Talk:Gharial

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

evolving in the estuaries and coastal waters of Africa, but crossing the Atlantic to reach South America as well. A note on Eocene geography at this point might show how little crossing was involved: more like opposite coasts of the Red Sea.--Wetman 23:56, 14 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

> Some parts of the article spell it Ghariyal, others Gharial.. Which is correct? Should it not be uniform?

> This might be because the correct Hindi Language pronounciation for the word is closer to Ghariyal than to Gharial. Maybe a foot-note be added to this effect if all the instances of the word be ammended to Gharial?

From what I know, "gharial" is how we spell it in English, and that "gavial" was what the guy who described the critter mispelled it as.--Mr Fink 04:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Also, is the giant gharial Rhamphosuchus crassidens or R. indicus?--Mr Fink 04:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The snout becomes progressively thinner the older the gharial gets." I'm curious--does it get thinner in absolute terms or just in relation to the rest of the beast? Rivertorch 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced or Feral populations?[edit]

I'm wondering if there are any established feral or otherwise introduced populations of Gharial existing outside of the animal's natural distribution range (In the Americas? Australia? Africa? etc). Anyone know? I've heard that there are Nile Crocodiles in Florida, U.S.A. so I'm thinking that there may be Gharial populations out there, too. Or, are gharials too specific for their niche to survive outside of their natural range? Thanks.

Copyvio?[edit]

Some of the information on this page is strikingly similar to this page: http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_ggan.htm -Insouciance 18:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The similar sections look adequately paraphrased to me, but, if there are sentences or phrases that are too similar, please point them out or fix them. Enuja 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation[edit]

I suggest adding the kind of pronunciation aid one finds in most dictionaries to the initial article opening right after the name. Anyone know how to properly pronounce the name of this creature?

24.8.106.182 (talk) 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, dictionary form would be ˈgərēəl. However; the Hindi from which it comes is घड़ियाल (IAST: ghaṛiyāl), (IPA: gʰəɽɪɑl) - warning, my IPA is quite rudimentary. Also, to a comment above, gavial (ˈgāvēəl) was a French rendering of the Hindi which was also absorbed into English. All pronunciations I gave are American English, by the way. Sorry, i don't know if there are variations, but I wouldn't doubt it. Khirad (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man-eaters section[edit]

I seriously considered getting rid of the man-eaters section and putting "Danger to Humans" or something like that as a sub-heading in "Diet." Unfortunately, I don't know where to put the recent addition "The most dangerous (and in most cases, the only dangerous) aspect of the Gharial is the animal's long and extremely powerful tail, which is more than capable of knocking a full grown man to the ground and even breaking bones." if I do that. What I'm going to do is put a citation needed tag on that sentence, and if there isn't a citation added in the near future, I'll delete it and remove the man-eaters section. Enuja 21:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. "Man eaters" is a little hyperbolic for an encyclopedia. Dinoguy2 01:44, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I done did it.  ;-) If anyone can come up with a better section heading for this stuff under "Diet," please do so. I'm not entirely happy with the heading. Enuja 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

False Gharial[edit]

If you'll look at the article, it states that the False Gharial IS realted to the Gharial, in fact, even closly related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.173.195.17 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lurking ?[edit]

The caption on one of the 1st images shows a gharial with its mouth open and states 'gharial lurking'. I doubt it is "lurking" (which would imply it is awaiting for a prey - and considering the diet consists mainly of aquatic/fish this seems quite unlikely) - rather it looks like it is resting and thermo-regulating. Ivan Scott Warren (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monotypic genus or not?[edit]

Is this species considered to belong to a monotypic genus is it the only living member of this genus?

Indian language[edit]

This article currently contains the following text "The bulbous growth on the tip of the male's snout is called a 'ghara' (after the Indian word meaning 'pot') . . ." The problem with this is there's no such language as "Indian" Does anyone know what language the word actually comes from? For the possible choices see Languages of India. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This sentence is cited from the source; Whitaker did not explain 'ghara' any further. I have added an explanation with ref. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The word ghara and cognates are found in many north Indian dialects of Hindi - references like this one doi:10.1002/aqc.1195 state it as Hindi. Shyamal (talk) 16:53, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Contradictory taxonomy[edit]

