Talk:Turtle/Archive 1

Quotation Marks?

The article says that turtles are "reptiles?". I am not sure this needs quotation marks. Could someone fix this? 0x0077BE (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, just realized that I wasn't logged in when I first tried to edit and that this is only a semi-protected page. I've removed two instances of quotation marks around "reptiles". The whole article seems a bit heavy-handed with the quotation marks, but in most other cases it seems grammatically correct. 0x0077BE (talk) 20:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Magnetosensors

I have deleted the reference to 'magnetosensors'. I am aware that Aves and Testudines do have the ability to sense magnetic fields, but 'magnetosensors', show me a reference for that.

Evolution

Isn't that a bit POV? If someone wrote in the article about how the turtle was created, it would be taken out faster than nascar. All evolution is is just another point of view. 69.153.29.141 17:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a place for a debate about evolution. But evolution isn't simply another point of view -- it's backed by overwhelming evidence. -- Moondigger 17:52, 22 August 2006 (UTC))

I agree, it isn't a place to debate it--that why I was simply suggesting leaving it alone altogether. And as for being backed up with overwhelming evidence, a lot of people would say the same for other points of view. On top of that, it's really quite subjective what counts as "overwhelming evidence" and what doesn't. But don't get all upset, I'm not going to arbitrarily remove that section, I was just suggesting leaving the issue alone as it really doesn't effect the article much.69.153.22.146 18:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no scientific debate about whether turtles were created or evolved. Wikipedia does not have to pander to creationists as they have no evidence to back up their claims and therefore their opinions are not scientifically valid. If we include the disclaimer "or maybe God made it" after every mention of evolution on Wikipedia, we would have to include all other religious explanations, and we'd certainly have to include the Flying Spaghetti Monster in that list.

If creationists did something notable with turtles, you could probably put it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_and_tortoises_in_popular_culture#Religion.2C_fables_and_mythology

Gary 18:39, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup, I TOTALLY agree with evolution (just-try-to-say-you-don't-believe-in-evolution-in-front-of-me-and-see-what-you-get), this is not the place to debate about it. Dora Nichov 13:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I rather forgot about this little bit I posted. Anyway, it's quite depressing to see how narrowminded you all seem to be. I won't bother pusing the issue since, ironically, no one here seems terribley in favor of tolerance, which could explain why wikipedia, at large, panders to people of no faith. However, I'm perfectly willing to discuss creation (which does have evidence to back it up) privately (as opposed to further cluttering of this talk page) with anyone who wants to. TheMrFrog@hotmail.com is my e-mail address. Just put something in the subject so I know it's not spam and don't anticipate lightning-fast responses, as I don't check it every day. Dora Nichov, I particularly hope you e-mail me--but of course, everyone's welcome. 69.152.237.168 06:02, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, well, I'm Darwin's ratel, so I won't believe in creation whatever you say. But this is not the place to discuss it. Dora Nichov 10:10, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

agree Lotrtkdchic 16:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

turtles can live in coral reefs too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.215.121.103 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not a question of being "narrow minded". People are free to believe in whatever they want. But the problem with being "in favor of tolerance" is that most faith groups only extend that as far as their own faith. I don't see many Christians arguing in favour of the Islamic perception of Jesus, or for the Buddhist goal of Nirvana instead of Heaven. So unless you'd like opposing religions to re-write and refute the Wikipedia articles about your faith, it's perhaps best not to assume that scientific articles would be improved by being re-written to suit a creationist rather than mainstream science sensibility. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, evolutionary theory ought to be just that - a scientific theory. I.e., it takes observations and tries to make sense of them. Whether each and every detail of the resultant theory is 100% correct is not the issue (Dawkins and Gould disagreed about so much, and both are/were staunch defenders of evolutionary thought). The observations - the fossils, the DNA sequences, and whatnot - remain; that all these things exist is a hard fact, if anything is. And these things being hard facts, they are worthy of inclusion in such an article on the Wikipedia.

So for an "anti-evolutionary" viewpoint, you'd have to eliminate MUCH content; with these animals more than with most other - even though we don't really know (yet) how the chelonian features evolved precisely -, most of that they are and how they are makes sense only in the light of an evolutionary scenario. Compare the Conservapedia take on the issue: they'd have a hard time acknowledging Odontochelys. But Odontochelys (or rather its lithified remains) does exist.

It is easy to see why a generally evolutionist interpretation is favored by knowledgeable people: it does not require so many raw facts to be dismissed to work. Indeed, it ought to work better and ever better the more raw facts are being discovered, and few creationsts are even remotely aware how much evolutionary thinking has itself evolved since Darwin and Wallace. Modern evolutionary theory did not exist til the mid-20th century, when population genetics and "tree thinking" all of a sudden made sense of what had puzzled the early evolutionists. Most creationsts assume evolutionary thought is still where it was almost 150 years ago, but this is patently untrue. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Bertrand Russell

"Bertrand Russell, giving a lecture on astronomy, described how the earth orbits the sun which orbits and the movement of the sun about the galaxy. When he had finished, an old lady stood up and protested: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant turtle." Russell smiled and asked gently, "What is the turtle standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the woman. "But it's turtles all the way down."

Did this really happen? I thought it was a fable.

