Jump to content

Talk:Titanoboa

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.36.130.109 (talk) at 03:57, 22 December 2012. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Comments

Don't delete this. I am making it bigger. On edit: Sorry I forgot to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the future, it would be a good idea to write the page before creating it. Most editors seem to prefer personal pages/sandboxes for this purpose. It will help keep you from running into the problem of a delete/recreate war, which can get you into trouble. Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments. -HamatoKameko (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like to start an article, and then make a bunch of edits immediately afterward. You tagged it for deletion right after I created it, and then you erased it immediately. But I created it again. And now it's on the wikipedia main page as a news item! Apparently, other people didn't agree with your deletion! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then you might want to use the {{Underconstruction}} template next time. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thats useful, thanks. I didn't know this one, yet. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please use metric measurements per WP:UNITS. Thanks. 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Yarovit (talk)

I used the units that were in the source. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah but thats a secondary source. They use whatever is common in their country. I'll change it... Splette :) How's my driving? 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps both units of measurement could be cited in the article - the metric first, with the non-metric in parenthesis afterward. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Splette :) How's my driving? 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also created the Titanoboa cerrejonensis species article too. Is there a rule about which one should redirect to the other? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There probably is but I am not familiar with those. Also, this species found (Titanoboa cerrejonensis) is probably the only member of the genus (Titanoboa). Personally I like short article names, so I'd suggest to redirect from Titanoboa cerrejonensis to here. Splette :) How's my driving? 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I just see you created an entire new article. I think thats overkill. I doubt they will find any other species of that genus any time soon. Therefore I'd have only one article and redirect the other one. Splette :) How's my driving? 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What you say makes sense. I just redirected the species article to the genus article. If we're wrong, or if another species has been or is discovered, the direction can always be undone. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am unable to edit this article, but Jason Bourque's name is misspelled in the citation. Jnestler (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)jnestler[reply]

Thank you for letting us know. I fixed it. Grundle2600 (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Family for the taxobox

If anyone knows the family please add it to the taxobox. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added familia and subfamilia to the taxobox. (David Bricker (2009-02-04). "At 2,500 pounds and 43 feet, prehistoric snake is the largest on record". EurekaAlert!. Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved 2009-02-05. The scientists classify Titanoboa as a boine snake, a type of non-venomous constrictor that includes anacondas and boas.) hornoir (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read the "Nature" article quoted in Wikipedia and the names of the scientists quoted were different. Can someone enlighten me?Docsearch (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors here move things around and the sources sometimes get mixed up. I always cite my sources, but then someone else might come along and change things and the sources get confused. Please feel free to fix any errors if you wish to do so. So many changes have been made since I started this article, and so many sources have been added and removed, that I've lost track of it all! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

watchlist

  • the 'grundle' vandal has sturck again. i would aplease be requesitng that people ad this page to their watchlists so that we can keep him off for as slong as this page remains accessible via the Main Page. Vandalism on such visible arriticles needs to be prvevented. Thank you for yout ime. Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about me? I'm the person who created this article and wrote most of it. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • please reread my post. i am not alkign about User:Grundle2600. i was referriung to the grundle vandal, a nonreggie who created this edits here and kept trying to implciate you in vandalism by blanking this page and relacing it with the word "grundle" ove rand over. no slight was against you but against the user who once used your name as a vandalismo tool. Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for explaining that. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. Although my userpage explains that my handle is a video game reference, some people have told me that it also refers to something else, which I'd rather not explain on this talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snake's width