The lead says the Gharial is the only surviving member of the family Gavialidae. The taxonomy section, however, says that the False gharial is also in the family Gavialidae. These can't both be correct. Kaldari (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gastroliths were found[edit]

I have a journal, it is called "Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society", it includes the incidences when Gastroliths, ornaments were found in there stomachs. Sometimes they had no food, but stones in the stomach. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I replaced your ref because you did not mention the article's author, year of publication, nor title -- see how to cite. This info about gastroliths is contained in the ref I used as well. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Journals usually don't mention a singular author, if they are published by university. Year of publication was available though. And title was same as mentioned above. So we can use 2 refs. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanto[edit]

I've removed the claim about the Esperanto meaning in popular culture, as the main source I could find was the (Es) Vikipedia article, which was uncited. If you know of a reliable source for the claim, feel free to put it back with a citation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Characteristics' section[edit]

At the section, there is a line which, directly quoting, says 'Males develop a hollow bulbous nasal protuberance or at sexual maturity.' Why is there an 'or'? Is this an error? If not, can someone explain? I don't understand. The Average Wikipedian (talk) 14:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You should include Romulus Whitaker in the conservation section of the page. He was one of the people who started the effort to protect gharials. Also to include more up to date information from gharial conservation website.Feelthebern2016 (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Gharial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:12, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why I put in links to Valmiki National Park and Gandaki River[edit]

On Wednesday, an attack by a crocodilian (I suspect a Mugger crocodile) was reported in Bihar's West Champaran district, in the Gandaki, but obviously, I do not want to violate any copyright. Anyways, I used these references[1][2] to get close to the topic, in the article about Valmiki National Park. Leo1pard (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Jhala, Y. V.; Gopal, R.; Qureshi, Q., eds. (2008), Status of the Tigers, Co-predators, and Prey in India (PDF), TR 08/001, National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi; Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun, archived from the original (PDF) on 2 June 2013 {{citation}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Jhala, Y. V., Qureshi, Q., Sinha, P. R. (Eds.) (2011). Status of tigers, co-predators and prey in India, 2010. National Tiger Conservation Authority, Govt. of India, New Delhi, and Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. TR 2011/003 pp-302

Leo1pard (talk) 06:29, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fossil range contradiction[edit]

The fossil range for the gharial says it's from the late Eocene, 33 something million years ago, but the fossil range for Gavialis is in the early Miocene. Which is in error?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gharial. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

minor fixes[edit]

Just reading through this fascinating recommendation, noting a couple of ideas here as I go.

lead
  • average body length … think that is the range, but good to have both.
  • Boss (engineering), link to a glossary if it exists, or not at all
Behaviour and ecology
  • convert cm to feet or m to feet? This is mixed in a sentence, perhaps from selecting the most appropriate unit in the other system, but I think the convention is to stick to mm and cm to inches or feet.

I prefer seeing other species given the binomial, perhaps in parentheses after the turtle or bird's common name, and appreciated seeing that the extinct species being included. Back later for another look. cygnis insignis 10:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for encouraging comments, Cygnis insignis!! Addressed them all, I think, with recent revisions. Cheerio -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:07, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions[edit]

Adding a few suggestions here. Structural initially, will look over contents later as I collate and read references. Shyamal (talk) 08:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead - all citations need to go out of this and it needs to be a more inclusive summary of the remainder of the article.

Sections: It seems to me that taxonomy really ought to come up earlier as in most other taxon articles.

Palaeontological classification - this title would suggest that there are other kinds of classification which I think is a bit odd. The long list seems to be a big unsightly given that it has too much unused white space to its right. Much of this could probably be summarized into a cladogram that sits on the right side - if a time scale needs to be shown with extinction bars - the cladogram template may be inappropriate and a suitable SVG illustration could be created (I am happy to help here if we can find sources). I feel that not every species under the subfamilies need to be listed. The "Evolution" section could be included in a single larger "Taxonomy and systematics" or "Evolution and classification" section.

Local names may be better incorporated into a "In culture" section with more than just names, perhaps etymology, mythology, depictions in local art, and other associations could go there.

Characteristics - starting off with adult characteristics might be more natural. The life cycle description can come later.

Distribution and habitat - the bulleted river basins list may be better converted to a single paragraph - this would also be best to have alongside a good map indicating historical distribution and current distributions along with conservation sites.

