Talk:Echidna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Picture
A picture would be nice. (Kwaku)
The Monotreme page lists Zaglossus bartoni as another living species of Echidna. Could someone more knowledgable than I either add them here, or delete them there? GTBacchus 01:07, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
When does Knuckles ever dig? He climbs and glides, but I've never seen him dig...
Yeah he does, like in sonic battle advance. ~ fran
[edit] Dispute Distribution Description
Currently the article says: The echidna's distribution across Australia is the largest of any mammal (Parker, Janet 'Echidna Love Trains').
However I question the validity of this statement, the marsupial family of Kangaroo are also distributed across the mainland, New Guinea (Papua), and Tasmania.211.30.95.182 03:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
- most kangaoo species have a limited distribution, no one kangaroo species is found everywhere in Australia.--nixie 04:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] News story from MSNBC?
In case you haven't heard, there's a new MSNBC story that talks about an group of scientists who explored the Foja mountains in Indonesia, and found an abundance of animals. Some are new species, some are species of animals that are rare or endangered - the article specifically mentions the Long-beaked Echidna.
Here's the link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11114156 It should be safe to assume that a reference to this article or event will be added to this page sometime in the future, correct? I'd edit it myself, but I'm not really an expert on the subject, article, or story, so I'd be uncomfortable making such an addition.
PS: I made one minor edit... Knuckles the Echidna can only glide, not fly. ;) ---TheInvisMan, 03:05 PM EST, Feb. 07, 2006
- The article doesn't say that they found a new species of Long-beak, all its says is that the Long-beaks weren't afraid of people. If there is a new species announced then it'll get added when it is publihed.--nixie 00:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yo how do you pronounce it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.166.130.80 (talk • contribs) .
[edit] PBS Newshour
I was watching the newshour on PBS the other night and the explorers from the new guinea exploration team said they had found a new species of monotreme. They called it a giant echidna and said it weighed around 15 lbs. I have done some research on this though and the giant echidna is listed as an extinct species. So is this a new species or a "living fossil"? If anyone finds more info I would appreciate them if they would say something. I will do what research I can find and add it as I get it.208.65.105.38 03:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Oops I wasn't signed in when I made the above post.L337wm2007 03:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
- Good question. Can you dig up if they called it by a scientific name at all? They might have just been saying it was a giant echidna - a very large echidna - as opposed to calling it the Giant Echidna. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:49, 15 March
2006 (UTC)
So here it is I found the official transcript of this particular PBS program. I decided to just copy paste as I am still a little unsure on my ability to make links. I really hope this isn't plagerism.
JEFFREY BROWN: Then there is also was a very strange-looking animal called a giant echidna?
BRUCE BEEHLER: Yes.
Some people call them spiny anteaters. The echidna group is part of an ancient group of mammals called the monotremes. There are only -- there are somewhere between five and six species. They are egg-laying mammals. They are the only mammals on Earth that lay eggs.
And they have all sorts of other weird habits. This -- this little guy -- well, he is not so little -- he weighs about 15 pounds -- creeps around on the ground. Using his long beak, he -- he pokes into the soft earth to gather up earthworms. And he also burrows in the ground when he seems -- he gets fearful of predators or things like that. And he has got -- but he also has these porcupine-like spines all over his back. He's a weird one. There's no question about it.
So in reply he used no scientific name... I didn't think he did so 1. No scientific name yet or 2. It's just not in this info.L337wm2007 04:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- Check the Western Long-beaked Echidna... it weighs in at 16.5 kg... that's about 36 pounds. So the critter he's discussing isn't so big. Just cut and paste the web address for the transcript and I'll look it over. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/science/jan-june06/lostworld_3-10.html here it is hope it helps :)L337wm2007 14:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
- Ah ha! If you click on the Slide Show, then go to image # 7, you'll see that the image is the same as the one inthe article and they label it s Z. bruijni, which is the Western Long-beaked Echidna, not a new species. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
well don't I feel a little silly.... thanks for the help though I will tell my zoology class.L337wm2007 02:37, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] spiny anteater
This term is increasingly rare in the land of the echidna (Australia), it is valuable to have it included, but I do not think that the name ought not be seen as interchangable.
If you ask about spiny anteaters you are likely to hear 'what? Oh, you mean echidnas.'—Dananimal 05:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually a lot of people seem to either think that the spiny anteater is an entirely different species or they have it completely wrong (isn't that a porcupine?) it should be included just for reference sake.L337wm2007 18:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
- Can you provide some citation for the porcupines being called spiny anteaters? - UtherSRG (talk) 18:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Well actually I have never seen someone write it, but I have had several people ask me this sadly enough. I have also had many people not believe me when I corrected them. L337wm2007 15:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
The things some say about animals... *Sigh* I don't know why, but I always get sort of angry when I hear inaccuracies about animals. Dora Nichov 07:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Intro
I think the intro is quite dull and overly biological, and would like to add a reference to Knuckles the Echidna to make it a little more interesting -- but that seems to offend many people, who revert that edit almost instantly. I fail to see how it's any less relevant than the name's origins in Greek mythology, though, or indeed many other boring things in that cluttered intro. I mean, he is surely the only famous echidna. 81.170.11.105 19:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I can see what you mean, if you are not interested in biology. So, what if someone would look for information about Knuckles, where would they look here at wikipedia? I think either here: Knuckles the Echidna or here Knuckles. What people do you expect to show up here? And I would think people interesed in the species of this genus, not so direct in Knuckles the Echidna because they would look at the other places. And for that reason, I would think Knuckles the Echidna does not belong in the introduction. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:50, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] New photo?
I found this photo on the most recent article from a different language, should it replace the current taxobox image? The colours are better, but I am unsure of detail. --liquidGhoul 02:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
- The current one shows face and feet better, we should keep it. There's already an image from the side in the article. Femto 11:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
-
- Yeah, that's what I was leaning towards, but it is a nice photo. --liquidGhoul 12:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pokemon Reference?
I wish to ask your opinions about this:
The Pokemon Cyndaquil, bears a resemblance to the echidna, as well as having a similar-sounding name.
It could just be the sleep deprivation talking, but can anyone explain to me how "Cyndaquil" sounds anything, even remotely, like "echidna"?
Not a major concern, just something I thought of when I read the article. 58.106.209.10 06:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
- I just edited that part out. -iopq 09:03, 18 January 2007 (UTC)