Talk:Chersobius signatus

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Picture

Why is the one picture of this tortoise on this page ... tortoise porn? Maztec (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tortoise measurement

Considering that this is the smallest in the world, and that we provide a measurement of its length, it seems important to describe how the length has been measured (including the head and neck? including the tail? straight-line length directly through the body (e.g. as measured by calipers) or the length of a string conforming around the shell? over the carapace? under the plastron?). Is that described somewhere on Wikipedia in an article we can link to? —BarrelProof (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You would have to consult the papers describing it as to exactly how they measured it. In the past turtles were measured over the curve, however, in more recent times with better understanding of complex statistics it was shown this was not an appropriate measure of length. These days most people, myself included, measure turtles from the cervical scute to the caudal notch in straight line. This is the basic length of the turtle. Tail length is not usually that useful as it is subject to sexual dimorphism. Head length is also measured from the anterior of the nose to the end of the crista supraoccipitalis (the spur of bone at the back of the skull). Each researcher tends to have their own way of measuring there is not really a standard. However some like shell length and head length are relatively standard. As an example I attach one of my species descriptions where in appendix A I describe the measurements I use: Description of Chelodina burrungandjii. There is probably merit for a page describing the basic measurements of a turtle, Carapace Length, Head Length, Plastron Length, Head Width etc. We may have to get several researchers works to get an average way of doing them. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 15:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unfortunate that we report lengths in Wikipedia articles (such as this one) without any description of how they were measured, since different methods will produce substantially different measurements. I don't have easy access to the source cited for the lengths reported in this article. (I am glad the article reports weight as well as length; it would be nice if the article clarified whether the "world's smallest" characterization is a matter of length or weight or both.) I think it would be nice to identify a few sources that discuss the question of how tortoise length has generally been measured (and what measurement methods are most appropriate) and collect that into an article that can be linked to the various turtle articles that contain length measurements. If there is no single method that is universally applied, it would still be beneficial for readers to understand the degree of uncertainty in the reported measurements that is caused by this question. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naming discussions

Please see the naming discussions about Homopus species at Talk:Boulenger's Cape tortoise (and Talk:Homopus). —BarrelProof (talk) 00:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to post here, rather than in the main discussion, but this is rather irritating for South Africans to see the incorrect names on Wikipedia. The name "Speckled Tortoise", while found in a terrarium book, is not used or known in South Africa (the official name for the species here is "Speckled Padloper"). Nor is it used by the authoritative international bodies like the Homopus Research Foundation (also uses "Speckled Padloper") or the IUCN (uses "Speckled cape tortoise").
In addition, a generally descriptive name like "Speckled tortoise" is almost definitely applied haphazardly to other species around the world, and doesn't reflect the species' location in a well-defined genus (Homopus).
If you really object to our local names, perhaps this article should be renamed to the scientific name, so as to remove this controversy. What do you think? Abu Shawka (talk) 12:17, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also notice that the two references used to justify the name "Speckled Tortoise" are a terrarium book from the 1980s and a herpetology magazine which also dates from last century! I would suggest that the more up-to-date (not to mention authoritative!) sources of the IUCN, the international Homopus Research Foundation, SANBI, or Cape Nature, be used instead, as this page is BADLY in need of re-naming. Please contact Dr Ernst Baard (the South African tortoise authority) or Dr Victor Loehr of the HRF if you need help with the naming. Otherwise I'd advise you stick with the scientific names for such controversial species! Abu Shawka (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, those same points were already brought up by you, and already responded to adequately, in the discussion at Talk:Boulenger's Cape tortoise. The last century was not really very long ago, the so-called magazine was a publication of the CITES list (which is certainly an authoritative source), and the other publication is not really a "terrarium book" despite its title. The IUCN refers to this species as the "Speckled cape tortoise", "Speckled Cape Tortoise", or "Speckled Tortoise" – one of which is the name the article is currently using. Would you prefer "Speckled cape tortoise"? I don't really know what is the usual Wikipedia convention regarding whether to use "common names" or scientific names for articles, but most of them seem to use common names. I did a quick web search to see if anything else is also referred to as the "speckled tortoise" – but only found this species referred to using that name. The number of tortoise species is not really so huge as to make it likely there will be a lot of confusing duplication of common names. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know Barrelproof, you must be getting quite tired of the Homopus naming controversy, but these issues don't go away. I'm sure you feel that you responded to everything very adequately, but the Wikipedia names for these species are still equally baffling for Southern Africans, and for scientists who work on these species in international bodies.
Note the situation though! - here's a genus where all the species have agreed-upon scientific names, but HUGELY varied and contentious common names. The solution seems obvious...
The articles should be according to the only names which are NOT fought over - the scientific names. The common names (all of them if you like) can then be given in the first sentence of the opening paragraph/intro. This is what you see in a great many wikipedia articles on species where the common name is obscure or not agreed upon. Might I suggest it as a reasonable compromise? Abu Shawka (talk) 10:52, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon for common names to not have a strong basis in fact or to fail to show taxonomic relationships accurately – but that doesn't stop us from using them. Milk snakes have nothing to do with milk, but they are still called that. It is also not uncommon for a species to have more than one common name. Aside from your remarks, I haven't noticed real controversy and contentiousness. Can you cite a reliable source that says that the naming of Homopus is a particularly controversial topic? —BarrelProof (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not uncommon yes, but where logical (and non-misleading) alternatives exist ALSO in common usage, then they are preferable.
It is also not uncommon for species to have more than one common name, but where there's a radical divide (ie. Nobody calling them the "common name" in the English media in the species' home country and primary place of study) then there's room for misunderstanding and frustration.
Lastly, I'm sure you haven't noticed any real controversy over the names you've chosen - look at the stats for how many active wikipedians there are in South Africa, relative to the United States, and I think you'll see why nobody else has disputed your naming system.
There is no contentiousness here at all by the way, because nobody even knows about the names you use. We all call them Padlopers, and use the naming system directly from the scientific authorities - that's South African National Biodiversity Institute, Cape Nature Conservation Department and Homopus Research Foundation (among others). The contention lies in that American sources still use the outdated and deeply misleading naming system.
I don't think my request for a compromise is unreasonable. I understand why Americans don't like our naming system for our species ("padloper" might be hell to pronounce for all I know), and in recognition of the primacy you hold in Wikipedia relative to South Africans, I'm willing to forgo our naming system in favour of the neutral scientific name.Abu Shawka (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

