Talk:Mammuthus sungari

Contradictory Information

We can't say that Shokako Mammoth is the largest mammoth, at 4.7 m height, when the article for the Imperial Mammoth says that M. imperator was 4.9 m tall. Contradictory, yes? At least, not until we get all the facts straightened out.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Sorry but, can you tell me the reference or remains away from wikipedia that shows a Imperial mammoth of 16 feet tall at the shoulders???, If you want I can show you a 17,4 feet tall Shokako mammoth, the mammoth of photograph is about 5.3 meters high and is mounted in ibaraki nature muesum.-- Mr Asier (Asier) 8:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why was it originally written as being 4.7 meters tall?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t know, but can you give me a souerce telling a 16 feet high Mammuthus Imperator??, the largest skeleton mounted is about 14 feet--Asier (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk) [reply]

Don't forget, even if it was only 4.7 m tall, the article mentions its sturdy build,so that it still may be the most massive mammoth, if not the tallest. I, for one, have run across alot of variability in the sizes given for various species of elephant/mammoth. For example, on wikipedia itself, the Deinotherium article lists it as the largest elephant.152.14.80.138 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Finally the largest land mammal is the Songhua River mammoth, larger than any elephant or mammoth--Mr Asier (Asier) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk) [reply]

I am a little confused about the overall height of the mammoth. The speciman examined in the mass calculation is listed as 4.7 m tall, while the specimen in the museum is listed as having an overall height of 5.3 m. Are they the same speciman? Is the extra 0.6 m coming from the little stands that are below the mammoth's feet? Cbmclean (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! These two are the same specimen! Originally, the fossils showed a 4.7 meters high at the shoulders. The museum mammoth is based in those fossils. In the article is listed the 5.3 meters high, because in the webpage´s of the museum tells that. I´ve been examining a lot of photos of the mammoth in the museum and I concluded that it doesn´t arrive to 5.3 meters. The most likely thing is that the shoulder height for the mammoth is 4.7 meters high or a bit more. Go to youtube and type Ibaraki Museum, you can watch there the mammoth with some lines next to the Mammoth in the wall that indicated the mammoth height meter by meter, the 0 meter line is a little stand like the mammoth feet. I prefer to use the official 4.7 meters to make the calculations. It isn´t good to speculate the size of the mammoth in the museum, because the stimations would be badly made. --Mr Asier (Asier) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Asiertxo. I am an amateur elephantophile, so I was really fascinated when I found this article, and I had never heard of this particular species. I was especially struck by the first illustration you posted, showing the size of the mammoth as compared to an average african elephant. That really brought home the mammoth's true size. Anyway, I'm curious where you got that illustration from. I think it's really beautiful. It's worth a thousand words, I think. I'm curious who made it and if it accurately reflects what scientists think the mammoth may have looked like in life. I also noticed that the tip-top ofthe head of that mammoth extends slightly above the 5 m line. Is that from the inflated 5.3 m figure given by the museum, or is the 4.7 m figure strictly the shoulder height. I noticed in the drawing that comapres the mammoth to the Indricotherium, the "shoulder height" is listed as 4.7 m, but the 4.7 meter line seems to extend to the very tip of the head, which is considerably above the shoulder height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.157 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The image I make it in my own, the image mammoth is nearly 5 meters at the shoulders because the skeletal reconstruction is 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but in life the Mammoth with the muscles and hair is predicted to reach the 5 meters at the shoulders. But for make calculations I prefer to use the 4.7 meters eskeltons high because is something verifiably the 5 meters high in life is something that I predicted, but is very posible. (and 4.8 meters high of Indricotherium is from the skeletal r3econstruction, I have to be most carefully posible to make this important calculations. For me ther isn´t doubt, Mammuthus sungari is the largets land mammal ever. I´m very happy to make you happy with this article.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Shokaku mammoth isn't 5.3, or even 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but at the tip of the head, then we are not justified in saying that it is the world's largest land mammal. We really, really need to get the facts straight before we can state such things.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oficcialy the fossils shows a mammoth 4.7 meters at the shoulders, the largest indricotherium found is 4.8 meters at the shoulders but is more gracile than Mammoth. You can see it in the imagen, volumetricaly the Mammoth is much bigger.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk)

Ibaraki Museum Mammoth

Mammoth, Probably this mammoth is over 4.7 meters at the shoulders. But I don´t konw 100%, so I can´t make my calculations with a mammoth over 4.7 meters. I try to be as profesional I can, and do the things the best I can. For now, I prefer to make the estimates with 4.7 meters high (official Measure) mammoth.

