Talk:Olm

Olm is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2007.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
June 13, 2007	Peer review	Reviewed
June 19, 2007	Featured article candidate	Promoted

Current status: Featured article

Amphibians and Reptiles FA‑class Mid‑importance

	Olm is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
FA	This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:AARportal Template:WP1.0

Someone copying someone?

There's a lot of similarity between this text and [1], but I can't tell who's cribbing off of whom; that external page appears to have been published one day after the most recent edit to this article. So I'm not going to call this a copyvio at this time, but I am going to leave this note here on talk: for future reference. Bryan 06:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

baby dragons

This has been tagged as uncited in the text. I added some further explanation, but I'm not entirely happy with the way this fits into the context. If somebody has a better idea about where this can be incorporated, feel free to move the text around. Anyway, to clarify the claim: yes, they were believed to be baby dragons for a long time, and for an unfortunate period after the caves started opening up for public about two hundred years ago, olms were even sought out and killed by superstitious locals. Given that the caves where they live aren't exactly overcrowded with them and that these critters take a *long* time to procreate, there was even a time when they were in serious danger of extinction because of this. TomorrowTime 14:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olms were described as baby dragons by Janez Vajkard Valvasor, Slovenian noble, historian, geographer, etc., in Die Ehre dess Hertzogthums Crain (1689). It was a reference to a folk story he didn't quite believe in. I'm preparing a lengthy article to better describe this creature than the current, where this will surely be mentioned. --user-to-be Yerpo, 84.52.177.91 10:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something lost in translation?

"This is due to some of the larval characteristics, such as external gills and elongated body, which they retain as adults." The only thing I can understand "This" to mean is that the olm is wholly aquatic. Now "The olm is wholly aquatic due to some of the larval characteristics, such as external gills and elongated body, which they retain as adults" does not make sense to me. I can't figure out what else "This" would mean or on the other hand what is the more correct word to replace "due to". I suspect "due to" is an error in translation but I cannot be sure what would be correct here.--BirgitteSB 21:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Causality can be problematic when you talk about biological systems... I know the sentence is a bit weak. Actually I meant to say something like "the olm lives the whole life underwater, and has such and such features that enable it", but wasn't able to phrase it decently without implying causality (is the non-native speaker argument too old already?). After all, we don't know whether the need for fully aquatic life came first in the evolution and the olm eventually got pedomorphic, or was it vice versa. This actually isn't mentioned explicitly in the original article, it's just because the intro needed expansion. --Yerpo 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes my problem was with the implied causality. The rewrite is much better, but what do you think about "The adults retain some of the larval characteristics, such as external gills, which are advantageous in an aquatic habitat."--BirgitteSB 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure, since they aren't just advantageous, but (at least in the case of gills) necessary. I say we leave it as it is. --Yerpo 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did anyone else notice this?

After establishing that the olm has no sense of sight, the article suggests that males put on courtship displays against rival males. That raises an obvious (IMO) question that the article should perhaps address: What would be the point of a display when the animals can't see it?75.80.76.56 03:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Roth A, Schlegel P. (1988). "Behavioral evidence and supporting electrophysiological observations for electroreception in the blind cave salamander, Proteus anguinus (Urodela)". Brain Behav Evol. 32 (5): 277–280. PMID3233487.
Lili Istenič, Boris Bulog (1984). "Some evidence for the ampullary organs in the European cave salamander Proteus anguinus (Urodela, Amphibia)". Journal Cell and Tissue Research. 235 (2): 393–402. doi:10.1007/BF00217865. {{cite journal}}: horizontal tab character in |journal= at position 8 (help)

Today's featured article

Well, are we going to make a move towards it? bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... sorry for ignorance, but how is it done? --Yerpo 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can do it if you'd like, since I've done it before. You go to WP:TFA and go to "Main Page Requests" on the bar to the right. You can also request a specific date for it to appear. bibliomaniac 15 ^{BUY NOW!} 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, I did it myself. I just didn't know you had to do the request separately. --Yerpo 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the genus Proteus link to the myth, not more members of the genus? Arthurian Legend 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because the mythological figure is the namesake of the genus. You can go to the disambiguation page to see more pages that may have the name "Proteus." bibliomaniac 15 Two years of trouble and general madness 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Olm capitalized?