I was looking for the origin of the information that the snake's body is 1 m / 3 feet wide and couldn't find it in the NatureNews article, neither in the original publication. Am I missing something? However the width is mentioned in this article which has been a previous ref, now removed. I don't want to put it back in because its secondary literature. Is there another source for the three feet or shall we remove that bit? Splette :) How's my driving? 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who put the width in the article, and I cited this source. Since then, someone else has removed that source. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. The question is what do we do about it now. I can't find the 3 feet width in the original publication or any of the other refs currently listed. I wonder where the Independent got it from. They explicitly mention the 3 feet only in their article's lead. Later they quote one of the authors At its greatest width, the snake would have come up to about your hips.. So if the independent estimated your hips to be at a height of 3 feet, then thats not a good source for us. Splette :) How's my driving? 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. I usually take sources like that at their word, which is fine most of the time. I'm just an amateur when it comes to science, and I'll trust a consensus of the better informed people here to make decisions about those kinds of edits to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that a creature that's 13 meters long will be 1 meter thick. That would look like a giant cigar, not a snake. I think that they probably meant 1 meter in circumference, which'll give it a diameter of about 31 cm.--Cuyaya (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it probably was something like a meter thick. The diameter of the backbones found is 20 cm alone - just the backbone. Check the size comparison with a python backbone here (3rd pic). Splette :) How's my driving? 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously doubt that those measurements are correct. If the vertebrae are 20 cm, as you say, then the diameter MAY be around 1 meter, but then, the lenght cold never be 13 meters. Take the following into consideration and do the math to find out the correct proportion: If a snake that's about 2 meters long, has a diameter rounding 5-7 cm, then a snake 1 meter thik should be 30-40 meters long. Do the math.--Cuyaya (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just recently watched the documental made by the Smithsonian channel, they're handling an anaconda and said that it would probably be 9-10cm in diameter at the widest point and go on to say that that is one fifth to one seventh the diameter of titanoboa, so titanoboas diameter is 45-50cm or 63-70cm. IMO 50cm wide is more credible than 1m. Visual comparison here, I know its only a line but it helps convey how 1m think at 13m will look like, the other top one is 50cm thick there's also this snapshot from the program, it does look more like 50cm. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:59, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please, put in the article this inter-wiki link: [[sr:Titanoboa cerrejonensis]]. Thank you!—94.189.201.234 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't exist yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, check in about 10 minutes and then put it in.—94.189.201.234 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. I created both articles at the same time, and I later redirected the species article to the genus article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you aware that we are talking about this version of Wikipedia? That's why the anon's link starts with "sr". --BorgQueen (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't know that. That's like an alternate universe over there. Does Stephen Hawking know about it? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article is written, check here. Please, put in an inter-wiki link ([[sr:Titanoboa cerrejonensis]]).—Johniah (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow! In the past hour, this was the #1 most read article!

link


Latest most popular Articles 

  1. Titanoboa (6,444 hits last hour)
  2. Wiki (6,323 hits last hour)
  3. Aribert Heim (6,158 hits last hour)
  4. Josef Mengele (4,026 hits last hour)
  5. The Beatles (3,779 hits last hour)
  6. YouTube (3,261 hits last hour)
  7. Barack Obama (2,946 hits last hour)
  8. Search (2,909 hits last hour)
  9. Estradiol (2,755 hits last hour)
 10. Christian Bale (2,730 hits last hour)
 11. Placenta (2,708 hits last hour)
 12. Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (2,692 hits last hour)
 13. Tim Duncan (2,394 hits last hour)
 14. The Cramps (2,354 hits last hour)
 15. Scrubs (TV series) (2,333 hits last hour)


This snake is more popular than Jesus.

And Obama.

And the Beatles.

It's also bigger than all of them.

Put together.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL --BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you find that info? --86.140.193.5 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the left side of the article page is a link that says "What links here." That page has a list of all the pages that link to the article, including Wikipedia:Popular pages. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Picture

Why isn't there one? 86.140.193.5 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the only pictures of this animal are under copyright. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What about fair use? 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is better if someone here could produce a free graphic image based on the picture of the vertebrae fossil, along with the size comparison. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its only speculation, considering how long ago this creature was around. And i'm sure as hel not going to claim i'm an expert on this. But what if the scientists eventually discover that it managed to survive to (at least) early human history? Not inconcevable since I read that it managed to survive the K/T event that took the dinosaurs out of the equation.

Now take a look at the local myths that have sprung up in (roughly) that same area that it's fossilised remains were discovered - basically South America. Specifically, look at the old South American myth of the so called 'Cobra-Grande'. That of a massive snake that would have dwarfed even the largest conventional snake & that would attack anyone unfortunate enough to have found themselves near one.

