Talk:Komodo dragon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Komodo dragon article.
Article policies
Featured article star Komodo dragon is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Maintained The following user(s) are actively contributing to this article and may be able to help with questions about verification and sources:
bibliomaniac15 (talk · contribs)
This in no way implies article ownership; all editors are encouraged to contribute.
To-do: edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

    Contents

    [edit] Weight

    ...weighing between 80 and 140 kg (40 to 310 lb). 80kg is not 40lbs, maybe the two numbers should be reversed?

    Thanks. It was my mistake. The 80 kg was there, and there was only a conversion of the upper limit. I added the lower limit, and I not sure where I went astray. I don't know how accurate the numbers are, and obviously this must refer to mature adults. But anyway, I've changed the lower limit to0 175 lb now. I'm glad you spotted that. Gene Nygaard 23:40, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

    Made a minor grammatical correction. Removed an unneccesary "the". Toroca 17:03, 26 October 2005 (UTC) in fact this numbers are inaccurate, the fattest komodo-dragon with empty stomach was only about 60kg in weight, although they can be much heavier when they have eaten. Furthermore weights of 80-140kg are far away realitiy.

    clean it up!

    —Pengo 23:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

    Did my best to edit & clean as noted. Added the university of melbourne link at the bottom. Good enough?
    Thank you muchly, anonymous person at the 59.167.31.237 address. —Pengo 10:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    [edit] Some unidentified claim

    Some unidentified individuals have argued that komodo dragons have keen senses and are among the most intelligent of living reptiles.

    What is this exactly? Is it local folklore or somesuch, or just a random claim? If there's no better source, it probably shouldn't be in the introductory paragraph. --Lorkki 13:26, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

    I listened to the podcast which was from the Australian Broadcasting Company and they interviewed the person who discovered that the Komodo Dragon is venomous. The man pointed out that no bacteria can act fast enough to cause the almost immediate symptoms experienced by a human when bitten on the finger by a Komodo Dragon. I'm no expert but think the logic is good and always have been a bit suspicious of bacteria being the killing agent. I never found a good answer to just what bacteria was at work. I have no idea how to edit a Wikipedia page but pass this on to anybody that does. I am sure, if you have an iPod you can find the podcast of interest under the Science category.

    Tom Roach tbroach@gmail.com''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

    Yes, I heard Fry talk about that and I read the data from that paper. The data on bacteria is actually excellent, the bacteria have been cultured, and the death of animals/humans bitten between a few days and a week later is typical of septic shock. The case of venom is solely based on a genetics doctor (not a medical doctor) looking at a single patient bitten by a Komodo Dragon in Sydney, who said something like "that looks like poison". Since the claim was not published as a verified account and was not by a medical doctor, and was from a single patient (who could have had an allergic reaction), it is really speculation (but interesting speculation, which may be verified later), so I rewrote it as such. Sad mouse 00:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    Its not just speculation though, there's move evidence than you let on. The paper is cited on the wiki article. Why don't you read it? Or am I the one who is missing something? Kimbits - 3 March 2007

    Fry has hinted at more evidence but it has not been published yet as far as I know. What we do have is a good bit of evidence pointing at venom in Varanus varius, and the speculation that this will extend to other members of the genus. Not enough to be certain that they have venom but enough to mention in the way it currently is in the article. And actually I think Fry is a biochemist not a geneticist...and when he said in the article he was a consultant in 3 cases of bites I think consultant was a euphemism for "bitee". Jvbishop 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] What Komodo Dragons eat.

    "I think that Komodo Dragons should not eat horses.You may think that I am a freaky,DON'T EAT MEAT!,girlssss but I'm really not.I am a vet so I know that it is part of the life cycle,but horses should not have to die for the sake of Komodo Dragons.I know what most of you may say that I am crazy,but trust me I'm not.I just think that if horses are slan for the sake of Komodo Dragons that all HELL!will break lose.So think about what I am saying and comment for me.PLEASE!"

