Talk:Green iguana

	Green iguana has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 3, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

This  level-4 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance Green iguana is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Costa Rica Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. inactive .PanamaWikipedia:WikiProject PanamaTemplate:WikiProject PanamaPanama articles

The last photo, is not a green iguana? Or is it? This isnt a green Iguana? Its a Gecko.. PLease some on else help me out I thought people eat them. bleck. Its Mitternacht90 not logged in.

Is there a credible source on the 29 year age record for this? I had a vet that specilized in reptiles for years be astounded at my 13-year-old captive iguana, saying it's the oldest captive specimen he's heard of.

I'd say that Vet hasn't seen very many iguanas then! --Mike Searson 23:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 February 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Armystud77, Niemolej.

Above undated message substituted from

Oh gee, you think? It's called vandalism. It happens a lot in an open resource like this. Welcome to Wikipedia - glad you could make it. And thanks for the note about Madcat Mechs being fictional - I never would have guessed. Thank God for you. —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by 206.223.180.110 (talk) 10:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC).[reply

]

I removed the Madcat Mech, as that's just fake, and I don't believe there are any rainforests in Mongolia, not to mention, I don't believe many iguanas live there. Lone Lobo 08:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green iguanas "mildly venomous"??? I'd like to see the source of that one, considering that the animals have no glands from which to secrete venom. If the author of this means that they have bacteria in the mouth like Komodo Dragons and that this bacteria can cause skin irritation, I might agree. However, iguana iguana is not by definition "venomous". This should be removed at once.

FYI: The edit occurred on 2005-11-02 by a user with IP address 71.114.153.21.

The Green Iguana IS venomous, and any brief search of the internet would reveal this to you. A study by the University of Melbourne discovered that hundreds, perhaps over a thousand lizard species DO in fact produce venom, and the Green Iguana and the Eastern Bearded Dragon, two species popular as pets, are among them. Specifically, it appears that most members of the Iguanians and Anguimorphs produce venom. The key as to why this was overlooked for so long is that they do not produce venom in sufficient quanities to be of harm to the average human. Here's a source for you; run a search on any major search engine and you can find dozens more sources if you need further convincing. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn8331.html As for the date that the information was added, the discovery was announced right about then. Just over a year ago. As such, I have re-added the information to the article. Toroca 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the previous verion of the page to restore the information regarding Iguanas' recently discovered status as a venomous animal. According to the page history, on 22 March 2007, a user with the IP of 168.184.249.55 edited the page to remove the information about iguanas being venomous. The same user failed to remove the reference that was cited as the source of the information, and perusal of that source will show that they are, IN FACT, venomous. Just because they're not dangerous to the average human doesn't invalidate the fact that they DO produce venom. The very first sentence of the cited source CLEARLY states that they produce venom. I quote: "Monitor lizards – commonly kept as pets – and iguanas produce venom, according to surprising new research that is rewriting the story of lizard and snake evolution." Read it for yourself. It's only been known for a little over a year now, but it IS known. Toroca 03:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the venomous information. Again. I'm getting tired of doing so, as it is verified fact relevant to this species and with a reference source provided and others easily locatable on the internet. The person who removed the info this time didn't even do a good job of it; they left a hack-job of a sentence behind instead. I made a second, minor edit, to move the info out of the "Sexing" section, where it is not relevant. Missed that last time.Toroca 02:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a first for me. My friends mom had an Iguana, and even if it WAS venomous, I never knew it, it was one of the sweetest most docile, loving animals I have ever know. It LOVED to sit on my shoulder and loved it when I stroked its chin, these animals are NOT agressive, this Iguana that I mentioned always fell asleep from this stroking. Venomous, I think not —The preceding

Read my note above regarding the venom, posted three days before your comment here. It was a widely-reported discovery when it was first announced; I saw it on CNN, Yahoo, and others, and you can still find plenty of references to the discovery if you take the time to run a basic search or two. The source I posted before is still valid: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn8331.html An as I said before, while they ARE venomous, they're not dangerous to humans because the toxins are secreted in such minute amounts.

Furthermore, being poisonous has nothing whatsoever to do with an animal's temperament or aggressiveness. Tarantulas are more dangerous to humans than Iguanas are, from the venom perspective anyway, and I know people who have "tame" pet tarantulas that will sit contendedly in their hands or on their shoulders. I also know a man who has a pet rattlesnake that he's had since it hatched, and he's never been bitten, nor does the snake seem to have any fear or aggression toward him. It's as docile as the iguana you describe, but being docile doesn't mean it's not venomous. Toroca 23:42, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That study mentions lizards of the Iguanid and Varanid families...not the Green Iguana in particular. Furthermore, at this point in time it is nothing more than a theory. That article appears to be the only source, provide links to other sources if they exist and or any print references. It is mentioned and referenced in the Lizard article but really deserves no mention here unless Iguana Iguana is mentioned specifically and as of this time, it is not.--Mike Searson 21:12, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the story was first made public, there were articles everywhere on major news sites, and SEVERAL of them mentioned the Green Iguana specifically, along with the Bearded Dragon. There was one article I read that was titled "Two Popular Lizard Pets Are Venomous" and the text within mentioned both by name, though maybe not by species. It's not MY fault that those articles no longer exist, and that the less detailed New Scientist one is the only one that seems to remain. But you know what? I'm tired of arguing about this. I give up, I don't give a damn anymore. Remove it, readd it, whatever floats your boat. Toroca 21:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read your own link. Also read the source from Fry at the

