Talk:Lazarus taxon: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:35, 2 April 2015

Palaeontology Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Cryptozoology Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cryptozoology, an attempt to improve coverage of the pseudoscience and subculture of cryptozoology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.CryptozoologyWikipedia:WikiProject CryptozoologyTemplate:WikiProject CryptozoologyCryptids articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Schinderhannes bartelsi

I do not believe that this belongs as a Lazarus taxon. There has never been a live specimen ever discovered.

examples given

I replaced the example given Pink-headed Duck with Takahe. While the Pink-headed Duck may one day be shown to have survived (and let's all hope it has), the possibility that it might does not alone make it a Lazarus taxon. Sabine's Sunbird 15:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Does the Coelacanth belong here?

The coelacanth was believed to have been extinct since the end of the Cretaceous period until a live specimen turned up off the east coast of South Africa in 1938. ==Samuel Wantman 06:03, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't complicate things further. The relation between living fossils and lazarus taxa is explained at living fossils, with the coelacanth as an example. Phlebas 12:34, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm not trying to complicate, I'm trying to understand. I had never heard the term "lazarus taxon" until I saw it in Wikipedia. After reading the article, I wondered if Coelacanth belonged here. Exploring some more, I read in living fossil that "a living species that was thought to be extinct (the coelacanth fish for instance) is not a living fossil by strict definition, it is a lazarus species." So why is it mentioned in that article and not this one? I get the impression from both articles that the Coelacanth is a lazarus species. How does it complicate things further to mention Coelacanth in this article? I think both articles need some work to make them clearer. I'm offering my comments to help in that direction. == Samuel Wantman 19:19, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant duplicate (repeating examples-one of wikipedia's flaws imo). But you're right, both pages should become more integrated, and living fossil is perhaps a bit too technically written. Phlebas 22:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The species Latimeria Chalumnae is not a Lazarus taxon, because it was never known as a fossil before the extant population was found. However, its existence makes various higher taxa that it belongs to, such as the Coelacanthiformes, Lazarus taxa because these were known as fossils before a living representative was found. Orcoteuthis (talk) 09:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made the same argument at Talk:Necrolestes_patagonensis#status_as_lazarus_taxon. It would be nice if we could apply the term (and Category:Lazarus taxa) consistently, or else point out that the world uses the term in ways that are not entirely consistent. Art Carlson (talk) 08:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arakan Forest Turtle?

Should the Arakan Forest Turtle be added to the list at the bottom of the article? — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:22, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Black footed ferret?

Should the black footed ferret be included?

Maybe, but Lazarus taxa are usually those that have been declared extinct. I don't think this species was ever thought to be extinct - people don't assume straight away that when they can't find them they are extinct. Sabine's Sunbird 09:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Laotian Rock Rat

"Laotian Rock Rat (Laonastes aenigmamus), a member of a clade (Diatomyidae) thought to have gone extinct 11 million years ago. Found in 1996."

Shouldn't that be 2006?

It was discovered in 1996, published in a paper dated 2004 that actually came out in 2005, and was determined to be a Lazarus taxon in 2006. --Aranae 22:55, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montreal Melon

Does it qualify? Toscaesque 20:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More species

If someone would like to add more species.... http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080428-extinct-plants.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0709_020709_cloning.html http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080312-frog-picture.html http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/search/species_search.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=2159&m=0 http://www.birdlife.org/datazone/species/index.html?action=SpcHTMDetails.asp&sid=4624&m=0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.66.195 (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History

I think the page would benefit from stating when the term was first used.Andycjp (talk) 03:06, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birds and reptiles sections

Why is the birds section made into a subsection under reptiles? Birds might have originated in the reptilian line, but they are everywhere today accorded their own family, and no one catalogs or thinks of birds as being reptiles. Myles325a (talk) 10:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick Insect

Read the most wonderful story of Lazarus taxon in Discover Magazine about two years ago, although it wasn't identified there as such. A bit hazy on details but these exceptionally large stick insects were native to some Pacific Islands, and became victims of imported rats and the like. Then a severe storm came and for about 70 years it was thought that they had been completely wiped out. Then, a few years ago, on a very steep cliff, on an unihabited island, on a SINGLE windswept tree, they were found, about 70 of them, the only survivors of that species, deeply inbred, but healthy. Now they have been bred, and are found all over the world, but not in the wild. Article had wonderful photos of these stick insects, and they are massive.

Anyone shed light on this? I'll try to chase it up myself. And are these insects Larazus taxon? Myles325a (talk) 10:25, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Israel Painted Frog

Why does the link 'Israel Painted Frog' leads to 'Corsican painted frog' (which was never considered extinct as far as I know) insted of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discoglossus_nigriventer ? Can anyone change it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.199.239.241 (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Florida Bonneted Bat

I believe this species meets the criteria as it was believed extinct and a population was later discovered. It was also first described from a fossil jaw bone from the Pleistocene before the fossil was linked to the extant species. Sources include a National Geographic article about endangered species from 2010 ^[1] and a peer reviewed article found here: ^[2] I apologize for not knowing the best way to add these in. Thank you. 50.53.5.147 (talk) 21:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

two suggestions

(1) I don't understand the sentence, "If the extinction is conclusively found to be total (global or worldwide) and the supplanting species is not a lookalike (an Elvis species), the observational artifact is overcome." Could someone explain it to me and reword it for more clarity?

(2) Could we find a place to mention Lazarus taxa that do not involve extant species? For example, palaeos.com states

There are also examples of "Burgess Shale type fauna", best known from the Early and Middle Cambrian periods, but which, since 2006, have been found in rocks from the Ordovician, Silurian and Early Devonian periods, in other words up to 100 million years after the Burgess Shale (KÃ¼hl et al 2009; Siveter et al 07).

Art Carlson (talk) 08:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pygmy Right Whale

Does it belong here now? Found: Whale thought extinct for 2 million years --71.50.8.53 (talk) 04:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttp://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/04/photogalleries/100426-endangered-species-rarest-animals-2010/#/rarest-rare-wild-animals-florida-bonneted-bat_19437_600x450.jpg

[2] ttp://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1051&context=museummammalogy

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{WikiProject Palaeontology|class=start|importance=mid}}
 {{WikiProject Cryptids|class=start|importance=high}}
+==Schinderhannes bartelsi==
+I do not believe that this belongs as a Lazarus taxon. There has never been a live specimen ever discovered.
 ==examples given==
 I replaced the example given [[Pink-headed Duck]] with [[Takahe]]. While the Pink-headed Duck may one day be shown to have survived (and let's all hope it has), the possibility that it might does not alone make it a Lazarus taxon. [[User:Sabine's Sunbird|Sabine's Sunbird]] 15:09, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)