Talk:Biodiversity of New Zealand

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag Biodiversity of New Zealand is part of WikiProject New Zealand, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
To-do list for Biodiversity of New Zealand: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:
  • Expand:
    • More on fungi and microbial diversity
Priority 4  

Contents

[edit] Renaming

This is a great article, I was thinking that it might be better renamed to Natural history of New Zealand, any concerns or objections? --nixie 07:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I can't say I've met a scientist these days that would talk about Natural history. It sounds kind of, well, Victorian. I'd rather it didn't change but if you do make sure you change Biodiversity of New Caledonia too, and let me know cause I am planning still more articles along those lines. Sabine's Sunbird 15:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm plannning to write one for Australia, and although Natural Hisotry is a archaic term, it covers geology, ecology, botany and zoology pretty well. If you've got a better idea, I'd like to know since natural hitory was the best I could think of.--nixie 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
      • My articles were more specifically about the diversity and origin thereof. I was more interested in the biogeographical history, evolution (in broad strokes) of the faunal and floral communities, and such (and any geological descriptions within were simply to explain biogeopgraphical history). But if the article evolves into a broader ecology, zoology, botany, geology I guess it might outgrow the title (though I have grave reservations about mixing geology and geography into the mix). See what other people think, I guess. And let me know when you make the article on Australia, I'd love to contribute. Sabine's Sunbird 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer leaving it as it is, although Biota of New Zealand (which I've just redirected) may be better. We need a standard way of naming these articles. Flora and fauna is terrible, because it limits the article to two phylogenetic groups of organisms, while biodiversity isn't so bad, but biota is probably more accurate. Regarding content, natural history broadens the scope too much, though we do need more/better articles on other aspects of the country's natural history, including geological history. Richard001 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Biota of New Zealand sounds good to me. I came to the Talk page to see if there was any discussion about a change because it seems odd to me to put the focus on one aspect of the biota, ie, its diversity. Natural history of New Zealand would be a good name for an article, but not this article. There would be a place for a new, broader article similar to Natural history of Australia. Nurg 07:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New finding of ancient mammal fossils in NZ

The article currently has this sentence: "No mammals, other than bats and marine mammals, reached New Zealand before humans did." That will have to be revised in light of findings of mammal fossils that date from the period 19-16 million years ago. [1]. --Mathew5000 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Yup, looks like it. And, also, WOW! That is very cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Snakes and crocodiles

It looks like there was a report at the 2002 International Palaeontological Congress of snake and crocodile fossils having been found in New Zealand, dating to 18-14 million years ago. However, I can't find anywhere this was written up, in a peer-reviewed journal. References: [2] [3] [4] [5] --Mathew5000 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are these peer reviewed

  • Molnar RE, Pole M. 1997 "A Miocene crocodilian from New Zealand" in Alcheringa [0311-5518] vol:21 iss:1-2 pg:65-70

Nurg 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Missing/inconsistent information between the New Zealand article and this one

The biodiversity section of the New Zealand article appears to contain some additional information not in this article. Additionally, I think the yellow-eyed penguin and, possibly, the white-tailed spider should be mentioned in this article (but possibly under the New Zealand biodiversity section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Commercial photos

I reverted the inclusion of an external link to what appears to be a commercial site - the photos are for sale. Kahuroa (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)