Thanks a ton, Shyamal!!
  • Re taxonomy section: I had moved this down as long as it was rudimentary. If you think it's complete now, I agree to move it up.
  • Re Palaeontological classification: yes, I agree this long list is somewhat out of place. There is a similar one on the Gavialidae page. So I assume that someone has copy-pasted it from there loong time ago. I would even like to remove the list, the more so there is an int link to this page in the taxobox. Imo, it would be sufficient to reference that gharial is part of this family, e.g. by Adams (1854).
  • Re in culture section: ok. Frankly, I wasn’t much interested in this to date, and am therefore not aware whether any myths or pics in art exist.
Here is a resource - https://www.harappa.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Parpola_Asko_2011._Crocodile_in_the_Indu.pdf and Tell Asmar https://oi-idb-static.uchicago.edu/multimedia/1076/oic16.pdf Shyamal (talk) 12:57, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Will restructure characteristics asap.
  • Re bulleted list in Distribution and habitat: hmm, I’ve put quite some effort into collating the info about the river basins with presence of gharial, and presenting it so that it provides an easy overview that can be updated anytime. The map of the IUCN RL account is imo not appropriate, because it does not show layers where gharial used to be present. Perhaps a table is an option, with 3 maps of a) Terai and Gangetic plains, b) Eastern Ghats and c) NE India?

Cheers for now. – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:05, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen this - apparently shows a gharial - ref - https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tarun_Nair2/publication/262764522_Dry-season_assessment_of_gharials_Gavialis_gangeticus_in_the_Betwa_Ken_and_Son_Rivers_India/links/00b49538c86e96d4ab000000.pdf Shyamal (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did and also referenced it, see section Distribution and habitat in the list *Son River. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:25, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeontological classification links[edit]

It may supposed to be like this but, the link for Tomistoma lusitanica, takes me too Tomistoma schlegelii, I just wanted to make sure it was supposed to be like that instead of trying too edit it, when I don't know the facts. 

Mrcoffeecups (talk) 04:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Gharial/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Dunkleosteus77 (talk · contribs) 21:54, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Dunkleosteus77[edit]

Thanks for accepting this review so soon. I look forward to your comments. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, but I compiled all published material over the years. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gmelin did not give a reason, only described features of Lacerta in Latin : long naked body with a tail and uniform feet. Apparently, it just didn't occur to him to propose a new genus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But why did he classify it as a lizard instead of a crocodile? Were crocodiles also classified into lizard genera or closely allied with some at the time?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gmelin followed Linnaeus who proposed Lacerta in 1758 and placed all naked tetrapods known at the time in this genus, including crocodilus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be good background to say that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand, what is a naked tetrapod? What does it mean that he included "crocodilus"? Why is it italicized? Why didn't you just say crocodiles?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:46, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"and placed tetrapods like crocodiles and monitor lizards" makes it sound like something other than crocodiles and monitor lizards were placed into it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
that's right, Linnaeus listed 43 species in the genus -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should say "alongside other crocodiles and various lizards"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wagler merely used the names proposed by Gmelin and Cuvier to group them under a new genus, but without adding any additional info on locations. I don't think that he ever saw a gharial himself. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like Cuvier was the first one to propose partitioning "for a gharial with a narrower skull and eye sockets than C. gangeticus" where did the specimen come from?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cuvier did not give a location for his Crocodilus tenuirostris but instead just 7 dots. Since he referred to Faujas' History of Mount Petri near Maastricht, perhaps he had the crocodile fossils in mind that were found there. I reformulated this, as he did not explicitly state that tenuirostris was a gharial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "for reptiles with a very long and slender muzzle, webbed feet and nearly equal teeth" makes it sound like Adams personally put other species there than the gharial into Gavialidae
He didn't, but only placed the genus Gavial in this family. His description is even shorter than above sentence, missing is only : Old World. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You probably don't need all that detail. You can just say he erected a new namesake family for them   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Gavialis and Tomistoma have been regarded close relatives" better to say "gharial and false gharial" rather than use the very unfamiliar scientific names to try and include (I'd assume) extinct members   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This indicates that the Caribbean constituted a link between continents" this could probably be better worded, and you should also say the Americas weren't joined in the Oligocene   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source, removed this sentence and added a different one instead : referring to a single ocean-crossing event of this particular individual. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why do you specifically pick only Aktiogavialis puertorisensis and an unnamed Punjabi gharial to talk about?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not much info about gharial fossils. The only other article I could find was published in a predatory journal and hence deleted a while ago. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be a lot of extinct gharials but you pick only these two instead of, say, the only other member of the genus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out this gap. I extended this section with info on G. bengawanicus fossils found in Java and Thailand. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This link redirects to Gharha, where a musical instrument is described. Don't you think this is misleading? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what you meant by "It resembles an earthen pot"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I find the content of the page on gharha ambiguous because of its focus on a musical instrument but with a photo of an earthen pot and in the caption again another name mentioned that is not even explained. How about showing a photo of an earthen pot instead of linking the word? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ghara is a percussion instrument, it is in fact a pot you bang your hands against. Also I see people calling the "nasal growth" a ghara   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
File:Earthern pots 01.jpg This image shows the typical shape of a ghara, meant to keep drinking water cool -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC).]][reply]
Well the article is borderline over-imaged so you should probably just fix ghara up a little and wikilink it   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  07:02, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised the page on ghara with refs, and wiki-linked it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:39, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of saying "nasal growth", you should refer to it as the "ghara"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:44, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would not be correct, since none of the referenced authors ever referred to the nasal growth as ghara. Ghara is an earthen pot, and because of its nasal growth resembling the shape of this pot, the animal is called gharial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
these guys use it, the IUCN (small reference under Population information), these guys, these guys, and these guys   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " used to indicate sexual maturity, as sound resonator when bubbling under water or other sexual behaviours" how is blowing bubbles underwater a sexual activity?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blowing bubbles apparently attracts females -- :). Hard to prove in the wild as gharials are very shy and submerge when people get close. So you can't get close enough to hear the males bubble and wait for reactions of females. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should clarify that it's to attract mates   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this would belong the Behaviour section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moved this sentence --BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

