Talk:Gharial/GA1

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

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gharial/GA1&oldid=939001832"