, living and extinct, then it should stay as is, with the genus Sphenodon itself moved into the subdivision section along with the extinct genera. If we constrain "tuatara" to mean only Sphenodon, than the family should probably be linked to Sphenodontia and the authority removed on this page.Dinoguy2 22:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Additionally, this site lists tuatara as Vulnerable under the IUCN Red List, which is what taxoboxes on Wikipedia follow. It's currently listed as endangered. Change?Dinoguy2 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Extinct species
I see the word (extinct) for sphenodon diversum in the taxobox has been replaced by a dagger. I am concerned that a casual reader may not know that the dagger means extinct. Is this a standard for taxoboxes? I could not see it in the How to read a taxobox link. If putting (extinct) back in the taxobox is not desirable, perhaps a sentance about this species, including that it is extinct, could be added to the article.- gadfium 18:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Evolution statements
This article states it as fact that evolution happened. It is an unproved theory. It is simply a belief system. Anyone can call me a crazy creationist if they feel like it, but it doesn't change this. And if creation is an idiotic belief that only people who can't or won't think believe in, why not put the arguments for it and against it in schools and musems? (Please don't say that creatonists dont either. Its not true) Are the evolutionists scared of something? I think they are. And despite what evolutionists want us to belive, there are no rock layers of fossils of increasingly complicated organisms. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oddball 2002 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC).

I can't force you to change your beliefs, but evolution has actually been scientifically proven - it's technically not a theory any more Savager 21:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure it is. It always will be. A theory is a set of logical conclusions drawn from one or more laws. People often mistakenly believe that theories become laws, but theories are composed of laws. The theory of evolution by natural selection is a synthesis based on the several laws of evolution, such as the law of nonrandom mating (for species that choose mates, they will not choose at random but based on certain characteristics). And the law of inheritance (characteristics are passed on genetically through mating). Put those two together, the fact that animals select mates based on characteristics and the fact that characteristics are passed on through mating, and there is no logical way natural selection can not happen. Some force would have to actively work against it. Those are the laws within the greater theory of evolution. So it is not now nor has it ever been just a theory. ;) Dinoguy2 01:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)