removed this sentence -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The jugal bone is raised and the extremely long symphysis extends to the 23rd or 24th tooth" you start talking about the cheek and then suddenly move to the chin   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised this -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised this -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:03, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, instead of putting the average size of all gharials, put the averages of males and females. There's a big height disparity which makes the overall average misleading   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed the size ranges of females and males in lead, and moved info about sizes of hatchlings and juveniles from Characteristics to Reproduction, with some more details -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In spring 2017, the Babai River was surveyed over a stretch of 102 km (63 mi) using an unmanned aerial vehicle, which was flown at an altitude of 80 m (260 ft)" we don't really need this information. Just give the estimate   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed altitude -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed biome and int link -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "where gharials were released since 1977" do you mean "where gharials were released in 1977" or "where gharials have been released since 1977"?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised and extended -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Former range subsection doesn't seem really necessary since most of the info on its former range isn't even in that subsection   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moved + integrated this info into the 1st paragraph of this section -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed this word; you are right: it sounds rather technical. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 20:30, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 17:35, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to check if you've covered all your bases, do we know anything on gharial bite force (I don't imagine it'd be quite big)?
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is its bite force so big?? I thought it just skewers tiny fish   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its bite force is considered low compared to most Crocodylus species. But why is not explained in Erickson et al. (2012). -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
see this image File:Gharial and Turtle at the Crocodile Bank - Mamallapuram - India.JPG: lower teeth fit into spaces between teeth in upper jaw and vice versa -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should say spaces instead of notches   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:21, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed link -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it better to remove this altogether or to revise? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:41, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
remove, you already explained it in simpler words   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • At what point do they go from pushing forward with hind and forelimbs moving synchronously to pushing with the diagonally opposite legs?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed for values ≥1m; kept cm for values ≤100cm -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once you get above 12 inches, convert to feet   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I set all converters to auto, i.e. removed the in / ft paras. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:08, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should do for example {{cvt|5|m|ftin|sigfig=1}} which reads 5 m (16 ft 5 in), but if the conversion reads "0 inches" then use ft instead of ftin. As an American, 5 ft 6 in is more meaningful than 5.5 ft or 66 in   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  20:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and is likely linked to inter- and intraspecific competition" I don't understand. Also this should be in Feeding ecology   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  16:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the source and removed this sentence, as acc. to authors, death roll behaviour of gharials has not been observed. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't really understand how the discussion of mugger crocodile beachgoing habits is relevant to gharial   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since these two crocs share the same habitat, I do think it relevant to explain just a little how they get along along despite some competition for resources. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The the fact that they compete for resources is the important part here. What exactly do they compete for? Or is that they don't compete? I don't imagine they go after the same prey items. Maybe you could rephrase "They do not compete for beach space because..." or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added some more info about their different basking and feeding habits -- BhagyaMani (talk) 21:36, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Their sex is most likely determined by temperature" you should also mention this is the case in most all reptiles   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see "dominant male" so do gharials have a harem society (only 1 male can mate) or just in a polygamous dominance hierarchy (all males can mate, but defer to the dominant male)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This aspect has not been studied in all populations, but just in Chambal River. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:28, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what society do the gharials of Chambal River live in (social organization, unlike measurements, can be applied to the entire species)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think this question is answered, see the 2nd para: Large groups of young, subadult and adult gharials form in December and January to bask together. Adult males and females associate by mid February; and under Reproduction, I added a sentence about females guarding nests and hatchlings. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and added another one about adult males associating with several females -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:48, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "gharials hatched and raised in captivity measure" I think it'd be better to say "A 2019 study" or "Hatchlings in Chitwan National Park were measured to be..." or something like that rather than extending the measurements the study found to all gharials   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What folk medicines were gharials used in (like were their teeth ground up to cure headaches or something?)
The use as indigenous medicine has been repeated by various authors since at least the 1980s, but none of them provided any details about which body parts were used as remedy for which ailments. Only in 2 publications was briefly stated that ghara and penis were used, but without referencing. So I think this aspect has not been researched in-depth. But funds available in India and Nepal between the late 1970s and 1990s were foremost used for conservation actions like guarding wild nests, raising and restocking gharials. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:02, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed bullets -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added number -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