Like I say, its only a speculation, not an assumption. But if it ever turns out that this beastie managed to stick around long enough to about the point of early humans inhabiting its area, then we'd have to take a second look at the old myth about the Cobra Grande & consider that its not quite as 'mythical' as us modern humans first thought.

We would then have to ask; Could Titanoboa & ancient people's encounters with it, have formed the basis for the myth of the Cobra Grande?

Just thought this kind of thinking would make a fun discussion, if nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme1000 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's beyond ridiculous. This particular species did *not* survive the KT event, but evolved afterwards, and the possibility of such a huge snake surviving undetected for 60 million years is preposterous. Remember, snakes like to bask, and if this thing behaved even remotely like a modern boa or anaconda, they'd be hanging off the trees (when small) and sunning along the riverbanks. It'd be like finding a needle in a haystack, if the needle were 17 miles long and glowing bright pink. Mokele (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, nobody EVER finds new presumably-extinct species! </sarcasm> And anyway it would only need to have survived to relatively recent history undetected by Europeans. That's easy. It happens all the time. Remember the elephant birds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.208.21 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's right, not if they weight a ton and are 13 metres long. Anyway, all of this is speculation and doesn't really belong on this talk page. Splette :) How's my driving? 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you, that, assuming it did survive to relativly recent history, that, it was detected by humans. Just it would have to have been a *very* long time ago, in terms of human history. Thats why, if this thing ever inspired the myth of the 'cobra-grande' (which was probably based on much older local legends) it remains just that, a myth. The kind of skeptisism you show probably did the rest. But the fact there is a myth about a snake of this kind of size at all, shows that maybe there was human contact. Just we, in the times we live in, choose not to read between the lines. Me? I just think its exciting to see discoveries like the one made about a snake this size (& it just seems more than a coincidence that its remains are discovered, more or less, in the same neck of the woods where the legend of the cobra grande originated) & see how a legend like this one could, if more recent remains are found, could give that legend a grounding in scientific fact. I think that would be facinating. But I guess thats just me. Call me naive, but shouldn't any kind of science be about keeping an open mind? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme1000 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Did it ever occur to you that most myths are the result of people playing centuries-old games of "telephone?" That details like "Was it 20 feet long, or 50 feet?" tend to get lost in the passage of time? Saying "Ooh! Big snake!" and then drawing the conclusion that some old legends removed by 60 million years from your supposed perpetrator and that they survived just until the arrival of European settlers is an awful of of speculation with little scientific evidence to support it. You might as well claim Jimmy Hoffa was eaten by a Tyrannosaurus. inclusivedisjunction (talk) 08:09, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a great idea, as long as you can cite a valid source. However, it is true that local legends often exaggerate the sizes of these animals. For example, here is an article from 2004 about a captive snake that was claimed to be almost 49 feet long. Although the article doesn't say so, I think we can assume the claim turned out to be mistaken. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:34, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 1; I did not say anything about 'European Settlers' from a few measily centuries ago. I was refering to PROPER ancient people. As in a good few millenia ago! As I had stated (if you had bothered to read my original post properly) I refered to them as "early humans" & also used the terminology "early human history". By conveniently 'inserting' "European Settlers" into the argument, your deliberatly avoiding what i'm getting at here. By the time your 'European Settlers' came along the thing was already long extinct & all they had to go on was the old stories passed down the generations among the locals, that they probably derrived the more modern tale of the 'Cobra-Grande' from. Read the relevant part of my original post agian. And this time, read it PROPERLY...

Centuries, and even millenia, would be insignificant in the amount of time for your supposed snake to have lived. Again, you think that Titanoboa, or a closely related descendant:
1. Survived K/T boundary.
2. Survived an additional 65 million years.
3. Was encountered by early human settlers.
4. And then just managed to die a couple thousand years before Europeans arrived.
Tell me of one other known species that survived 65 million years and only died out within a few thousand years of the present. You can't.inclusivedisjunction (talk)

"Like I say, its only a speculation, not an assumption. But if it ever turns out that this beastie managed to stick around long enough to about the point of early humans inhabiting its area, then we'd have to take a second look at the old myth about the Cobra Grande & consider that its not quite as 'mythical' as us modern humans first thought."

