Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Emydidae

Measurement

This article claims that the size of these turtles ranges from "11 centimetres (4.3 in) (Clemmys) to nearly 60 centimetres (24 in) (Kachuga)." However, I know that the bog turtle measures about 10 centimetres (3.9 in).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:23, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram

Ho, ho, ho...that cladogram isn't of the whole Emydidae family!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the Deirochelyinae? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the whole of the Emydinae without the new Emys trinacris and the no data Terrapene nelsoni? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe more. That article says it contains 12 genera, and the paper you used to make the cladogram says it has about 48 species. You could tweak the title to say "Part of the Emydidae family"...which is what I did in the Glyptemys article.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 12 Genus that article talks of are:

Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:50, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Blanding's turtle has me confused as well...I guess it's an Emys turtle. That makes eleven genera. I'll search for a source that has the full cladogram (there must be one out there).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:55, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the Western pond turtle article, if our source is correct, needs to be changed (the scientific name at least).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:56, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Page 81 of Bickham, is a bit strange, Blanding's Turtle and Western pond turtle can have any of three different scientific names and potentially they are the same genus (Emys) which makes the intro line of Blanding's Turtle somewhat unclear. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So that article can be left alone...okay. I'll continue to search for an accurate, concise cladogram of the entire family. Thanks, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, No rush on Wikipedia anyhow. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha...okay!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:16, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the above from my talk page. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I may have found it. This website contains several great images.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:52, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Source says this may be the best one. [1]. Although it would be a friggin mess to translate into a full cladogram.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bog Turtle

Are we 100% sure that the figure labeled as 'bog turtle' really is a Glyptemys muhlenbergii? The light splotches on the neck aren't visible in this view, nor are the hind limbs and feet, and it looks pretty similar but... Aren't the forefeet rather elephantine? Maybe it's the angle, but this looks wrong somehow. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.122.86.238 (talk) 04:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

Concerning the "dubious" tag on the first sentence...this article needs sources, plain and simple. Perhaps it should be removed, but where do we draw the line: same logic says remove all content of the article?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:31, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Remove what you think is incorrect (after perhaps giving it some time) and leave the rest. Strangely enough I now can source the dubious line! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that bit on page 179: "This is the largest and most diverse of turtle families, with over 90 species and 31 genera distributed..." I can't access all of the source, but does it go on to say what all the genera (and species) actually are?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:22, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see either. I doubt that it does list them. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. My response on your talk page basically says what I'm about to say. I think we should go with the Bickham source (at least for the genera information) because it has them nicely listed. What do you think?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

90 species of emydidae

(Moved from user talk page)

I just saw something that scared me: why does this book (page 109) say there are 90 species of emydidae!?  :-O NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:45, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe that includes subspecies or extinct species? I can't see the page to read more. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 00:07, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't access it? Maybe it does include subspecies. All of our other sources say otherwise though, so I don't think we should worry about it.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:10, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, umm, I found something else Talk:Emydidae#First_sentence. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:17, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I count 51 subspecies. 14 Emys, 8 Terrepene, 4 Chysemys, 25 Trachemys. Is that's the difference as 40 species(not including doubtful Pseudemys suwanniensis), means 40 species and 51 subspecies makes 91 overall. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That must be it. I don't understand "31 genera" however. Bickham pp81-82 lists them quite nicely but I don't see them listed in the new source.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bingham has only the Emydinae, not the Deirochelyinae. Maybe another subfamily perhaps? Earlier I found some good databases, let me go back and check. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. That where we got 12 (or now 11) genera from though right? If not, this would probably be credible as well.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

interesting, check two links. Your link above has strange stuff like Clemmys guttatta 1,2 and 3. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That one looks good too. Mine has multiple ones because I think it included synonmys (they are all similar but spelled differently). I'll be away from my computer for a while...will be back in about an hour.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 01:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Family Emydidae, I count '32 genera' on that list. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. List of 32 from University of Michigan.