    64.250.195.33 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

    Why should Horses be any more special than any other animal? Dragons need to eat, and if we're going to feed them, better a common animal than a more rare one. Would you rather the endangered species be forced to eat EACH OTHER? Dragons are an endangered species, and it's not like the Horses are in danger of extinction themselves. And I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure the Dragons kill the Horses themselves. Circle of Life, creatures have to eat. Especially something as rare and beautiful as a Komodo Dragon.
    Actually, the Komodo dragon bites its prey, and lets the bacteria in its salivia finish it off. The Komodo dragon prefers decaying flesh. But you're right - we have way too many people in this world, and the komodo dragon needs to eat. I like the way you think. Raul654 01:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

    Well, the Komodo dragons kill horses themselves, silly! They need to eat! And would you rather protect an endangered Komodo dragon or a non-endangered horse? Dora Nichov 09:35, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

    An even better idea - feed murderers to komodo dragons. It will make prisons safer and more spacious, marginally reduce the worlds human population and keep one of the best reptiles in the world alive. Win-win. 24.77.19.12 (talk) 23:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
    It would probably be a bad idea to feed murderers to Komodo dragons, as it would be inadvisable to develop a taste for humans in a large dangerous animal. It isn't like they would be able to distinguish between a worthy and unworthy meal. Sabine's Sunbird talk 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Varanus komodoensis

    That is the scientific name of the Komodo Dragon.Most of the common names for it is Ora,Komodo Dragon,and buaja darat.To most people it means nothing.To me it means the name of a animal so exotic it hurts to insult it or hear someone insult it.The most thing I can say is that the Ora's are very fun to research.Tell me what you think of them. 64.250.195.33 20:30, 30 January 2006

    Bold text P.S. woow its amazing how there is real dragons i thought it was only in fairy tales! =) it would be great if more people put other types of dragons that DO exsist!! kk thanx

    Komodo dragons aren't dragons either, they are just big lizards. Dora Nichov 11:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Common name

    Could people please stop moving this page back and forth from Komodo dragon & Komodo Dragon. I mean, ffs, does it really matter? There are so many more much more important things that need editor's time on wikipedia. The pettiness and ultimately irrelevance of it all is reflected in this section of the Manual of style which says either can be used. Let's use some common sense. --Merbabu 22:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

    What is that supposed to mean; I do not understand. Why are there Canadian geese, Arctic wolves and Eurasian badgers, but Komodo Dragons? How can it be either? Being incorrect by concensus does not make it correct? DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:25, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Komodo Island Monitor?

    Who changed the name? Shouldn't we stay with Komodo dragon as a name, since it's more common of a name? bibliomaniac15 00:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    Right. Dora Nichov 09:01, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Komodo dragon parthenogenesis

    This is interesting. Perhaps worthy adding? 1

    It has been added I see.

    My comment is, news reports state the offspring of this parthenogenesis must be male. Please explain the Sex-determination system (obviously not XY) that produces this outcome.

    Parthenogenetic offspring will be genetically identical to their mother, barring mutations, because all of their genetic material is indeed derived from their mother. However, gender determination is not at all as clear-cut in the rest of the animal kingdom as it is within the human species.
    For example, the egg (not the sperm) carries the determinating factor of offspring gender in birds; it is for this reason that avian autosomes are referred to by W and Z, as opposed to X and Y as they are mammals.
    In bees, females are produced from fertilized eggs, while males are produced from unfertilized eggs. This is achieved through a gender determination system whereby females are diploid and males are haploid. Because parthenogenesis occurs with unfertilized eggs, the egg cell (ovum) remains in its haploid state (one of each chromosome, rather than two homologous pairs of each chromosome) and undergoes mitosis to form a haploid embryo. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] some recent edits

    i cleaned up a good bit of bad grammar, noun/verb disagreement (still more to go there), tons of redundant info, and the like, and added/replaced/corrected many wiki links.

    cheers! Metanoid 12:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

    For new data going into the article, please remember to use metric weights/distances first and imperial weights/distances second. Sad mouse 17:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

    Sorry about that. I'm accustomed to the customary system (being a Yank) :). bibliomaniac15 22:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] ICUN

    I cleaned up the ICUN image to reflect the recent 3.1 system instead of the phased out older system. If someone disagrees, feel free to revert. 209.6.251.147 03:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Capitalization

    Would the most interested party please run through and uncapitalize the word "dragon;" there is no reason for it to be capitalized. DRosenbach (Talk | Contribs) 23:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


    [edit] Locations

    [ - I didn't see Thailand listed as a place the Komodo inhabits, but I just returned from a trip there and saw two of them during a cannal cruise.]