PD: If mammoth were 5 to 5.3 meters high at the shoulders, it wouldn´t be larger than Indricotherium, it would be much much larger than indricotherium.--Mr Asier (Asier) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comparision to elephant

This article says this mammoth weighed 17 tons, or three times that of an African elephant, but the article on African Bush Elephants says they weigh up to 22,000 pounds, with one exceptional one killed in 1955 weighing 27,000 pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.100 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but, What is that logic?, the man of the picture is about 6 feet, but the NBA players are up to 7 feet and 1940 Robert Wadlow die with a height of 2.72 meters.... It doesn´t have any sense what you have written. An avergae African elephant is about 5 to 6 tons and 3 to 3.5 meters high rarelly the elephants grew more, the largest elephants use to weight 7.5 tons and 3.8 meters high. The 1955 elephant (4.0 meters high) has never been weihged, that wieght is only an estimnate. Today the 27.000 punds are dismissed, now is accepted that this elephant weighed between 8-9 tons or 18.000 to 20.000. There isn´t any evidence of 22.000 pounds elephants.... --Mr Asier (Asier) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

General Information

Asier, I have had trouble finding more information about this mammoth. In fact, I didn't even know of its existance before I found this page. Do you know of any scholarly literature in English that describes this mammoth's lifestyle, morphology, habitat, or relation to other mammoths? Cbmclean 204.85.66.157 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't seen any information in scholarly journals, either. I haven't searched except on-line, though, and there are abstracts in this area that may not be on-line. The only information I've seen is about exhibits in Hong Kong. In fact, this article has no sources. I'm not even sure it does exist. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, of course that it existed. Yes is very very strange I don´t know why ther isn´t information in google. And please, don´t tell me that this is an hoax... The most information I get form chinese and japanese pages and I´m in contact with a lot of paleontologist. It´s ironic but many of them didn´t know about this mammoth. Again Hoax? you have the reconstruction of the eskeleton of the Mammuthus sungari... this skeleton is based in 2 giant skeleton found in 1980 in Mongolia, one of them it was 40% complete and the other more than 60% and they were in incredibly good conditions with fingers and toes complete. They were two extremely large male of about 45 years. 1984 were found another 3 skeletons of Mammuthus sungari, one of them has skeletal reconstruction of 4.33 meters high. In total have been found 13 skeletons. Give me your e-mail and I will give you all the links about this information. And please, remove the label of the hoax.

I´ve been weeks and weeks working in this project with amateur paleontologist and world recornized paleontologist. So please... Who are you to say that this is an hoax and telling that this article could be removed, you only spend a few minutes searching in google... Is this a Joke?--Asier (talk) 8:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the {{hoax}}, and changed the {{unreferenced}} into a {{refimprove}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, What information need to be referenced??, I uploaded more links and references--Asier (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk) [reply]

Buf.... I can´t understand... Who is the "smart" person that remove Mammmuthus sungari from Mammuthus article?. Is incredibly. Some people is much Ignorant that I could never have thoutgh... That demostrated that people is making changes Without knowing anything. I can´t beleive this... Please people who didn´t know anything about proboscideans, mammoths and paleontology... don´t make so ridiculus changes, don´t make me spend time. Thanks --Asier (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asier, please remain WP:CIVIL against your fellow editors. Anyone on a wiki can edit anything he wants. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but if you don´t know anything about a theme, Why are you changing articles... It doesn´t have any sence. The wikipedia it should be a site the most objetive and well done as is posible, these actitudes don´t contribute to it.--Asier (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk) [reply]

Everyone tries to contribute. Sometimes they are wrong, and then they are usualy swiftly reverted. It is safe to say that almost all editors act in good faith. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asier; This is cbmclean, who has been corresponding with you about this mammoth. I think that Martijn Hoekstra was wrong if he declared this article a hoax without knowing more about it. However, I have to agree with him that there is a scarcity of non-scholarly information about this mammoth on the web. I haven't done a search of scholarly literature yet, but I plan on it. I, for one, am fascinated by this mammoth. I had never heard of it. I want to know what its range was, what the climate was like in its habitat, and its evolutionary relationships to the other mammoths. Was the original description of the species done in English?

Hello I don´t think that it is descrived in English, I´m trying to get the original description. This mammoth lived areound 100.000 to 10.000, the giant 4.7 species remains shows 34.000 years old fossisls. They have a thick coat like M.primigenius And they lived in the gobi desert. Asier (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is sourced enough

