Talk:Tuatara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

Tuatara has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

Tuatara has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

To-do list for Tuatara:

edit · history · watch · refresh

improve flow of anatomy section add details about brain and heart (referred to in the text but no detail given yet) provide solid references for the anatomy section fix "primitive" vs. "basal" or "ancestral" issue add ISBNs for book references From peer review: Testudines (turtle and tortoise) skulls were once believed to be the most primitive among amniotes, but newer research suggests this is not the case, as they might have lost the temporal holes in the skull secondarily rather than never having had them. This is still controversial (though I personally tend to agree with it), and the placement of turtles as anapsids is used on most Wikipedia entries, so I'd tone down the langauge here to something like "...skulls are widely believed to be..." and "...some research suggest this may not be the case,...". I'd also include a cite for the relavent papers on non-anapsid turtles. Reviewer: Dinoguy2 18:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents 1 Third eye? 2 Cryptic? 3 breeding at southland museum 4 Do they produce sound? 5 Confusing text 6 This Article Is Duplicated at paleorama.com 7 Table needed 8 Removed sentences 9 General comments and suggestions 10 Zoos that keep tuatara 11 IMPORTANT: Coins 12 Hatteria, another name 13 Scientific jargon 14 Problem Areas 15 Tuatara=living fossils 16 Classified as endangered since... 1895? 17 Taxonomy 18 Nitpicky taxobox business

[edit] 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

[edit] 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)

[edit] breeding at southland museum

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

[edit] Do they produce sound?

Does the tuatara have a voice or any sound producing organs?

[edit] Confusing text

From Classification:

Together with Squamata (which is its sister group), the tuatara belongs to the group Lepidosauria, the only survivor of Lepidosauromorpha. Its origin probably lies close to the split between the Lepidosauromorpha and the Archosauromorpha, making it the closest living thing we can find to a "proto-reptile".

1. Saying it is the 'only survivor' is nonsensical considering the Lepidosauria also includes snakes and lizards (numerous species).
2. No extant reptile is any more like a "proto-reptile" than any other, they have all evolved their own distinctions in different ways, the Tuatara just as much as any (as in e.g. its temperature tolerance cited in the article). - MPF 10:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 Wikipedia:Mirrors_and_forks/Pqr#Paleorama.com for futher actions. --Donar Reiskoffer 12:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table needed

This article needs a table showing which of the tuatara's features are believed to be the ancestral within which taxonomic group, e.g.

Uncinate process	Diapsids
Gastric ribs	Diapsids
Parietal eye	Vertebrates

Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed sentences

The tuatara's limbs are well-muscled, have sharp claws and partially webbed feet, and it can swim well. The tuatara usually doesn't chase its prey; instead it just sits and waits until a suitable prey passes by.

The tuatara has no external copulatory organs, and is like caecilians and most birds in transferring the sperm by partially extruding the rear part of its cloaca. It is still not clear if the tuatara evolved from reptiles which never had a penis from the start or if the ancestor of the Lepidosauria lost it at some point during evolution.

Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] General comments and suggestions

I just took a quick look over the article. I think that there's good information here, but think that the overall organization and flow need work. Flow/organization issues are common on Wikipedia, but I wonder if taxon-based articles shouldn't adopt some standard organizational scheme. WikiSpecies has an outline they suggest (or require?) that might be helpful (or not, I don't really remember). Here's my specific issues:

1. I don't think the intro is adequate. I think it would be important to describe them as lizard-like, and mention that there are only two species. Maybe that they're a "living fossil?" I'd make these specific comments myself, but think that the intro needs work beyond this.
2. I'm not sure that the Taxonomy section should go first. For a general reader, the general description might be more interesting than the taxonomy to start off with. While I like the Taxonomy section, I'm concerned jumping right into the differences between Lepidosauromorpha and Archosauromorpha might scare away those without a background in zoology. I suggest starting with the general description then going into natural history (reproduction and ecology).
3. I have serious questions about the factual accuracy of the "third eye" buisiness. Parietal eyes are in no way "famous." I'm not sure that the parietal eye is actually a vestigial real eye; this needs a reference. The parietal eye is NOT similar to a real eye, as it is difficult to even notice (and then only noticable in hatchlings???). This whole section needs a thorough fact check, and maybe an image, if available. I would NOT suggest the parietal eye article as a source, as the information content here seems even less reliable.
4. I think there could be some more information on general natural history. Tuataras live in close assocaition with seabirds, inhabiting seabird burrows (and often eating their eggs and chicks). There's little info on diet (and what there is is in the "skull" section.) And tuataras can live 50+ years. That's pretty cool and worth mentioning.
5. I would suggest "Natural history" instead of "Ecology and behavior", and I think Reproduction could be a sub-section of this section.

Hope that my comments are helpful and constructive. It's looking good so far, good luck!Pstevendactylus 16:39, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zoos that keep tuatara

Cut out of the article for space reasons:

• Tuatara breeding at Southland Museum and Art Gallery. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Auckland Zoo conservation projects. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Hamilton Zoo Tuatara breeding. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Wellington Zoo Tuatara factsheet. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at Victoria University, Wellington. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at Pukaha Mount Bruce. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• WildNZ Trust Projects at Ruawai, includes tuatara enclosure. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at Chester Zoo. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at San Diego Zoo. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at Saint Louis Zoo. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.
• Tuatara at Natureland Zoo, Nelson, NZ. Retrieved on 2006-02-28.