agamid and not confused as many people.--Mike Searson 21:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've read my own link more than once, thanks. How about you reread what I wrote above? I JUST SAID that I have seen OTHER articles that DO specifically mention the Green Iguana, BY NAME. And again, it is not my fault those articles no longer exist for me to point to. When Fry's report was first released publicly, there were a LOT more articles around the web related to it, and some of them DID name the Green Iguana as one of two popular lizard pets that were now known to be venomous. Was this all due to assumptions based on Fry's report? Perhaps. I can't speak to that. All I know is that I SAW IT, more than once. I wish I could find one of them now so you could stop talking to me as if I'm an idiot. But I can't. Toroca (talk) 04:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sidebar lists the Green Iguana as "least concern", yet in the body of the article it states that they are considered to be "threatened" because of their status as a throwaway pet. Can anyone shed some light on this? Other than the fact they are green and totally rule, I don't know anything about Iguanas. --206.223.180.110 10:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is very concerning. There are alot of green iguanas, as their range is very wide and there are many feral oolonies in Florida. However, native populations are under extreme pressure from urban sprall, deforestation, defoliants, pollution, chemical use, and exploitation from pet runners. The answer is native populations are very threatened. Populations of the other "Iguanas" as the Cayman Blue are nearly totally gone (25 pairs in the wild). There are many different kinds of "Iguanas," and all are very much threatened, endangered, or near extinction. Cayman Blue Iguana —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Adio11 (talk • contribs) April 23, 2007.

--Adio11 04:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be very careful about reverse editing this page. I found critical errors as to weight of iguanas and diet errors of vitamin ratio vs mineral ratio. Please, I have spent many hours on this page, and I am an expert on iguana care. Adio11

The captivity section is largely unencyclopedic in its tone and has a lot of subtle POV statements. It's important to note that Wikipedia is not a guide for chosing the right pet for you.

Moved section on captivity to its own lemma at

Green Iguana in captivity. Lycaon 12:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've done alot of work to this piece over the weekend. I'm ready to pull the "Godzilla" stuff unless we can get that sourced, according to the Wiki article, IMDB, and Godzilla fansites the animals in question are Marine iguanas not Green iguanas (I have not seen the movie so I don't know which is correct).--Mike Searson 13:39, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article is quite well written and interesting. I believe it meets the

Article looks good, and will be listed. Good work! Dr. Cash 04:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consider adding, when angry lashing at people, etc. with the tail? Mine used to do that when people it didn't like tried to touch it. Repeated, powerful strokes with the whole length of its tail. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 04:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's here:

Green_Iguana#Anatomy_and_morphology second paragraph.--Mike Searson 05:34, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, I see, good. It's small potatoes, but reading the "Behavior" section might lead a reader to think that the iguana's only defense is to posture and bluff. Perhaps this part of the sentence might be moved to the "Behavior" section? "Their whiplike tails can be used to deliver painful strikes..." As an owner, I for one, was very surprised to see it attack someone. So it's not common knowledge. At least to the ignorant. Lol. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a bit more about iguana defense in "Behavior".--Mike Searson 14:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect! Alpha Ralpha Boulevard 21:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the major elements from the Captivity article are here. I would not be against moving more from that article here as I've worked on both and the primary author for the captivity article has contributed to both. However, I don't want to do that right now for a few reasons. Here are my reccomendatins before doing it:

• Green Iguana in captivity finishes going through text cleanup
• Green iguana in captivity makes use of more print sources as opposed to web based articles.
• Green iguana in captivity gets promoted to GA status, or at the very least gets reviewed and the reviewer reccomends a merge.