...EARLY humans. I don't remember saying anything about European Settlers!

Point 2; OF COURSE old myths & legends are embelished over time! Thats the nature of them. But whatever the origins, something has to get them started in the first place. And at any rate, in this case; "Ooh! Big snake!" is no exageration. If you had bothered reading the article, you would see this beast *really was* 50 ft long! And they have the fossils of it to prove it!

I know full well what the length of Titanoboa was supposed to be. My point was that you were comparing the likely over-exagerations of size given by natives and using that as a hypothesis that there was even a slight chance of those myths being connected to Titanoboa. inclusivedisjunction (talk)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme1000 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to wikipedia, the longest Python reticulatus was 32 feet long, so the alleged longer one in the article that I cited was never credibly verified, despite the claim of the government official cited in the article .Grundle2600 (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image

Any chance we can use this image from this article article ?? Green Squares (talk) 22:25, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has copyright. We had such a picture earlier and it was deleted. Splette :) How's my driving? 22:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is still here - it just needs to be shrunk to a lower resolution. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, good. I didn't realize. I shrunk and re-added it. Splette :) How's my driving? 03:30, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I remain strongly opposed to the use of this image here. There's nothing special about it that forces us to use it, I don't see how it complies with Wikipedia:Non-free content. A free image that is just as good could certainly be created. Haukur (talk) 12:32, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Haukur. --BorgQueen (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The image is special in the sense that it was created specifically for articles about the animal. Also, I'm guessing, but I can't prove, that it was probably created by a scientific artist who had direct access to view the fossils. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't show anything special, not at the resolution we have it at anyway. It's just some 23 KB collection of lumps of different shades of green. If the image shows anything scientifically relevant then we should be able to point these aspects out and should do so in the article - we don't and we can't. We shouldn't assume that this image contains some special information which we cannot replicate and cannot even point out. How's this going to help our readers? Haukur (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's special, because, as far as we know, it's the only image that currently exists of what it looked like when it was alive. If someone wants to make a new image, then we won't need this one anymore. But until that happens, this image is unique. Grundle2600 (talk) 10:41, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's now a deletion tag on the image page, and it will be deleted on Friday the 13th if these issues aren't resolved. After reading the explanation, I now agree with the proposed deletion. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Length

Ok. I'm a dumb hick who does not know how long a yard or a "metre" (meter?) is. Can we include feet please? --DJM 167.206.248.12 (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See: metre. Besides, I am against including any non-metric units. Why American customary units are present and other countries' units are not? Yarovit (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See wikipedia's manual of style. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So? Could an article about prehistoric snake found in Columbia considered US-related? Yarovit (talk) 23:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, its of course a scientific article and therefore should use metric units first. I added the link because people seem to keep switching the formats back and forth. Splette :) How's my driving? 23:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is a scientific article, but at least some of its units were originally English units. There is no other plausible explanation for a ridiculously overprecise estimate of the weight of these snakes as 1,135 kg. Sure, it was converted to and expressed in those units for publication in a scientific, but the units used in other sources such as the Science Daily story are a much better reflection of the actual precision of this "estimate". Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


<outdent>
Note, however, the problem with the measurements. The article said "12 to 15 meters (37 to 50 ft)". If you converted from those measurements in feet—and they are the numbers used in some sources—to meters, you do indeed get 12 to 15 m. But when you convert from those figures in meters to the nearest foot, as I just did by changing to use {{convert}}, it changes to "39 to 49 ft".