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

[edit] IMPORTANT: Coins

Please take note of the license issues in using pictures of New Zealand currency, as discussed in the peer review and this template. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cool, didn't realise. --Midnighttonight 02:36, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific jargon

The physical description section of this article is far too complicated. I have tried to simplify it, but gave up after a while as I didn't understand a lot of it myself. Mostly, it is in the sensory organs and spine and ribs section, but the skull also had something I didn't like (the skull problems have inline comments). --liquidGhoul 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that the level of detail presented goes a bit beyond what is needed for an encyclopedia article.--Peta 02:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the info which seperates them from the rest of the reptiles is relevant, it just needs to be better expressed. Probably by removing some of it. --liquidGhoul 02:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

There was an idea at one stage of having a table or even phylogram showing which features are shared with which groups, and which are unique. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problem Areas

There are a few areas of the article which need some collaboration. Most of it is jargon, of which I can't understand or I don't know how to simplify. Or if we even need to simplify. The rest is just some random things, I will state what is wrong with each bit.

Squamates and tuataras both show caudal autotomy (loss of the tail-tip when threatened) and have a transverse cloacal slit.

Is the highlighted section neccesary, and if so how can it be simplified?

The typical lizard shape is very common for the early amniotes; the oldest known fossil of a reptile resembles a modern lizard.

I removed the duplicate sentence of this in the next paragraph, but it contained a name. Is the earliest fossil reptile a Homeosaurus?

I have resolved this, it is the Hylonomus. --13:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

In tuataras, both eyes can accommodate independently ,

What the hell does that mean?

It is a part of the epithalamus, which can be divided into two major parts; the epiphysis (the pineal organ, or pineal gland if mostly endocrine) and the parietal organ, often called the parietal eye, or third eye, if photoreceptive. It arises as an anterior evagination of the pineal organ or as a separate outgrowth of the roof of the diencephalon. In the tuatara the parietal eye is similar to an actual eye, even if it is rudimentary. The organ is the remnant of a real eye inherited from some very ancient and remote ancestor.

The red section is too complicated, and the green section is too simple. I don't know whether the eye was functional in the ancestor, and it has degenerated during its evolution or what. It needs to be expanded, but my sources don't speak of its evolution.

The stapes comes into contact with the quadrate (which is immovable) as well as the hyoid and squamosal. The hair cells are unspecialized, innervated by both afferent and efferent nerve fibres

I don't really think either of the red sections are neccesary for an encyclopaedia, but I would like to explain how they are unspecialised. Again, I don't understand the text, so I can't really help.

The tuatara spine is made up of hour-glass shaped amphicoelous vertebrae, concabe both before and behind.

Could we just say that its vertebrae is similar shape to fish and amphibians, and is unique among the amniotes without mentioning the exact shape?

The real ribs are remarkable too, as small projections, pointing and hooked little bones, are found posterior of each rib (uncinate processes, also seen in birds). The only remaining tetrapod with both well developed gastralia and uncinate processes is the tuatara. Crocodilia have only small and rudimentary cartilaginous remnants of the uncinate processes.

I have tried really hard to simplify and clean this up, but it is really hard. I will have another go at it with a fresh head, but I am putting it up here if anyone is really keen.

The last paragraph of "Spine and ribs" talks about the general evolution of amniotes, and doesn't even mention tuatara. I suggest completely removing this paragraph.

They can maintain normal activities at temperatures as low as 7° C, but prefer temperatures of 16–21° C, the lowest optimal body temperature of any reptile; temperatures over 28° C are generally fatal.

This sentence is too long and segmented, but I cannot find a way to fix it.

This just required a clear head. --liquidGhoul 13:57, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Finally, can we use common names for the species, and can we have them capitalised to go with the rest of the herpetology featured articles? Thanks --liquidGhoul 05:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that most of these passages are necessary to show the notability of the genus/order/etc. but could be phrased more descriptively. In some cases, only a graphical illustration will help (e.g. stape/hyoid/squamosal/quadrate). - Samsara (talk • contribs) 09:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

So an illustration showing the differences between say a lizard and tuatara? --liquidGhoul 10:25, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've striked out the things you have dealt with. Thanks Samsara. --liquidGhoul 10:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and with arrows indicating the names of bones. It will probably take some digging in libraries to find a source for such a drawing of the tuatara skull. Alternatively, one could try a natural history museum - they may have one on display. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Do you live near the British Museum or Natural History Museum? My local museums are crap, yours are the best in the world :(. --liquidGhoul 11:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 ([1]), though. Note also [2], 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...? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Classified as endangered since... 1895?

Is that correct? There was such a thing 111 years ago? Is it possible that 1895 was a typo and that 1995 was meant? Hi There 16:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taxonomy

This is a really troublesome passage:

[Albert Günther] proposed the order Rhynchocephalia (meaning "beak head") for the tuatara and its fossil relatives.

During the years since the inception of the Rhynchocephalia, many disparately related species have been added to this order. This has resulted in turning the rhynchocephalia into what taxonomists call a "wastebin taxon". Sphenodontia was proposed by Williston in 1925. Now, most authors prefer to use the more inclusive order name of Sphenodontia for the tuatara and its closest living relatives.

So the way I read this is, the order Rhynchocephalia became a wastebin taxon into which putatively close extinct relatives of the tuatara were thrown. Williston was dissatisfied with the wastebin taxon and made a new taxonomic order, Sphenodontia. However, that would mean that Sphenodontia are a more exclusive order, rather than inclusive, as the text suggests. However, it may also be possible that the two orders over time came to be synonymously used, from my reading between the lines in the reptile encyclopaedia reference. We really need some more evidence (i.e. dead trees) to resolve this passage. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that most modern taxonomists either use one or the other to refer to the order. However, a few (outdated?) sources found via quick Google search seem to use Rhynchcephalia as an order and Sphenodontida as a suborder. For example this site [3], which cites (Olmo and Odierna, 1982) as its source. Either way, the text should in fact read more exclusive rather than inclusive.Dinoguy2 22:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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 [4] 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)