    [edit] Discovery

    Surely it would be possible for this section to be expanded beyond the current 4-sentence section-stub. — Red XIV (talk) 19:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

    I have seen them in the small oil camp of duri on the island of sumatra indonesia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.218.156 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Bob & Ray routine?

    Does anybody else think this article should include at least a brief mention of the famous "Komodo dragon expert" sketch from the comedy team of Bob Elliott and Ray Goulding? - Mdumas43073 07:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Australia

    I rekon if a few breeding dragons were released in Australia that they'd flourish and eventually out number dragons from their native locations. TeePee-20.7 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    I reckon if a few pairs of breeding rabbits were released in Australia, they'd flourish and overrun the local environment. Introducing species without previous research or investigation to another place is a very bad thing. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 21:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
    Given that there were, prior to the arrival of humans, monitor lizards larger than Komodos, it could be argued that it would simply be reintroduction of sorts. The native Perentie is the third largest lizard also. But Biblomaniac is right about research. Sabine's Sunbird talk 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    Yeh I know bibliomaiac, but yeh Australia has pefect conditions and if they were ever in risk of extinction, I think scientists should consider have a controlled population releases and monitored here. Besides we already have an abundance of feral herbivores living here that I think kmodos could help in wiping out. TeePee-20.7 14:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

    Feral herbivores are not the only thing that lives in Australia. What about the indigenous wildlife? You cannot expect a whole forest to have its inhabitants displaced and replaced only with Komodo dragons. In addition, the perentie is a desert animal, while the Komodo dragon is not. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 00:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Komodo Dragon vs. Komodo dragon

    I notice Bibliomaniac15 has reversed my change of the capitalisation of common names on this page in spite of correspondence between us. As I said to him previously, either is acceptable, but I believe there are a number of reasons for choosing to capitalise the inital letter of each major part of the common name.

    There is no hard and fast rule for most animals - there is no standard convention for common names, as there is for scientific names. But it has been the common convention with bird names for many years to capitalise the first letter of each major part of the common name - hence Bald Eagle, Common Crow, Black Swan. See, for example, the notes at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Animals and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:BIRD#Bird_names_and_article_titles.

    This general rule - for some reason - has not always been applied to other orders of animals - I am not sure why.

    However, the capitalising of common English names is becoming much more widely used, and so you will frequently see names written like: "Sign-bearing Froglet" (rather than "Sign-bearing froglet") and "Ornate Soil-crevice Skink" (rather than "Ornate Soil-crevice skink"), Alpine Cool-skink (rather than Alpine cool-skink) or Curl Snake (rather than Curl snake). None of these forms is "incorrect", but it is certainly becoming more standard to capitalise all major parts of the name.

    There are good reasons for this. First, proper names are almost always capitalised in English. Secondly, it clearly shows that the last part of the name is separate from the first and to some degree classificatory - thus, Froglet, Snake, Monitor, Crow, Eagle, etc. In the case of the Komodo Dragon I think it usefully emphasises that we are not talking about some other sort of "dragon" (perhaps raising thoughts of dragons in mythology), and that it is a shortened form of the name of a real animal. For similar reasons, I think Tasmanian Devil is far preferable to Tasmanian devil, as the latter does not make it clear that it is a proper name and someone could easily think one was referring to some devil in Tasmania.

    Finally, I think it is best to stick with one convention to improve consistency and prevent confusion and I don't see why the convention should be limited to birds.

    I would appreciate other readers' comments on my suggestion. John Hill 01:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    Yes, it is important to follow convention, but more importantly, the common usage should be followed. In biological studies and books, they are referred to as the Komodo dragon, with the "d" uncapitalized. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    REPLY

