Talk:Watermelon snow

Copyright?
This articles seems to have a lot of duplicating without citing from this Wayne's Word article. I've asked User:TheAlphaWolf about this on the talk page because s/he was the one who added the majority of the current content.

Wayne's Word: For thousands of years the mysterious pink snow puzzled mountain climbers, explorers and naturalists alike. Some people thought it was caused by mineral deposits or oxidation products leached from rocks. Colored snow was mentioned in the writings of Aristotle, several centuries before the Christian Era.

Here: The first accounts of watermelon snow are in the writings of Aristotle. Watermelon snow has puzzled mountain climbers, explorers, and naturalists for thousands of years, some speculating that it was caused by mineral deposits or oxidation products that were leached from rocks.

Wanye's Word: In May 1818 four ships sailed from England to search for the Northwest Passage and chart the unknown Arctic coastline, with stalwart plans to rendezvous on the other side of the globe. Although fate and severe weather conditions eventually turned the ships back, the expedition made some valuable scientific contributions. Rounding Kap York (Cape York), off the northwest coast of Greenland, Captain John Ross noticed crimson snow that streaked the white cliffs like streams of blood. A landing party stopped to examine the spectacular display and brought samples back to England. This unusual discovery appeared in the London Times, Dec. 4, 1818:

"Captain Sir John Ross has brought from Baffin's Bay a quantity of red snow, or rather snow-water, which has been submitted to chymical analysis in this country, in order to the discovery of the nature of its colouring matter. Our credulity is put to an extreme test upon this occasion, but we cannot learn that there is any reason to doubt the fact as stated. Sir John Ross did not see any red snow fall; but he saw large tracts overspread with it. The colour of the fields of snow was not uniform; but, on the contrary, there were patches or streaks more or less red, and of various depths of tint. The liquor, or dissolved snow, is of so dark a red as to resemble red port wine. It is stated, that the liquor deposits a sediment; and that the question is not answered, whether that sediment is of an animal or vegetable nature. It is suggested that the colour is derived from the soil on which the snow falls: in this case, no red snow can have been seen on the ice."

Three days later a follow-up article concluded that the coloration was caused by meteoric iron deposits: "...iron being found to be the colourist of all metallic as well as vegetable matter." It was not until the end of the nineteenth century that the unusual phenomenon was finally attributed to high concentrations or "blooms" of microscopic algae.

Here: In May 1818, four ships sailed from England to search for the Northwest Passage and chart the Arctic coastline of North America. Severe weather made them finally turn the ships back, but the expedition made valuable contributions to science. Captain John Ross noticed crimson snow that streaked the white cliffs like streams of blood as they were rounding Cape York off the northwest coast of Greenland. A landing party stopped and brought back samples to England. The Times wrote about this discovery on December 4, 1818:

Captain Sir John Ross has brought from Baffin's Bay a quantity of red snow, or rather snow-water, which has been submitted to chymical analysis in this country, in order to the discovery of the nature of its colouring matter. Our credulity is put to an extreme test upon this occasion, but we cannot learn that there is any reason to doubt the fact as stated. Sir John Ross did not see any red snow fall; but he saw large tracts overspread with it. The colour of the fields of snow was not uniform; but, on the contrary, there were patches or streaks more or less red, and of various depths of tint. The liquor, or dissolved snow, is of so dark a red as to resemble red port wine. It is stated, that the liquor deposits a sediment; and that the question is not answered, whether that sediment is of an animal or vegetable nature. It is suggested that the colour is derived from the soil on which the snow falls: in this case, no red snow can have been seen on the ice.

A follow-up article three days later erroneously concluded that the coloration was caused by meteoric iron deposits: "...iron being found to be the colourist of all metallic as well as vegetable matter."

Watermelon snow was finally attributed to blooms of algae at the end of the nineteenth century.

It should be pointed out that minor alterations to the original text may squeak by fair use, but is certainly plagiarism nonetheless. Unless User:TheAlphaWolf is the original owner of this article, in which case I apologize for the inconvenience, but ask that s/he should add this information to the article.

-Kelvinc 17:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope, not original author. I didn't know it was still plagiarism. Ok, thanks for pointing that out. I guess the external links aren't enough to "reference" it right? this was one of my first articles and I had seen other wiki articles that are basically plagirized but linked the site in their external links, so I thought that was enough. Would changing the subsection to "External links and references" be better? Should I make a whole new subsection? Or do I have to go all the way with the MLA format and all? --TheAlphaWolf 23:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)


 * See Citing sources. It's not just the link, it should be the fact that certain sections of the text are derived from the WW article.  It would probably be best to actually go MLAish on it, because just saying it's a reference doesn't really help and someone else will still be asking whether this was plagiarized when comparing between the two.  Kelvinc 01:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There, how's that? I got the format from the wayne's word website.--TheAlphaWolf 03:02, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

info/Terms
Anybody know who's work is attributed with the discovery of the causative agent? Any chance of a more international/less colloquial term for 'pant cuffs' that Americans would also understand? Roguexviii (talk) 09:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate pages?
Should separate pages be created for Watermelon snow and Chlamydomonas nivalis? They relate to each other, but one is obviously a living organism and the other a non-living object created in-part-by the organism. Like, I come to this Watermelon Snow page and see a picture of an organism at first glance. Kind of odd. Just my thoughts. Helixer (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that would make much sense, since they are so closely linked. But maybe the article should be moved to Chlamydomonas nivalis? ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 02:18, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is a bit odd, but I don't think separate pages would be as useful. Both ARE very closely linked, and it's hard to talk about one without talking about the other. TheAlphaWolf (talk) 14:52, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well then I agree that the importance should be put on Chlamydomonas nivalis and not Watermelon Snow. Helixer  (talk) 20:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Never underestimate the value of quirky and intriguing titles. I would never look up Chlamydomonas nivalis! But Watermelon Snow? Of course! If someone already knows about green algae maybe they would want to follow up so a qqv would be in order. But otherwise it makes sense to make wikipedia as much fun to read as possible.Plexica (talk) 21:11, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding splitting the article, feel free to do it if you've got sufficient information for the two to stand alone (see the guidelines at WP:VIRUS for splitting articles; I know this isn't a virus, but it's highly related to this circumstance). I know I was shocked to find the two in the same article, and I was also shocked when I discovered back in 2008, Year of the Frog that there was no good article on Bd. Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:02, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion?
The merge tag points here but this appears to be a discussion on splitting Chlamydomonas nivalis from the watermelon snow article. The only example of snow algae is watermelon snow and the watermelon snow article is unique in its discussion of the specific phenomenon. Furthermore all the information in article on Snow algae is contained in the watermelon snow save for a section dealing with locations where it is found (everywhere) but that is sourced to a dead link, so I think it is safe to redirect the Snow algae article to the watermelon snow article. I know that's not what the merge tag is saying (the reverse), but it seems like the best thing to do given that there is no other snow algae that I can find. Snow algae is watermelon snow. Therefore, redirect. -- MoonLichen(Talk) 02:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 👍 Support. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs) 04:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Mesotaenium berggrenii is an alga that colours the snow grey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.51.201 (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Glacial Melt
I think glacial melt and the way that watermelon snow changes the albedo of glaciers to make melting more rapid should be a topic that is included in this article.

https://europepmc.org/article/med/27329445

Lutz S, Anesio AM, Raiswell R, et al. The biogeography of red snow microbiomes and their role in melting arctic glaciers. Nature Communications. 2016 Jun;7:11968. DOI: 10.1038/ncomms11968. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gpommier (talk • contribs) 02:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)