requested move scientific names

There is a discussion

here to change the name of one of the species to its scientific name and use pointers for the various common names. I have proposed this apply to all 5 species due to the amount of discussion in the past on this. Anyone wishing to comment please do so. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 00:07, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Yes, please do go ahead with the move. This is the only one of the Homopus species which is not yet under its scientific name. Thanks! S Molteno (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't all the Homopus species be moved to their scientific names? I thought it was agreed that their nicknames were highly contentious. Abu Shawka (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The others have been, but this one got moved back because one editor disagreed. Nothing I can do about that and it makes this a contentious move, hence it will have to go through the process of a move request. CheersFaendalimas talk 14:40, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Requested move 23 July 2014

The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Speckled tortoise → Homopus signatus – It was recently discussed to move all the members of this genus to their scientific names and to keep it simple this was done under a previous move request for one of the other species. However this one was seen as controversal and must be discussed on its own. All the other members have already been moved to their scientific names. This genus has many common names and considerable disagreement about them as can be seen in previous discussions on the relevant talk pages and this one. For example Talk:Homopus and Talk:Homopus_femoralis. To finish this and tidy up this genus it is proposed this last species also be moved to its scientific name, which is stable and has been for some time, whereas the common names are regionally disputed and do not serve well. All available common names should be redirects to the scientific name. Faendalimas talk 03:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Info point for Admins - If this is approved, it will need an Admin to do the move. Relevant redirects have been edited. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
  • Support S Molteno (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Please note that expressions of support or opposition should be accompanied by a reasoning to justify the position – preferably a reason expressed in terms of Wikipedia policy or guidelines. Move decisions are not just a matter of counting votes. —BarrelProof (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    He has made comments below, a number of them, we can be a little flexible. Cheers Faendalimas talk 15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The current name is not the most commonly used OR the most widely recognised one. This antiquated name thing has gone on far too long and needs resolution - consistent with the other Homopus species. Abu Shawka (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral, it seems to me that 'Speckled tortoise' is the most common international name in reliable sources. Various fallacies have been put forward muddling the discussion which suggests that at least the naming is not comfortable to some. Personally at this time I prefer 'Speckled padloper' but it's use seems unsuitable according to
    fauna naming conventions. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 18:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • Comment: The problems with common naming that seemed evident with some of the other Homopus species do not seem evident here. The name speckled tortoise seems widely recognized, not misleading, and unambiguous. This is a very notable species, being the smallest species of tortoise in the world. This article is probably more important than all the other Homopus articles combined. —BarrelProof (talk) 04:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be re-named Speckled Padloper, not even the scientific name. Speckled padloper is the universally used name BOTH in South Africa and in the international research groups that are actually making the most progress on the taxonomy of this genus. Are you still using your American Pet book from the 1980s as a reference? Abu Shawka (talk) 15:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true we would not be having this discussion over and over again. Common names available is a substantial list and has a lot of geographical preference. It also has been the cause of significant discussion between a number of WP editors.
Names available:
Please note these are all primary references that in themselves cite first class publications. Not 2nd class publications such as hobbyist magazines etc. So since we have 3 english common names, all are used by international sites and cited frequently, the current WP name is not even the most frequently used one, I think the scientific name is the best option, you can set whichever names you like as redirects. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 14:44, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Barrelproof, I have never heard it called "Speckled Tortoise" in all my time working with the damn things in South Africa. I think we're all getting rather tired of your dogged obstructionism and the outdated info that you persist in thrusting upon people who actually WORK in the field (like Faendalimas for example). Visit the Homopus research foundation and see what they call the species there (I know you probably won't) S Molteno (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A point to consider here is the WP policy on naming conventions for fauna Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). It states the following relevant to this and previous discussions.
"When what is the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained, prefer the common name most used (orthography aside) by international zoological nomenclature authorities over regional ones. When there is no common name or no consensus can be reached on the most common name, or if it isn't clear what taxon the common name refers to (as in the sardine example above), use the scientific name".
