Talk:Gila Monster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gila Monster is currently a good article nominee. Anyone who has not contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article, as outlined on the nominations page. To start the review process, follow this link to create a dedicated subpage for the review. (If you have already done this, and the template has not changed, try purging this talk page.) Date: 00:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

	Amphibians and Reptiles Portal Gila Monster 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.
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

How much does a Gila monster wiegh, there ae refrences tat they can cosume up to 50% their body wieght, but no mention as to what that wieght is. (keg233)

Does the Gila monster have some ability to change the colours of its scales to avoid detection, something like (but less than) a chameleon? --Robert Merkel 12:17, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What *does* it eat?

in the movie it eats people but something tells me that's not true in real life. (yes I am helpful) Hostile Hams 21:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they change color, but I've heard the scales have bones inside them, rather like a shark's denticles or an ankylosaur's armor.. if that's true, what are they called? osseoderms?

Contents 1 BBC cite this article 2 Usage of MS Encarta material 3 How many venomous lizard species are there? 4 My daughter says that the gilamonster does not defecate; she says it instead uses this as poison. Can this be true? KR 5 What is the Gila monsters natural enemies? 6 Second image size?

[edit] BBC cite this article

Here. Andy Mabbett 10:26, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Can Gila monsters be found in Austraila (please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, please say yes, PLEASE SAY YES!!!!!!!!) --Wack'd About Wiki 17:42, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Only in captive collections. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Usage of MS Encarta material

As of this version of this article, there was a reference stating ""Gila Monster," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 2000. ⓒ 1993-1999 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.", and with the following version ([1]) the comment "Edited by Jihoon Baek" was added. I removed both and rephrased (see my diff: [2]) the sentence which was apparently added together with said reference to Encarta to avoid possible copyright issues (which, arguably, would not have been too big a problem with just one sentence).
--Florian Prischl 17:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many venomous lizard species are there?

This page says; The Gila monster (Heloderma suspectum) is one of the two known species of venomous lizards. (The other is the Mexican beaded lizard.)

Komodo dragon says Komodo dragon is venomous, with up to 200 milligrams of venom ready for delivery at any given time; it is a member of a venom clade with many other lizards as well as snakes.

So, which article is right?

As far as I'm aware, the Komodo Dragon doesn't have venom, rather it kills its prey using a bacterial infection.--Victim Of Fate 16:56, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

In recent research Dr. Brian Fry isolated certain proteins in komodo saliva which are also found in many venomous snake species, but that is not its primary method of action. Other lizards have been found to have the same proteins in their saliva, including the commonly kept as a pet, bearded dragon, but they're not considered to be venomous. Though, in the broadest sense of the term 'venom', the komodo's saliva and its virulency could be could be considered so, there is nothing in the definition of the word that specifies what it must consist of, just that it is a toxin. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

There's other species of venemous lizards? I knew Komodo Dragon was.... --e. 23:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

--There are only 2 venomous lizards in the world. You are right, the Mexican beaded lizard and the gila monster are the only 2. The dragon has nothing to do with venom, but it does have a relative bite. Not even crocodiles or alligators have venom. 200 milligrams of venom is even more false. So therefore, the Komodo dragon is definitly wrong and the false information should be removed immediatly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZooFari (talk • contribs) 17:36, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, no. Certain proteins found in various types of venom have been isolated in the saliva of many lizard species (and snake species otherwise considered completely non-venomous). Individual proteins do not necessarily make a lizard venomous, those proteins by themselves may not even perform any significant function. It just means that saliva production, and the evolution of venom is much more complicated than was once thought and a LOT more research is needed to find out exactly what all the components do, exactly, and how they work together to produce their effect. -Dawson 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My daughter says that the gilamonster does not defecate; she says it instead uses this as poison. Can this be true? KR

They defecate. Their venom is modified saliva produced in a gland in their lower jaw. -Dawson 21:20, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the Gila monsters natural enemies?

I have looked every place and can't find anything stating what the natural enemies of the Gila monster are, anybody have the answer?

[edit] Second image size?

Editor User:Arpingstone reduced this image size to the default thumbnail (180px). Unfortunately, this image is a bit dark and low-contrast,and at the default size is almost unusable. The original photo is quite nice -- see Image:GilaMonster.jpg , and it shows up well at the same size as the first image on the page. Thus I feel this photo "calls for a specific image width to enhance the readability", as specified in WP:MOS#Images. Pete Tillman (talk) 19:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought the thumbnail was a small pic that could be clicked so that the reader could enjoy a larger pic? So why shouldn't the pic in the article be at default size and interested readers can readily click on it to get a larger one? I have 300 px set up in my Prefs so that pic looked fine to me. If a size had been "hard-wired" into the code, say 300px, then it might be too large for lores screens. As you know, it's WP policy to usually remove px values and this doesn't seem a special case. Having said all that, I'm not bothered if a special px value is put in, but make a comment in the code that there's a reason or editors will keep removing the px value! - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 08:17, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment -- advice taken. Pete Tillman (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I've found a much better picture on Commons so the above discussion is now (hopefully) redundant - Adrian Pingstone (talk) 21:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)