I suggest the most likely possibility is that neither of those is best; that it was originally "40 to 50 feet", numbers which would also convert to "12 to 15 m". Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stub

I added the stub sine to this article. --Coolsafe (talk) 00:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Size as Evidence of Climate

The article could use some more information on the study concerning the environmental temperature necessary for the survival of a snake this size. Other articles, such as Gigantothermy, seem to suggest that large size would an adaptation for cold climates. 72.150.38.40 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree. Look up the concept of "mass homeotherm". Such a large ectotherm would never be able to cool down in such hot climes. The animal would have a heat stroke too easily. This compounds the measurements issue: If the snake was as stocky (cigar-like) as the article describes, then maybe it would've been apt for cold climates, having less surface area in proportion to mass, and could thus reduce heat loss.--Cuyaya (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. Large size only works for mass homeothermy for endotherms, not ectotherms (in the absence of other, special adaptations, which we can assume given its phylogenetic position). A huge snake in a any climate will simply cool down quicker and heat more slowly, giving it a temperature closer to the mean of the climate. However, this is unacceptable in a cold climate, since the mean temperature is too cold for activity. Reptiles need body temperatures in the mid-80's F at least to remain active and alert. Tropical species don't need to worry, but temperate ones constantly thermoregulate to keep that temperature (see Brattstrom's 1955 article in the American Naturalist for direct records of field-active body temperatures for herps of all sorts, big and small, temperate and tropical). If you need to maintain a temperature in the 80's in a cold climate, it helps to be *small*, not large, because you can heat up fast (true, you lose heat faster, but you also only need a few hours activity each day to fulfill your needs). In contrast, if you need to be in the 80's but live in the tropics, it's basically not a problem and you can grow as big as you like without worrying about heat transfer. Mokele (talk) 14:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Large ectotherms CAN keep a rather stable temperature because a large mass with a comparatively small surface area loses heat less quickly than a small mass. Also, it has been proven that large cold-bloods, like tuna fish, swordfish and large crocs, can have higher-than-ambient temperatures based both on body size (heat retention) and activity-generated heat. Also, it was proposed by Robert T. Bakker, the paleontologist, that large dinosaurs like Apatosaurus or Brachiosaurus, were either full endotherms or mass homeotherms, because absoulute ectothermy of these would result in a literally "rotting" metabolism, in which -for example- limbs, and the tips of tails woul easily frostbite or become gangrenous with ease.--Cuyaya (talk) 15:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the Gigantothermy article -which I just read- completely supports my previous statements.--Cuyaya (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stable temperature is irrelevant if it's too low. Tuna, swordfish and the leatherback are all inappropriate examples, because all make use of countercurrent heat exchange and generate heat by continuous activity. Given Titanoboa's phylogenetic relationship, there is absolutely no reason to postulate either mechanism (boas lack any known countercurrent heat exchangers, and all boas are predominantly sedentary). Your citation of Bakker actually proves my point, since even if Titanoboa could maintain a core temperature, it's extremities would be cold. Given that snakes do not have any insulating fat (subcutaneous fat is unique to mammals), the muscles of the snake would be substantially colder than the core temperature, further impeding performance.
Now, I will say that I *am* highly skeptical of the use of Titanoboa as a temperature proxy - I suspect its size had more to do with the local prey fauna than temperature. But 'Gigantothermy' has a reputation *far* beyond its experimental support, and much of that support is weak. All of the supposed 'gigantotherms' rely more on countercurrent exchange, with their mass only serving to give just enough thermal inertia to prevent the countercurrent system's ability from being swamped. In essence, mass is necessary, but mass alone won't cut it without other adaptations, and IMHO, those adaptations are more important. This is especially true of fish and gilled organisms - because oxygenation of blood *requires* close enough proximity to the outside water that temperature quickly equilibrates, the organism's body temperature will *quickly* drop to ambient regardless of mass. Snakes present a similar challenge, since their extremely long body gives a very high surface-to-volume ratio, no matter what the size of the animal. Titanoboa was about as big around as a large Galapagos tortoise, and they display *no* gigantothermy (in spite of the shell, which insulates more than skin).
However, the most important thing, more than any theoretical handwaving we do, is *reality*. There is a general "rule" in ecology, Bergmann's rule, which states that body size increases with latitude for endotherms, and recent work has tested it in ectotherms. Some do follow the trend (albeit intraspecifically and to a highly limited degree), but for squamates, body size *decrease* with temperature (Ashton & Feldman, 2003. Bergmann's Rule in Nonavian Reptiles: turtles follow it, lizards and snakes reverse it. Evolution, v. 57, i. 5, p 1151 - 1163). This can also be seen just by looking at the faunas of temperate versus tropical localities - compare the snakes of the US, China, and Europe to those of SE Asia, Africa, and S. America.
So in the end, what matters is reality, and the reality is that squamate reptiles decrease in size with decreased temperature. Mokele (talk) 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I see your points, but wouldn't you agree then that such a large endotherm would be unable to to cope with such high ambient temperatures as those that are proposed? The creature would overheat easily. On the other hand, maybe the creature would definiteley be an active huntern in colder climes, instead of an ambush predator like modern ophids.--Cuyaya (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Endotherms can tolerate heat fairly well, usually by reducing their metabolism or finding ways to dump it like an elephant's ears. Endotherms really only have a problem when it's dry heat, as they lose water rapidly. If you meant ectotherm, it's even less of a problem - modern ectotherms cope with similar climates, often by living in the water, selecting suitably cool microclimates on land, or (as is the case of most boids) being active at night. As for activity level, I've never seen an active-hunting snake over 5 lbs in weight, and all of them are whip-thin (mambas, racers, coachwhips, asian rat snakes, bronzebacks, etc). I suspect that truly huge snakes simply *cannot* laterally undulate in a sustainable manner, due to their large size and allometry (big snakes face more friction due to mass with proportionally less muscle force), but the experimental data doesn't exist, as is the case of many aspects of snake locomotion (snake locomotion is my particular field of expertise). Mokele (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Measurements