The common name even at the international level is confusing and contentious. This has been shown by the long discussions here, the multiple available names. This needs to be focused on the WP policy on this issue. The International Zoological Nomenclatural authorities have 3 names listed, they are all used. It is quite clear from this ongoing issue that this name is contentious. Therefore the usual recommendation of the policy is to use the scientific name. That's my reasons for this proposal. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 16:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly, there is very substantial commonality in those common names – all use the common name of "speckled [some-variant-of-tortoise]". The only variation is regarding whether the second part of the term is made more specific by calling it a '
padloper', which are synonyms for each other as far as common names are concerned, or is simply left a bit more general by just using 'tortoise'. In any event, the only kind of tortoise that is called "speckled something" is this one, and it doesn't seem to have any other oft-used common names. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't think anyone is disputing the Speckled part, the problem is that for a complete name here we need the last part sorted too. It has been attempted on numerous occasions. Consensus has never been reached usually usually with you @User:BarrelProof arguing for Tortoise and most others, for example @User:S Molteno and @User:Abu Shawka arguing for Padloper. Why that did not become consensus and be resolved a long time ago I do not know, because from all the discussion I read when I got involved in this has seemed to indicate that the preferred option was Padloper, or the scientific name. From what I understand your reference is some sort of horticulturalist magazine or something, whereas as all the ones I listed above are International bodies involved in turtle and tortoise names. I do not personally work on this species, I am a Pleurodiran turtle specialist. But I became involved in an effort to sort it. I am a member of the Turtle Portal and the Reptile and Amphibian Portal. I would think that rather than continue this contention over names an alternive solution may be in everyone's interest. Cheers Faendalimas talk 21:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly. I am not necessarily interested in sorting out all the details of the characterization of prior discussions – but, for the record, I have not opposed the move request that we are currently discussing, and I actually submitted the move request that resulted in the other moves to scientific names for Homopus species. As far as the 'padloper' names are concerned, during many of the prior discussions, no widely recognized international authorities (such as those you cited) had been identified as using the 'padloper' names. More recently, that situation seems to have changed. However, I think 'padloper' remains less widely recognized by most people than 'tortoise', and my impression is that older highly authoritative international sources have not used that term. For this particular species, there has not actually been any previous formal move request. Incidentally, while I have the attention of some knowledgeable people, could someone reply to my above year-old question under the heading "Tortoise measurement"? This article needs clarification in that regard, and I think it would ultimately be desirable to create a Tortoise measurement article. —BarrelProof (talk) 21:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BarrelProof Yes I remember you did the previous one and it seemed the solution could work here too. Hence I was a little surprised at your response. However, it is obviously contentious, you and I are obviously experienced and seasoned editors, but it does not mean that those who do not necessarily edit as much do not have a good point particularly about subjects that they have expertise in. I think the better concensus between all here is the one I have proposed. Then we can just move on and make it a great article. People will still find it no matter what name they use with the redirects. As for your "Tortoise Measurement" question point me at it and sure I will respond to it. Cheers, Faendalimas talk 22:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You can find the Tortoise measurement question here on the Talk page, near the top of the page (under the heading Tortoise measurement). —BarrelProof (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that often the most active and experienced Wikipedians also have the least contact with / knwoledge of the topics they opine on. In this case we have one VERY active Wikipedian, who holds "votes" on name changes that nobody else even knows about, and then it's declared to be decided. Did you consult any of the people who actually work with the species? No. You consulted the subset of wikipedians who have the most time on their hands. This is a problem with the Wikipedia platform itself I think. By the way, the padloper names have been in standard use by the scientific bodies who work with the animal for many years. They have also been in almost universal common English usage among those people who interact with the species the most (in South Africa obviously), for DECADES. These names are only now beginning to filter down to the other bodies. How long do you think it'll take for them to reach hobbyist reptile books in the USA (or wherever you're based Barrelproof)? S Molteno (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, Abu is right in that Speckled Padloper would be a far better common name - to indicate its placing in the genus, and in acknowledgement of the word that the majority of the English speakers who interact most with the animal use. I'm happy to endorse the scientific name as a compromise though, because it's going to be decades before the new common names filter down to the more obscure hobbyist literature in hte USA. S Molteno (talk) 07:00, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Homopus signatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:39, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on

Homopus signatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ
for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018.

regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check
}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:22, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Smallest tortoise" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect

Smallest tortoise. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 22:08, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chersobius_signatus&oldid=1200827456"