some do, some not; removed the "" -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Until 2006, a total of 3,776 gharials were released" did you mean "As of 2006" or "When they stopped in 2006, they had released a total of..."?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This no is the total from 1979 to 2006. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should specify this   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I removed this sentence, and instead added info from more recent survey results. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "wild eggs were collected and hatched since 1978, and a total of 1,365 gharials released in the rivers..." small grammar lesson: because you used and as a connector, we have 2 independent clauses here, so we need a verb in both clauses, so it should be "...a total of 1,365 gharials were released..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
changed -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:46, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Releasing captive-reared gharials did not contribute significantly to re-establishing viable populations" Why not? They seemed to be releasing a lot, it seemed like a massive success   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Releasing is not equal to success. In the early years, none monitored what happened to the released ones. Monitoring started in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I participated in a few of such surveys, and in one year we did not find a single of the radio-tagged and released gharials; most of them must have drowned, some turned up entangled in fishing nets. Many were just not able to withstand the masses of water during the monsoon floods. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a notable thing to say   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:20, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The indicator for succes of reintroduction programs is that the reintroduced individuals reproduce; this is a sign that they settled in, can feed themselves AND provide what their offspring needs: care, food, shelter, safety. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:43, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I added some info about what the reintroduction programmes failed to address. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no individual names were mentioned in the referenced newsletter -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "But in 1991, funds were withdrawn for the captive-breeding and egg-collection programs" do we know why?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:27, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
shortened -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised; by far most content of this section was added long ago by different contributors. I'm inclined to remove the content based only on newspaper articles and press releases. What do you think? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:33, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes it sound like those are the only things people have done towards conservation, so keep if that's the case. If it's not, then just make clear those are only some examples. Conservation measures are often not attached to papers with a doi or anything, so press releases are okay for this section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I decided to remove this part about the tri-state committee, because: a) this info related to only one site where releases used to be carried out; b) it is somewhat outdated: a management plan was published for this site in 2014; and c) this content is already part of the National Chambal Sanctuary page. Instead, I added content with refs about reintroduction programmes -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
removed the link and replaced by vehicle -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:40, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, the fish species + size caught by wild gharials has not been determined. You would probably have to dive with them to figure this out. Known however is the diversity of fish species in some of the rivers where gharials live. But of course, if I listed some, this would not necessarily imply that gharials have a preference for just those. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But someone's examined stomach contents, right? You can give those as examples of some prey species from a specific population   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Info about stomach content is already part of the Feeding ecology section, using as source the review by Whitaker & Basu (1982), who wrote that fish is digested too fast to identify species in gharials found dead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the remark about jewelry belongs in the In culture section or maybe in the Threats section if this belief led to mass culling   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
moved this sentence to In culture, but kept a part in Feeding ecology -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you think you could do something about the image in In culture pushing all the refs to the left? Maybe you could use a different (landscape) picture   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:31, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid: ALL the illustrations of the Baburnama showing a gharial are in portrait format. I added a
at the end of See also. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any other gharial art other than the Baburnama that's in landscape?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:09, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Commons gallery of Indus Valley Civilisation : 0 showing gharial. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Reintroduction programmes, you say "by 2004" and "by 2006" but you should say "from x to 2004" and "from x to 2006" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  15:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Gharial eggs collected from wild and captive-breeding nests amounted to 12,000 until 2004"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:10, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For depth preferences, you have to say these were only observed in a specific river rather than expanding this to every gharial   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised with more details -- BhagyaMani (talk) 12:37, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cuvier did not use the term subgenus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever happened to Rhamphostoma? Did Wagler just ignore Oppel or was it on purpose (if the former, it's fine as is)? Why isn't R. gangeticus listed in the synonyms?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, completely; he did not even refer to the name proposed by Oppel. And he also ignored the names proposed by Bonnaterre, Schneider and Daudin. Nor did he explain whether he had a specimen at his disposal. Probably he had not, since he did not write a single word about country of origin, as did most of his contemporaries who had one or more specimens of the species they described. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Why isn't R. gangeticus listed in the synonyms? You mean in the speciesbox? He didn't specifically call it Rhamphostoma gangeticus. On the other hand, he neither used Rhamphostoma tenuirostre. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "have been regarded as close relatives since the 1950s" I'm sure you could find the first person to propose this?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added content with refs to sources -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the basal genetic divergence among crocodiles occurred" or you could say "the last common ancestor of all crocodiles lived..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised the paragraph -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • " The sister group of the gharial and the false gharial are estimated to have diverged from the Crocodylus" there isn't a sister group to gharials and false gharials which excludes Crocodylus   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Both species are placed in the family Gavialidae because of their close relationship" this is implied, if you want to say they're in the same family, make a small reference to it in the first sentence of the section   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised and added under Taxonomy that Gray also placed false gharial in the family -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree. I moved this para to the Gavialoidea page; that way the info is at least retained. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "it dispersed to the southeastern extension of Southeast Asia, a region called the Sunda Shelf" you could also say "it dispersed to/as far as Indonesia"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This species is thought to represent the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" it's not thought to, it is, and this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct 'Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  23:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:10, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"This species represents the only valid extinct Gavialis species outside the Indian subcontinent" this makes it sound like there're other valid extinct Gavialis within the Indian subcontinent   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised with ref -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "who considered Gavialis a monotypic taxon" and "He also considered the gharial monotypic", better to say "considered tenuirostris obsolete" or something like that   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of that entire first paragraph in Evolution, you could just say "Gharials and false gharials are both placed into the family Gavialidae based on anatomical and genetic similarity."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added info on their similarities to the last paragraph of Taxonomy -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The author wrote: "The split between Tomistoma/Gavialis and genus Crocodylus was placed in the late Cretaceous ..." -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crocodylidae was implied   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It probably dispersed from the Sivalik Hills" and "Gharial fossil remains excavated in the Sivalik Hills..." are the same statement   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  00:59, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two sentences   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
added ages -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How old is the Mohenjo-daro tablet?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised; I couldn't find any additional info about more precise dating of pieces found at these 2 excavation sites. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All the info you put about DNA is confusing and misleading. "suggested that it forms a sister group with the false gharial" this would mean it wasn't widely accepted that they are sister groups. "Analysis of the gharial's tail muscles implied that it forms a sister group with all the other crocodilians" you forgot the false gharial. "supporting the view that they are sister taxa" again, you present this as if it was controversial   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised; initially, it wasn't widely accepted that they form a (one, not many) sister group. Depending on which trait authors focused on, they came to different conclusions. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reformulating the 1st sentence of the section on Evolution. I hope this and the other paragraphs are clearer now than before. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
revised -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In the Indus River, it was considered common in the 1930s" better to say "A 1933 survey reported it to have been common" I'm sure they came up with an estimate which you can add. Do the same for the 1982 survey   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither guesstimates nor estimates from a systematic survey were provided. Gharial was hunted, not counted at the time. I haven't come across any pre-1970s publication on population counts, not in regard to gharial and not to other species. Did you? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
are there hunting records (like this many were caught in x year)?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of any such lists. Before 1972, anybody could hunt gharials and collect eggs without any check by gov officials. I read somewhere that 'many' were hunted after World War II, but think that gharials were also hunted before the wars. There is an old account of the hunting method used in the Indus, but frankly, I would not really want to add this cruelty to this page and inspire people to test it. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like important information to list hunting methods (and to your concern that'd be like saying explaining how dolphin drive hunts are done would be encouraging people to kill dolphins; if anything, it would do the opposite)   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
then read this, a short account of less than half a page and let me know whether it is worth being mentioned, and if so in which section. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it's worth mentioning, put it in the Threats section where you talked about hunting   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  18:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm tempted to place it under In culture, as this described method seems to be a traditional one employed by the Kehal people, who are (still today) landless fisherfolk living along the Indus; alas no wiki page about them. But I think that they were NOT the only ones responsible for the extinction of the gharial in Pakistan. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just added an account re stones in a shot gharial. Hunters like this captain Forsyth and comrades surely shot more than they could eat. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know, so you do the same thing as you've been doing with primary sources, you say "In x year, [whoever's account this is] observed the Kehal people hunting gharials by..."   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  19:39, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so do birds, but smaller stones of course. Is this important to mention them all? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 06:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
no, say "like other crocodiles"   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gavialis has not existed for 42 million years   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  06:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I already changed this in the lead. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 15:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last comment: lead seems a bit small for an article this size. You don't seem to reference In culture or Behaviour   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I revised the lead thoroughly and hope you like this better now. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Adults mate at the end of the cold season" the what?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  04:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by 'the what'? -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've never heard the cold season in India, and this is the only time you've used it in the article   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I intentionally avoided the word winter, as there is no snow. But in the Terai of northern India and southern Nepal, there is indeed a cold season from mid/end of Nov to end of Jan. Then temperatures drop in the evenings and nights to around 5 °C (41 °F), and mornings are very foggy, often until about 11ish. So foggy that close by the rivers, you can't see your own hand in front of you. It even rains for a few days around X-mas and New Year. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pushing me so hard! I like this page sooooo much better now. :):):) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of Size Section[edit]