Asier it isn´t worth to be justyfing yourself on your work. I´ve read many articles on paleonthological subjects and this is the only one in which the weight of the species is justified or at least explained by your calculations cause I´m surprised by the lack of consensus on this issue. It is the only article about giant prehistoric animals which shows volumetrical models incredibly well done. The article shows a reconstruction of the eskeleton that proves the actual animal´s size. It has helped me a lot with my survey on proboscideans, Im writing a thesis just now! The links you refer to also justify the size. This article has much more references than any other article about any other mammoth species (except the one on mammuthus primigenius).What more references are people asking for?? I believe that the people who submit their opinions don´t have a real basis on the subject. For instance, in the article on mammuthus imperator it is said that it had a shoulder height of 4.9 meters which isn´t by far the truth. The largest M. imperator remains show a eskeletal reconstruction of 4.08 m high at the shoulders (around 4.25 m at shoulder flesh). It is also said that it was the largest mammoth species, how can this be true if remais of M. trogontherii much larger have been found? For instance a humerus nearly 5 foot long. And of course, M sungari was even larger too. --Airam (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ask for additional sources, because it is turning out really hard to find sources about the existence of this mammoth. That is not an attack, or a claim you are not doing good work, but a request for more sourcing. I don't see what's wrong with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, thank you! finally someone taht know about this theme. Again Martijn??? are saying that Mammuthus sungari doesn´t exist like species?? What about the skeletons reconstructions in hong kong, inner mongolian museum, ibaraki muesum and many more ???? .... [Mammoth in Atlanta museum]. This photo is a Mammuthus sungari showed in atlanta museum in 1995. What moreeeeee??????????????????????????--Asier (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a first note, one questionmark is generaly enough. No, I'm not saying that the species does not exist, I am saying that it is really hard to verify it's existance, and it would be nice if we had more links proving this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two links, one about the first mammuthus sungari found in 1973, it was nearly complete. And another,an abstrac with a table with the 13 mammuthus sungari discovered and location (mentioned above). [First sungari] and [13 sungari].

Asier, do you know how to locate the original species description? That would settle alot of questions.Cbmclean (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For all those concerned, I looked at the link provided by Asier and labled as "13 sungari." It is the 13th artcle from the top. It mentions mamuthus sungari as a "giant" speciman. It also seems to ilmply that mamuthus sungari is alternately classified int he genus parelephas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Cbmclean, Parelephas (subgenus) only means that this mammoth is very near to other Mammuthus genus like M.trogontherii and M.columbi. That link shows how many and where are mammuthus sungari found.Asier (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk) [reply]

References and Original Research

As an explanation for some of the tags, here are a couple of specific problems with this article:
1. There is only one unchallenged reference that refers to M. sungari. Of the remaining three, two are references on the mass of Indricotherium, and the third has an unreliable tag and appears to be self-published, which is a no-no. There are several external links, but unless those are cited somewhere in the text, they don't count as references. At least one appears to be a blog post, which is also unacceptable as a reference,while several are in Chinese and Japanese, which is only marginally better, albeit understandable given that the topic of the article is an obscure taxon from China. Either way, since they're not cited, they're not references. This leaves a single source which, based on where and how its cited, appears to document that Songhua River Mammoth is the common name of M. sungari, useful information, but not nearly enough given the length of the article.
2. Given the reference problems, as written, the section "Size" violates WP:OR. You're not presenting information on the mass of M. sungari that has been published elsewhere, you're publishing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helioseus (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Helioseus, thank you for your questions to improve the article. Firts I´m tying to find the paper of the formally description of this animal, If exist, I don´t think that It will be in English. I´m in contact with an proboscidean expert chinese Paleontologist, and probably he could get the paper of the description(for next week). Yes you have the reason there are a lot of links, but ther aren´t "Scientists" links, anywat I will upload better ones. Is very dificult to use google in chinese and japanese. Any way is ovbious that the mammoth exist and that it is enormous. The mass is my calulation, I use volumetricall model for this, it can be use to, shoulder height (acording with Per Cristian paper, a mammoth of 4.7 meters high would weighted even more than 17 tons), femur lenght and humerus and femur circunference. --Asier (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk) [reply]

Probably should be nominated for deletion

I think the article needs deleted for now. The editors don't want others working on it, and they don't seem to have found reliable sources. The Chinese references on the web are about the same as this, self-published sources that use on academic references. The writers are aggressive about keeping it here, but they don't have any energy to find academic references, and there's no place in the world where a new mammoth would not be extensively published in the press and in peer-reviewed journals, at least an abstract. IF the writers want the article to stay on Wikipedia all they have to do is source it. But if they spend time attacking me, they won't get it sourced. They will, however, distract from the controversy of whether or not the mammoth exists. It's time to focus on the lack of sources. No mammoth this large and this unique is going to be without scientific references in Chinese, Japanese, and English. If there are no references, maybe it's because there is no .... --Amaltheus (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS I was willing to say it might be a hoax, but I'm more inclined to think it is because the writers simply haven't put up references. It would be so easy, with a mammoth this spectacular, to get references. It's time to put up. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you Paleontologist??, So why are you making changes without any idea about this mammoth?? you can ask before...So you have been making ridiculous changes without any aproach... I upload an abstract above, why are you making changes if I uploaded "mammuthus sungari" in your list?, please stay away--Asier (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk) [reply]

To Amaltheus User

It´s imposible to work with users like you (Amaltheus) or Martijn Hoekstra (although this user now asks before changing any data). Asier has been giving responses to each question formulated by us and working on improving the article´s references while you haven´t even asked anything, you just delete information without making any sense and adding that this species might be an hoax, which is crazy!! Asier has lately answered with some agressiveness but I understand him ´cause it must be frustating that someone who doesn´t understand the subject has this attitude towards his work. Who are you to threaten anyone on deleting an article? This is interesting information for some users like me as well as a new subject for research. I would appreciate some respect from you towards this work. --Airam (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]