    I don't want to get in an argument about this but it depends what biological studies and books you look in, and I think you will find that more and more frequently both parts of the names are capitalised. I don't have a modern work mentioning the Komodo Dragon itself, but I do have two recent books here on Australian animals (that have all the common names capitalised so that you get Earless Dragon, Two-line Dragon, Lashtail Dragon, Bearded Dragon, Lace Monitor, etc., etc., etc. At the moment Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any recommendations on a style for such names so we end up with a real mess. For example, in this one article on the Komodo Dragon you get "Komodo Dragon," "Komodo dragon," "Dragon," and "dragon" all referring to the same species.
    I have just checked on Amazon.com and the following books use "Komodo Dragon" - not "Komodo dragon": Komodo, the Living Dragon: The Living Dragon (1996) by Richard L. Lutz (Author), J. Marie Lutz (Author); Komodo Dragons (2006) (Bridgestone Books, World of Reptiles) (Library Binding)by Jason Glaser (Author); and others.
    A quick look for scientific papers using the capitalisation that I recommend turned up: "Genetic Divergence and Units for Conservation in the Komodo Dragon Varanus komodoensis." Claudio Ciofi, Mark A. Beaumont, Ian R. Swingland, Michael W. Bruford. Proceedings: Biological Sciences, Vol. 266, No. 1435 (Nov. 22, 1999), pp. 2269-2274; "Mitochondrial Genome of the Komodo Dragon: Efficient Sequencing Method with Reptile-Oriented Primers and Novel Gene Rearrangements." Yoshinori Kumazawa1,* and Hideki Endo21Division of Material Science, Graduate School of Science, Nagoya University Furo-cho, Chikusa-ku, Nagoya 464-8602, Japan; "At the feet of the dinosaurs: the early history and radiation of lizards." SUSAN E. EVANS. Department of Anatomy & Developmental Biology, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, England, UK, and so on and on. Now, I admit others do use "Komodo dragon" - but I do think this is less preferable because of the lack of clarity and the possibility of confusion.
    Whatever the case, there is clearly an urgent need for some consistent guidelines for the Wikipedia so I have, accordingly, left a message asking for others' opinions at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life‎. I strongly support the position of captitalising all the major parts of the name (unless hyphenated) as this is now the most common way of writing them and obviously the clearest and least likely to cause confusion (think "Tasmanian Devil" - which is obviously a proper name, rather than "Tasmanian devil," which is not obviously a proper name - and could equally refer to something quite different than the animal). I would also be grateful if anyone would to comment here. Cheers, John Hill 04:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    There is a very simple problem to the books you've cited. You have only cited the titles. Following the guidelines for book titles, of course the "dragon" part would be capitalized. If you actually looked inside the books (for example KOMODO DRAGONS (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series)), they all use the uncapitalized form. Guidelines are guidelines, they aren't set in stone. Whatever the case, we must use the most commonly used name. bibliomaniac15 05:35, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    Addendum. In addition, I don't see how clarity is affected in the article. The context is already established as the Komodo dragon, not the Chinese dragon, the European dragon, or any other dragon. Thus, if we give a statement such as: "Dragons are carnivorous and eat a wide variety of animals" in the article, it would be quite obvious, looking at the context, that we are referring to the Komodo dragon and not a mythological dragon. If this statement was standing by itself, it would definitely need disambiguation. But since the context has already been established, it is already clear that references to a "dragon" in the article would refer to the Komodo dragon unless specified. bibliomaniac15 05:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Reply to Bibliomaniac

    Well, this does, unfortunately, seem to be developing into an argument, as what you have just written contains some gross untruths. For example, one of the books I referred to - Komodo, the Living Dragon: The Living Dragon by Richard L. Lutz, J. Marie Lutz always uses the capitalised form "Komodo Dragons" - I just checked through it on Amazon.com. (I can't check KOMODO DRAGONS (Zoo and Aquarium Biology and Conservation Series) as I don't have it here.) But every single book on animals that I do have to hand here at home consistently and always capitalise the common names. These books include: Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Reptiles by Harald Ehmann and the Australian Museum; Encyclopedia of Australian Animals: Frogs by Michael Tyler and the Australian Museum; Dangerous Snakes of Australia by Peter Mirtschin and Richard Davis; Wildlife of Tropical North Queensland published by the Queensland Museum; Toxic Plants & Animals: A Guide for Australia by Jeanette Covacevich, et al., Native Animals of Australia: Macmillan Pocket Guide by Susan Drury, and Venomous Creatures of Australia by Struan and John Sutherland.

