Talk:Turtle shell

Other uses
Regards, SunCreator (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Lacking Sources?
The sections about Scutes has no sources. I'm new to wikipedia, so i'm not gonna go about changing anything myself, but I believe its supposed to either get sources or be removed. Just an observation.--The Great and Powerful Qbr12 (talk) 15:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

""
The usage of is under discussion, see talk:tortoiseshell material -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Special language
Does anyone know if scientists have used any specific terms to refer to the retraction of the limbs or neck/head into the shell? I've seen the TMNT do this in the first live film. ScratchMarshall (talk) 03:17, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Calendar
Would an expert like to weigh in on the first claim in this meme (and/or verify the cultural significance)? https://www.facebook.com/groups/768624497146002/permalink/963159761025807/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6010:9B42:B600:78C4:B809:6043:C121 (talk) 01:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Edit removal of information
I would like to question your sources for your deletion. Although I agree the removed sentence has nothing to do with nomenclature and would be better somewhere else, I question the idea of replacing information from a 2013 paper on turtle developmental anatomy. As a turtle morphologist I am familiar with the authors of the more recent paper and their work and it was developed from techniques not available until recently. There is now significant evidence that a number of bones in the turtle shell are reorganisations of pelvic units. As an example all turtles only have two bones in the anterior pelvis whereas all other vertebrates have three. So where arethe others. Anyway please supply a reference that refutes the 2013 work of Walter Joyce's lab. As I said I do agree with moving the section elsewhere in the article and I think your call there is right, but complete deletion I need to see some evidence. Cheers Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 09:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with the paper and I am not refuting it in any way. The offending sentence is "Some of those bones that make the top of the shell, carapace, evolved from the scapula rami of the clavicles" The sentence does not represent the paper on two levels. Firstly by saying "some of those bones", when it was only one, then it is saying that the carapace is derived from the clavicle, where the paper states it came from the cleithra. Here is the correct sentence from the paper "This transformation involved the reduction and eventual loss of the scapular rami of the clavicles along with the dorsal and superficial migration of the cleithra, which then fused with one another and became incorporated into the carapace."
 * An alternate remedy to deletion would have been to reword the sentence to make it correct (and to make it comprehensible to the average reader, because whoever put it in clearly didn't understand a word of the cut and paste that they did from the article) and put it elsewhere. The reason I didn't do that is because I couldn't see how it could fit in without elsewhere without a radical rewording of the paragraph that I was putting it in to. I didn't think it worth it for the sake of a fairly esoteric piece of information from the perspective of a general encyclopedia. Jameel the Saluki (talk) 10:20, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
 * fair enough thanks for the reply, and yes to me the anterior pelvic sections are in the plastron not carapace. Scott Thomson  ( Faendalimas ) talk 10:53, 10 November 2023 (UTC)