Talk:Short-beaked Echidna
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Physical description
In preparation for the production of a spoken version of this article, I'd like to change:
The limbs of the Short-beaked Echidna are adapted for rapid digging, having short limbs and powerful claws.
which reads a little awkwardly, to:
The limbs of the Short-beaked Echidna are adapted for rapid digging, being short and having powerful claws.
or something similar, if anyone can come up with an improvement. I'll do this in a few days, if nobody objects. Macropode 07:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Featured Article of the Day
Can someone with more expertise than me request this article for Featured Article of the Day? I think it's worthy. Bibliomaniac15 00:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Hatchlings are about 1.5 mm long and weigh between 0.3 and 0.4 grams.
No animal 1.5mm long can weight as much as 0.3 grams. Remember 1cm^3 of water weighs approximatley 1 gram. I'd say max would be <0.1 grams. I'm assuming since the article states that they eggs are around 13 to 15 mm in diameter it should say "Hatchlings are about 1.5 cm long and weigh between 0.3 and 0.4 grams."
[edit] New Guinea name
- The species is found throughout Australia, where it is the most widespread native mammal, and in coastal and highland regions of southwestern New Guinea, where it is known as the Mungwe.
In what language? New Guinea is one of the most linguistically diverse places on the planet, and somehow I doubt all the languages there use the same name. Is this an Indonesian word, or a Tok Pisin word, or what? --Ptcamn 05:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Thank you, Petaholmes! --Ptcamn 23:05, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Most common echidna?
I read pretty much the whole article before finally realising that this article describes what most australians would call 'the echidna'. Could it be better explained in the introduction that this is by far the most common echidna found in Australia, and is the most well known, rather than being buried down in the "cultural references" section, or requiring a visit to echidna? Stevage 08:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Protection
Hello! I would recommend you to protect this article! If not, the spammers will continue messing up this nice article. Admins, where are you? Then we should restore the right version.. Tilmandralle 16:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, they'll keep messing it up, and we'll keep reverting it. The featured article of the day should never be protected: User:Raul654/protection —Keenan Pepper 16:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you for answering. So we'll keep reverting :-) Tilmandralle 16:32, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Who is messing with this? Are you referring to the They Might Be Giants addition in cultural references? That is a FACT. Why don't you make sure you don't delete the truth from the spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.215.25.252 (talk • contribs) .
- Do they mention this species by name, or just echidna in general? - UtherSRG (talk) 00:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] question
The genus Zagl... has only one species in it, and so I can't understand the logic in this sentence: "This has conservation implications for the endangered species of echidna from the genus Zaglossus, and to a lesser extent for the Short-beaked Echidna". (Sorry for my bad english), Ybk33 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Your question is answered by going to the Zaglossus article.... there are three species in Zaglossus. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)