Talk:Testudo atlas

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Weight is too high

Although an estimated weight of 4 tons is mentioned in some books, it is undoubtly not true. This animals were very large, but a simple calculation shows that a 2,5m long tortoise would never weigh so much. 2,5 tons seems as upper limit, but not 4 tons.

The 1981 and '82 Guinness editions (perhaps others aswell) gave quite detailed – and much more plausable – information on the subject: carapace length 165 cm (65 in), carapace height 89 cm (35 in), total length 244 cm (96 in) and estimated weight 852 kg (1,875 lb) for a specimen found in 1923 from the Siwalik Hills. Compared to the largest Galápagos tortoise individual, named Goliath (carapace length 137 cm/54 in, width 103 cm/40½ in, height 69 cm/27 in, weight 417 kg/920 lb), it was more heavily built: a 165 cm carapace would suggest a weight of 728 kg (1,605 lb) with Goliath's proportions. Also note that the largest known chelonian Archelon ischyros is usually estimated at 2,000 kg (4,500 lb), so 2.5 to 4 tonnes is just absurdly high.

One must take care not to confuse total lengths with carapace lengths, for these yield radically different results when estimating weights. The carapace of T. atlas seems to account for some 2/3 of its total length – I wonder if this applies to the Galápagos tortoise too: if so, then Goliath should be about 203 cm (80 in) long. That 1.80 m height seems a bit odd, but I suppose it could have extended its neck that much from the ground.

--Anshelm '77 02:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Your claim sounds valid, but in order to be eligible for inclusion in the article it needs a source. Otherwise it's considered original research. As for the height, that is based on a picture I saw in a book where its size is compared to that of a human figure next to it- they are about the same height. Jerkov 23:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced as it is, the 4 ton claim is original research in the first place. Dysmorodrepanis 23:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genus?

Serious work needs to be done on this article. The original genus was propbably Colossochelys but perhaps Testudo - the former was established by Falconer & Cautley in 1844, but it may be that they did this as an afterthought of the species description, i.e. some months later or so.

No post-1978 source on Google Scholar uses Testudo. And most seem to favor Geochelone. In fact Testudo seems the most unlikely genus for this beast, even if it is used in the loosest possible sense.

By the way, never, never ever cite taxon authors in running text as here, if it can be avoided by any means. It is precisely right as it is written - Geochelone atlas (Falconer & Cautley, 1844) - but how should non-biologist readers tell that the parentheses are a (correct) part of the full taxon name and not a grammatical necessity? Even many molecular biologists are unable to do it right these days! So always use the taxobox or at least use smallscript for taxon authors/dates; mistakes are otherwise introduced and perpetuated. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)