All throughout the article, olm is capitalized. I'm curious as to why. Asking, rather than just making the change, as I'm not too keen on editing a featured article. -FeralDruid 02:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, why is that? Shocking to see it make featured article with this glaring unconformity to style. -- AvatarMN 08:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lifespan?

It would seem that these creatures live for an long time for an amphibian but this article is missing references to it's average, expected, or maximum lifespan. Stillwaterising 02:31, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Bl

Longevity is estimated at up to 58 years (Noellert, A.; Noellert, C. (1992). Die Aphibien Europas. Franckh-Kosmos Verlags-GmbH & co, Stuttgart. ). Individual specimens have been kept under semi-natural conditions in concrete basins for up to 70 years (Prof. B. Bulog, personal communication). —Preceding unsigned comment added by BORIS BL (talk • contribs) 12:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The only European cave-dwelling chordate" ?

Chordata is the phylum that includes all mammals, amphibians, reptiles, etc. It's very hard to believe that there are no European cave bats, cave bears, etc.

I think that the author responsible for that statement means "the only European cave-dwelling caudate" - the order of salamanders and such. Anybody know what's right here? Peter Delmonte 04:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. Fish are chordates also and there are plenty of cave-dwelling fish. Eregli bob 04:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The statement "the only European cave-dwelling chordate" is correct, if you take "cave-dwelling" to mean "troglobite" (as the link also suggests). Cave bats, cave bears and cave fish are all fine, but they aren't troglobites, since they don't live their entire lives underground. Troglophiles or trogloxenes yes, troglobites, no. This page provides some definitions. And no, there's no troglobite fish in Europe. I reverted the statement accordingly. --Yerpo 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Serbian

Is this edit correct? - Face 12:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "olm".

I think the name "olm" should be explained. What is its etymology? The article discusses other names for it but I couldn't find anything on the name "olm". If anyone knows, please include it in the article. Nothingbutmeat 12:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found anything on the etymology so far, but it might have something to do with the mythological figure of the feathered/plumed serpent in Olmec mythology. That wouldn't have been the first time that olm's gills were mistaken for wings (see Research history. --Yerpo 13:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! It seems a bit far-fetched, I have to say, though I can't offer a better explanation. Keep looking and I'll see what I can dig up too! Nothingbutmeat 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the Olmec themselves gave this name to Proteus (that would indeed have been far-fetched, as it doesn't live on that side of the ocean), only maybe some zoologist that got the association. --Yerpo 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, ha, no, I got that too! What I meant was, it's odd to think that the name of this animal should have come from a culture on another continent that had nothing to do with it. But as you say, someone may have made that connection. Still, it would be nice to know for sure...Nothingbutmeat 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pigmentation consistency

Para. 2: "The olm's eyes have atrophied, leaving it blind, while its other senses, particularly those of smell and hearing, are acute. It also has no skin pigmentation."

Para. 3: "Its body is covered by a thin layer of skin, which contains very little of the pigment riboflavin, making it yellowish-white or pink in color."

Which is it? ericg ✈ 15:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatdoe sit eat?

Lol I couldn't find the answer. It looks like a endoparasite but I haven't heard of any such amphibians. So what is it? Carnivore, herbivore...Tourskin 20:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To quote from the article itself, "It is a predatory animal, feeding on small crabs, snails and occasionally insects." bibliomaniac 15 Two years of trouble and general madness 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Tourskin 20:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Larval characteristics

"This is possibly because of, or perhaps the reason for, their retention of larval characteristics (like external gills) into adulthood." I removed this sentence because there is no reference, but left the information abut its external gills in. "Even breeding" underwater is that unusual in an amphibian? I replaced "atrophied" with "underdeveloped" or "undeveloped" because "atrophy" is used to describe the destruction of an organ by disease, not a vestigial organ. It is used like that sometimes, but it is better like this. The karst links to an article called Karst topography. It is an area of karst topography, but the animals live where the rainfall over the ages has created caves, fissures and similar areas underground. (Amaltheus (talk) 03:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Croatian and serbian name

I don't see the need for the serbian and croatian names to be stated, since the species is, as far as I know, endemic to Slovenia. The names are simply translations and by this logic we could pop a translation in every language into the article. 86.61.40.91 (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]