Greetings, It is to my utter disappointment that this article states contradictory statments about gharial’s body mass (at 160 kg or 350 lb). In the wiki page of largest organisms (section of heaviest living reptiles), its average mass is mentioned as 250 kg (550 lb). There are several pages in the internet claming it to weigh up to 680 kg (1,500 lb). Even in the National Geographic page, it is stated that it can weigh up to 2,000 lbs (907 kg). Maybe it is a mere estimation, but I have seen National Geographic pages as references in some other crocodilian pages. Kindly contribute to improve as crocodilians are known to exceed other predators in terms of size & body mass. Thank you. Adpr99 (talk) 18:01, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend you download + read the articles yourself that are referenced on this page for body mass and size. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 19:23, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, lets assume the sources are accurate. But, there has to be some mention about possible maximum size and mass. Its not that convinient to read a gharial close to 6 m weighing only 160 kg. There has to be some mention of maximum possible mass along with average, thats all. Other than that, great work with collecting sources, hats off. Adpr99 (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Common name[edit]

Read Common name and Wikipedia:COMMONNAME to understand that ONE website and ONE article using a different name than the commonly used one over decades does make this new name a common name. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BhagyaMani: Common name doesn't provide much clarity here other than to say that a species can have many common names. And the policy at Wikipedia:COMMONNAME is only applicable to article titles. Finally, @Bromar00: provided more than ONE reference, but rather three references. Additionally, I did a quick google search and I am seeing other sources that mention Indian Gharial as a common name. I think it should be included. Cougroyalty (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A common name is one that is commonly used in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources. The present list of 113 referenced sources is perhaps not complete, but represents the most important publications on the gharial in its range and covers about a century. Only 4 of those references use 'Indian gharial' in their titles. That is not a significant majority. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two of the publications linked in Bromar00's edit are by one and the same author and refer to one and the same book chapter, which is ALREADY referenced on this page, see present ref 73. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The third link in Bromar00's edit is a promotional website. Websites that provide additional information on the subject can be used in the section *External links*, but NOT if they contain advertisements. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since Apokryltaros thanked me for reverting Bromar00's edit, I assume that you agree. Please comment. – BhagyaMani (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I trust BhagyMani's judgements in these matters, and I haven't seen any sources that refer to it as the "Indian gharial," either.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of observations, the common names I find presented for Gavialis sp. are this title and 'false gharial', which sounds anachronistic from a neutral or worldview sense. What I wish to see is an origin of the name gharial, and how it accords with this species, ~ cygnis insignis 15:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See section *Characteristics* 3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence + ref therein. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
cool, ta! I made a note with that, if I find another mention I'll be back. ~ cygnis insignis 16:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have provided a fourth and very reliable reference BhagyaMani. Refusal of it will be a clear indication in not caring about right information, and only caring about information you like for one reason or the other Bromar00 (talk) 19:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have less than 90 edits under your belt, you may not yet be familiar with some WP guidelines? See e.g. MOS:LEAD: this section serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents and the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic. So what makes a name notable + important enough for the lead that has been mentioned in only 4 of 113 references? – BhagyaMani (talk) 09:01, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been 4 days now that Bromar00 did not respond and is obviously not interested in resolving this dissent. I'll therefore remove their poorly referenced source and revert to the last best version that accords with this page's WP:GA status. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Several wikipedians put a lot of thought into developing and making templates available to the WP community, e.g. {{cite journal}} and {{cite book}}. I recommend Bromar00 to learn WP:CITEHOW and how to use templates before adding refs to articles. BhagyaMani (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added the name "Indian Gharial" in the text, the RS explicitly states that is a common name. What other 'gharial' it distinguishes this species from is still unclear. My automatic ref fill gizmo is not working, but fortunately the source was already there. ~ cygnis insignis 12:26, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When it was first used in the 1970s, then by 2 Indian biologists who referred to gharial studied in India. But I have never seen Nepali scientists referring to gharial studied in Nepal as 'Nepalese gharial'. If they did, would the use of an adjective make this combination a common name? – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Aha! A legacy of a different taxonomic arrangement or some form of regional types would explain that. ~ cygnis insignis 13:22, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gharial in India and Nepal do not differ in morphology, and nobody described them as 2 distinct subspecies. Therefore, my argument is that 'Indian gharial' merely refers to the Indian population, but not to the species as such. – BhagyaMani (talk) 13:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I made a series of changes, each small to allow review, the source of the cladogram used the terms for discussion of the relationship to the other crocodilian exhibiting extreme specialisation. The term Malayan might also be seen as misleading, except as 'not the Indian', but that is not unusual in attempts to align common names to scientific descriptions. ~ cygnis insignis 14:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re review: do you mean peer review? If so, then yes, I also thought about this as step for FAC. – BhagyaMani (talk) 14:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I meant review by contributors and followers of the discussion, BhagyaMani especially because they have invested a lot of time in improving this article. ~ cygnis insignis 15:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cladogram[edit]

I agree to Cougroyalty's revert and too think that the common names should be used for clarity. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But only one common name it seems. That edit was supported by directly quoting the source of the cladogram. Are we not in the middle of a discussion about that, it seems I was wasting time. ~ cygnis insignis 17:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, one common name, i.e. the one used in the title of both pages. – BhagyaMani (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is less clear, not more. What guideline states explicitly that a reliable source contradicting that "one common name" is to be ignored and censored? It is a fact that multiple common names exist, in the context of that cladogram the authors distinguish the two existing species names with those terms. ~ cygnis insignis 17:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This has 0 to do with 'censorship'! For the Tomistoma gharial, the most commonly used name over many decades has been false gharial, but very rarely 'Malayan gharial' : just look at the references in that page. And a cladogram is not the appropriate place to add all common names that have eventually been used for the species. – BhagyaMani (talk) 18:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It was indeed Bustard 1977 : changed this. – BhagyaMani (talk) 11:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BhagyaMani: The name Indian Gharial is in the title, I see no discussion within the article on its use. How is it supporting the alleged fact of your latest revision? ~ cygnis insignis 14:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I added this name to the section *Etymology*, and do not understand your question. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gharial&oldid=1193691293"