  1. Batagur (river terrapins)
  2. Callagur (painted terrapins)
  3. Chinemys (Chinese pond turtles)
  4. Chrysemys (painted turtles)
  5. Clemmys (marsh turtles and pond turtles)
  6. Cuora (Asian box turtles)
  7. Cyclemys (Asian leaf turtles)
  8. Deirochelys (chicken turtles)
  9. Emydoidea (Blanding's turtles)
  10. Emys (European pond turtles)
  11. Geoclemys (spotted pond turtles)
  12. Geoemyda (leaf turtles)
  13. Graptemys (map turtles)
  14. Hardella (crowned river turtles)
  15. Heosemys (forest turtles)
  16. Hieremys (yellow-headed temple turtles)
  17. Kachuga (Indian roofed turtles)
  18. Malaclemys (diamondback terrapins)
  19. Malayemys (Malayan snail-eating turtles)
  20. Mauremys (stripe-necked turtles)
  21. Melanochelys (Indian black turtles)
  22. Morenia (eyed turtles)
  23. Notochelys (Malayan flat-shelled turtles)
  24. Ocadia (Chinese stripe-necked turtles)
  25. Orlitia (Malaysian giant turtles)
  26. Pseudemys (cooter turtles, cooters, and red-bellied turtles)
  27. Pyxidea (keeled box turtles)
  28. Rhinoclemmys (neotropical wood turtles)
  29. Sacalia (eyed turtles)
  30. Siebenrockiella (black marsh turtles)
  31. Terrapene (box turtles)
  32. Trachemys (sliders)

Appears that the Geoemydidae family is added to Emydidae. this seems relevant. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 02:04, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've been admonished to avoid ADW in the past. Regardless, I have been proven wrong about genus number. Does the navbox need to be changed?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:23, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is ADW? I imagine the Navbov should change, but not sure what to change it to. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 04:14, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Animal Diversity Web (it's written largely by college students, have been told before it's unreliable). Yeah, I don't know what to change it to either.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it could be Animal Diversity and University of Michigan are unreliable or have different idea of how to classify. We do have conflict in sources in many areas, often because the genus or family has been reclassified over time(bringing into question older sources), in some cases repeatedly reclassified see synonyms of most turtles. Do we have any modern source(since 2000) other then ADW or Mich Uni that has the Geoemydidae family added to the Emydidae's? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This 2004 source seems to support idea that Geomydidae is largest/most diverse family. Does Emydidae and Geomydidae share a superfamily?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:13, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Emydidae and Geomydidae share the appropriately named Testudinoidea superfamily. Appropriate because it seem in classification everyone has testudi-no-idea! Regards, SunCreator (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ahahahahaha...that should be a t-shirt! But okay, we have conflicting sources I suppose (which is bigger/more diverse isn't really confirmed as of yet).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article name

According to my reading of WP:COMMONNAME it would be Pond turtle or Pond turtles. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 23:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like species' articles are named according to common names (i.e. Spotted turtle instead of Clemmys guttata)? [Note how the scientific name is a redirect, should that be the case here as well?]--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:26, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it seems so. Animalia -> Animal, Reptilia -> Reptile, Testudines -> Turtle, Emydidae -> Pond turtle. Some issues are that not all Emydidae are Pond turtles (see Terrapene, esp. Terrapene ornata luteola) and not all Pond turtles are Emydidae (Giant Asian Pond Turtle, Philippine Pond Turtle). Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm biased but

I would not just make every higher level in the taxonomy be important because it is higher level. What matters is what people want to read about. If I have a choice of doing some latinate family versus getting snapping turtle to look good for the curious people, that's a no brainer to me.TCO (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know. However, this is a pretty critical article. It's (albeit disputedly) the largest turtle family; members from it live all over the world. If this article were brought up to GA or FA it would make all the other lower tax levels much easier to sort out. I'll bring it up on the project talkpage however.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, totally go with how you want it. No project discussion needed. I guess I don't have all the sources you all do, so MEGO when you talk about all the taxonomy. Snapper with its ugly beak and the controversies on eating it, even the connection to picta as predator. Just would have fun doing that page. Could see a good one that had some humint along with the biology.TCO (talk) 06:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We'll sample opinions as well...couldn't hurt. Snapper is an important article as well, gets a lot of views and everyone seems to be interested in it. Would be a great article to write.  :-)--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 06:32, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You could do snapper, alligator snapper, and the genus as a featured topic. The alligator snapper gets a lot of hits too. Probably could help me develop more info for turtle trapping as well. Would get another daughter page and then likely merge the two inot a trapping article. (not part of the FT, but just another dead bird from the same stone.)
There you go!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Over collection

The sentence "Many Asian species are threatened by over-collection" contradicts the introduction, which says there are only two Asian species in this family. If the above sentence refers to Asian box turtles, it should be moved to a different page. If it refers to the two species in this family, then change "Many" to "The two". Neals384 (talk) 14:51, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Psilosemys

This genus is not in Emydidae but 'Panemydidae'. Regards, Sun Creator(talk) 00:54, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Emydidae