My ultimate goal is to get Green Iguana promoted to Featured Status. So I'd rather work on the captivity article and improve it...then do the merge. Make sense?--Mike Searson 14:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should be the main pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.142.149.92 (talk) 00:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree, current picture is fine.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In this entry, three general categories that I would add are Bites to humans and animals, Interactions with humans and livestock (disease, livestock interaction, culture, and art significance) and Social Behavior. Since green iguanas are a very big part of animal trade, it would be useful to discuss the effects of their bite on humans, specifically for their owner’s sake. Likewise, the page would benefit from a passage explaining its interactions with humans and livestock and how it can spread disease (briefly covered in short passage about salmonella transmission but more depth would be appreciated!) as this would also relate to human handling of iguanas. A conversation about how livestock may be impact since the iguana is an invasive specie can also be expanded upon. It can also maybe explain why these iguanas are so popular as they may play an artistic or culture role. Lastly, adding a social behavior section would allow for a discussion of adult socialization which can educate readers about captive green iguanas and what environment they would best thrive in. While this page doesn’t exist as a guide for owners, since the green iguana is so involved in the global animal trade, it is significant and relevant for this information to be included.

Overall though, this is a thorough, well written article that I think would become even better with some polishing.

Joshuachenwustl (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is the claim that there are only 2 species of iguanas (proper) and not 17, based solely on the one mtDNA study cited -- and if so is this universally accepted in the field despite such dramatic physiological distinctions (and therefore significant nuclear DNA divergence)?

There's a tendency in Wikipedia science articles for the latest (sometimes trendy, sometimes controversial, sometimes socio-politically motivated) "proof" to be presented as gospel dispelling previous "errors" -- which certainly needs to be avoided.

If the mtDNA study was published only in 2006 it seems hardly likely there has been time for a universal consensus to emerge in herpetology.

Likewise this statement is highly suspect, as inter-breeding ability is absolutely no disqualifier for species distinction (cama, liger, et al.!) -- and the horns could occasionally appear in other, actually-distinct species of iguana as an atavistic trait (or due to interbreeding, if those other populations are in the neighborhood):

"Green iguanas from Guatemala and southern Mexico have small horns on their snouts between their eyes and their nostrils, whereas others do not.[11] Naturalists once classified these iguanas as belonging to different subspecies (Iguana iguana rhinolopha); however, this classification has been found to be invalid as iguanas with similar nose projections appear randomly in other populations and interbreed freely with those that do not share this trait.[11][2]"

No, we go by

ITIS as the standard[1]. There have only been two species recognized since 1958. The DNA study has nothing to do with that beyond confirming it(as lots of individuals believe that certain populations should have specific or subspecific status). There is nothing "trendy" about it. if you want to throw rocks at "junk science" articles, I suggest you go hang out on the toxicofera page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 12:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I went ahead and changed the lede. New image has a full view of iguana and it's actually green. Bobisbob (talk) 16:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lede looks the same to me, but that is a good pic! Great job, Bob, beats the sickly looking pics people were trying to put up there!! You'd be surprised how few of these guys stay green past 1 year!--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The hyperlink Colonization Success by Green Iguanas in Florida (number 24) follows to the different article, not related to preceding text.--Vicpeters (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to a couple problems with this article:

• The distribution map doesn't agree with the text (especially regarding the Caribbean)
• There is no list of subspecies

Kaldari (talk) 21:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no formally recognized subspecies. However, historically variants of the species were misidentified as being a different species or subspecies. There is a list of archaic terms in the taxo box. The modern pet trade adds to this confusion by calling the variants with nose horns and the redder iguanas as different "species", but no scientist has ever made these claims. As for the map...Iguana iguana is considered an invasive species in the caribbean, apart from the Lesser Antilles species of the same genus. Maybe that is the reason? Perhaps someone who knows how to make maps could put in red where it is considered an invasive species (Texas, Puerto Rico, Grand Cayman, Lesser antilles, Hawaii, etc)?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe I have to write this about such minor edits, but:
- 'herbivore' is pronounced with an H sound. Every dictionary gives that. Ignoring that is just plain stupid. 'An herbivore' looks completely wrong to me.
- biological nomenclature is not typography, IGVANA would be the same name as iguana. Our mindless reverter shows no sign of understanding this. Perhaps he is complying with Wikipedia convention, but again he shows no sign of understanding this and would cite such if he did.
- if no later source copied Linnaeus's exact orthography, that shows the point above. Citing the earlier sources used by Linnaeus (which I did look at) is simply confused; neither of us can examine those, and surely they weren't Linnaean nomenclature, anyway, if they were before Linnaeus!

I fully expect no reply given the guy's apparent nature, and the fact he thinks he owns the article and doesn't need to discuss anything, but I'm just documenting my case. 73.242.3.106 (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave detailed explanations as to why your changes were unnecessary, but you didn't read them. I tried to explain that I was following the sources, but you didn't listen. Do what you bloody well want, just don't blame me for your obsessiveness. Go ahead, screw up this article's grammar all you want. I've got better things to do. Sumanuil (talk) 05:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A study done 17 April 21 thinks that the Iguanas came from Saba and not through pet releases. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10530-021-02524-5 65.113.109.39 (talk) 01:07, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has no

WP:SECONDARY citations at this time. Invasive Spices (talk

) 7 September 2022 (UTC)