If you are using a metric measurement in 'metres' then the direct translation into the imperial system would be 'yards', not 'feet'. So why is the article using feet? Green Squares (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Besides not following the rules and using the original "meters" spelling in this article, you also appear to have no understanding whatsoever how conversions work.
Meters might convert to yards in some cases; in other cases, they are best converted to inches or to miles. But in most cases, the best choice of units for a conversion are feet. It depends both on the size of the measurements, and on the units normally used by people who make similar measurements in English units in the first place. Gene Nygaard (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I changed the units for diameter to inches. Note that if {{convert}} is used to convert from "m" without specifying the target units (e.g. {{convert|23500|m|abbr=on}}→23,500 m (77,100 ft)), it converts to feet, not to yards or any other unit. That's because feet are the units we are most likely to want; since there are also many cases in which a different unit would be the best choice, we can add a parameter to specify the units converted to, and override that default (e.g. {{convert|23500|m|nmi|abbr=on}}→23,500 m (12.7 nmi)). Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Date on of image

What I find very puzzling indeed is that if you have a look in the bottom-right corner of this illustration (visible on the larger version), the artist has signed and dated the work "2008"; and this snake was only discovered in 2009. How can that be? --B. Jankuloski (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it was discovered in 2008, but not officially described until 2009? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fossils were prepared early 2007.--MWAK (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge of two section

Question. Shouldn't the sections on "Size" and "Size comparison" be merged, or at least made into sub-sections? I will do this myself, if no one has any objections. --Spotty11222 (talk) 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done and done. Should we make further adjustments?--Mr Fink (talk) 01:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good to me. Thanks. --Spotty11222 (talk) 02:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diet?

What would a snake this size have eaten? Any info on that?Thesniperremix (talk) 02:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC) Definitely a carnivore, but that's about as much info as we have. Most other animals in Titanoboa's time didn't surpass 10 kg, so they wouldn't have been very filling for a monster like Titanoboa. --24.36.130.109 (talk) 03:57, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone in NYC Have a Camera?

If someone in NYC has a nice digital camera, could you please find this snake on exhibit and take a good photo to upload for this article? See the two links below:

---Radical Mallard (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weight

If the size of the snake is approximately 12-15 m long and 1 m in diameter, the weight should be around 10 tons or more, > 10,000 kg; that is if it's not extremely light-weight as if filled with air. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.253.11.2 (talk) 02:10, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titanoboa&oldid=529216718"