    So, please, argue with my logic if you wish - but don't use false arguments. Now, to cheer things up a bit, I will admit that Dave has just pointed out that this whole subject has already been argued in detail on the Wikipedia, with most people who participated taking your position - see: [1] However, I still think Komodo Dragon, Tasmanian Devil and Water Dragon look better, are clearer, and are, therefore, much better capitalised than not. Besides, this usage is becoming more and more standard all the time. At the moment, the confusion in the Wikipedia is not only messy and unprofessional looking - sometimes it is downright confusing - especially when different systems are used within the same article, and while all the articles on birds are supposed to be standardised in capitalised form. Sincerely, John Hill

    Sorry, I was getting a little flustered. Komodo, the Living Dragon does not capitalize dragon in its text, I searched on Amazon.com too (just read the first chapter past the Table of Contents and the title). I did not use a false argument in that regard. I know many creatures have the complete name capitalized, but the Komodo dragon is better off conforming to the other literature I have cited. bibliomaniac15 06:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
    I think I will try to make this the last comment for now - it is obvious I have been getting flustered too - do keep it as "Komodo dragon" for the time being if you wish - after all, you were working on it before me. I guess this is a very controversial subject and if the scientists and taxonomists can't agree, there is no reason why we should be able to come up with a simple answer which will satisfy eveyone. But do please take a look at the discussion of the problems and possible solutions in: "Capitalizing the Approved Common Names of Species" (2003) by Ernest H Williams, Jr and Department of Marine Sciences, University of Puerto Rico, at: [2]
    Sorry if I sounded testy at times - please put it down to the muggy heat here at the moment - which is almost intolerable. All best wishes, John Hill 07:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Parthenogenesis

    It appears to have been documented again, this time in the United States. Article on yahoo today discussing how all that's left for confirmation is to do some D.N.A. tests on the babies to reconfirm the mother hadn't stored sperm from a male before her being moved to her current zoo. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080207/ap_on_fe_st/odd_komodo_dragons is the link for as long as it works.

    [edit] "largest living species of lizard"?

    At tops of 3m, he can't be the largest. 'El lagarto's article claims about 4m lizards. He can be the largest living Squamata, but lizard is not a technical term and can easily mean an alligator. 189.5.182.45 (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    First of all, alligators are not lizards. They are crocodilians. Second of all, Komodo dragons are not the largest living squamate, this distinction goes to the longest snake, the reticulated python. A lizard is a squamate, not a crocodilian. Crocodilians cannot be squamates. This is quite silly. bibliomaniac15 01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] How deep can they dive?

    I have by WP:OR heard that they can dive deep, divers have seen them much deeper than 4.5m. The page now states up to 4.5m, with a ref for Burnie, David; Don E. Wilson (2001), I tried to find something on the net but could not find much, but one other ref [3] states "They can also dive and stay underwater, some say up to 100m." , which would correspond more to what I have heard. Any comment? Does the first ref specifically state the depth or is it for other parts of that sentence? --Stefan talk 12:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

    Some say? I find that rather doubtful. The bottom line is that Komodo dragons do swim well. The ref is for the whole sentence, if I remember correctly. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I just think that 4.5 now is VERY precise and I have from WP:OR that it might be wrong and that very unspecific and weak source also backs that up. Since I have no good source I did not change the page and will not unless I find a better source. I just wanted to know how good your source was. The weak source can be interpreted as they can dive deep for sure, some say as deep as 100m, and deep in this context would be much more than 4.5, but very weak anyway. I will try to find something better. If you have been updating this page for 1 year plus, have you read in more places that they are limited to about 4.5 or is it only that one source? --Stefan talk 00:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    I haven't been able to find many sources telling how far exactly they dive, so I just took 4.5 from the most reliable source I could find. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 00:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    OK, I will try to find something, but we keep the 4.5 until then, thanks! --Stefan talk 02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
    Can only find references for 2 and 4 meters, so I give up :-). Good work, should become FA! --Stefan talk 12:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] largest lizard

    i just want to say that croc monitors are longer.Reptilemasterdilorenzo (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

    It's actually speculation that Papua monitors can grow up to 5 meters. So far, the only actual captured specimens are shorter than the Komodo dragon. There was a specimen claimed to be 4.25 meters, but it has mysteriously disappeared, and other assertions are based on sightings. Komodo dragons are larger on average, and are heavier, making it the largest lizard. bibliomaniac15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 21:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

    [edit] Popular culture

    Should we add in the popular culture in this article, I see that dragon in culture alot. Mr. Loner (talk) 08:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

    Could you give some examples? bibliomaniac15 20:13, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
    Like the Komodo bros from Crash bandicoot 2. Mr. Loner (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)