This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Turtles (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles Australia: Northern Territory / Biota Start‑class Low‑importance Pig-nosed turtle is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia Start This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Northern Territory (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the Northern Territory Library. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Indonesia Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Was wondering why Chelodina insculpta was added as a synonym here. That is a fossil species described by de Vis (1893). It is a valid species and correctly assigned to the Chelodina. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 16:33, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The full line in Fritz 2007 reads "1997 Chelodina insculpta– Cann (non †Chelodina insculptade Vis, 1897), Monitor (J. Vict. Herpetol. Soc.), 9 (1): 34." Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 18:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... this makes no sense, I dont remember this and do not have Cann 97 on me to check. But if he named a species Chelodina insculpta then it is a junior homonym of Chelodina insculpta de Vis, 1897. Unless someone has moved it to Carettochelys, whereby it would be a junior homonym of that species. I would imagine this is an error of some kind. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 20:46, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This species interests me. Is it the most basal (ie primitive) of the extant reptilia? Wikipedia gives me that impression, but doesn't come out and say so.24.108.58.49 (talk) 18:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]