See Turtles all the way down TomS TDotO (talk) 14:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Terrapin

im from NA, never heard the world terrapin ,always called em either: turtles, sea turtles, or tortoises. this article is interestin but a bit too technical and i doubt its that accessible to 'normal folks' - anonymwikier

Where is "NA"?

Mythology & pictures

much needs to be added regarding the turtle in mythology and folklore. Kingturtle 17:59 31 May 2003 (UTC)

The Turtle page should have some pictures of non sea turtles too. Any one have a box turtle picture?sunja 12:07, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There's a picture of a land tortoise on the tortoise page.

If, as the header says, turtles include land tortoises as well, how come the only two major groups are sea turtles and fresh water turtles? Kappa 21:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

turtles NOT tortoises or terrapins

This article states that "(Turtle is) a generic name for the group of reptiles which includes tortoises and terrapins" I've never heard anyone use the word turtle to refer to the whole group of reptiles. This article seems a little confused.

Here in america Turtle is the common title given to any terrapin or tortoise. sunja 05:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am sure any thing can apply colloquaily, but do zoologists in the North Amercia do this? It's a bit like referring to calling all species of Bovinae cows. I'm not suggesting any change though as the generic term is well established, I'm just wondering if a terrapin or tortoise would be labelled as a turtle by any owner of one, even in North America? Dainamo 09:41, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If popular usage is any indication, most Americans would call any shelled reptile a "turtle". If it lives in the ocean, "sea turtle". But (at least in the Midwest), "terrapin" is not often heard. If you saw a beaked, shelled reptile in a stream, you would say "Look, a turtle!" At least I would! Gwimpey 04:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Everyone I know uses 'cow' to refer to any bovine.

One solution could be to merge both Turtle & Tortoise to Testudines. The aricle Tortoise is quite short and repeates much of what is to be found at Turtle. Of course, we then have the problem that it's an unfamiliar name.Jimp 15:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

In australia we differentiate between turtles and tortoises. Including children. In the movie Blade Runner, when a character said he didn't know what a tortoise was, I assumed it was because they didn't exist in Mars or perhaps weren't so common in the future. I'm currently reading a university text (American) on vertebrates and it seems to use the terms "Testudinata", "Turtles and tortoises" and "Turtles" interchangably. And the above comments make me realise it's just american thing. (In the movie the respose was: "You know what a turtle is? .. Same thing."

The subject of this article has confused me before, as even small children are quick to point out the difference between a turtle and tortoise here in Australia. Whatever this article is about, it should be stated clearly in the introduction. But referring to tortoises as turtles is sure to confuse people (at least here in Aus). Pengo 22:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is very similar to the difference between frogs and toads. If you check out the frog article, it says that there is no taxonomic reasoning behind the differentiation of frogs and toads (it is based on skin texture and moisture, which can vary between species of the same genus). The same goes for turtle. Although some are called turtle and some are called tortoises (and for some reason terrapins), does not mean there is an actual difference. The common names are obviously cultural based (although I can't remember the reason behind naming something a turtle and something a tortoise). If you can find a turtle and a tortoise in the same genus (or even in the same family), then there is no justification behind seperating them. --liquidGhoul 11:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on this before in the section Metric conversion fixed and further comment on "Americanisation", but basically tortoise and turtle come from the same Latin root. For whatever reason, tortoise dropped out of use in the English-speaking Americas, while tortoise remains ubiquitous in Britain, Australia, and many other English-speaking countries. Wikipedia shouldn't be about how Americans marshall knowledge, but how the world does it.

Differentiating between turtles, tortoises, and terrapins as done in British English does have some taxonomic basis: essentially the Chelonioidae are turtles, the Testudinidae are tortoises, and the North American amphibious "turtles" are terrapins (family Emydidae). Pretty much everything else is referred to as a turtle, usually prefixed with some vernacular name (e.g. box turtle). Note that the word terrapin is a Native American word, originally applied to one of the Emydidae, the diamondback terrapin. So it isn't some peculiar dialect word brought across from Europe, it's an honest-to-goodness, flag-waving, rootin'-tootin' American word. Curious that is hardly used by anyone unfamiliar with that species.

The problem for Wikipedians is that referring to terrestrial chelonians as "turtles" will be confusing to English speakers outside of the US and Canada, while using tortoise and terrapin without explanation may well be confusing to Americans and Canadians.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

"Wikipedia shouldn't be about how Americans marshall knowledge, but how the world does it."

Given that americais part of the world, shouldn't the different usages all be discussed, rather than using only one or the other?Dinoguy2 18:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It is. When I wrote the section on turtle, tortoise, or terrapin, that's exactly what I aimed to do. Others have elaborated, specifically the usage in Australia, of which I was ignorant. Neale Monks 08:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me add an opinion here-Regarding the title of the article, I think Turtle should probably stay. In American dialects, "turtle" refers to the entire group of shelled reptiles. British dialects, as far as I know, do not have a common name for this group. so, if the title were standardized after the British terminology, it would have to be a scientific name alien to most readers. In my opinion, it is more helpful to use "Turtle" as the title, and explain the usage in the text (which seems to already have been done). In other words, leave it alone ;) Dinoguy2 18:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There is a standard British English word, chelonian, one that was adopted from scientific use and is quite widely used here, though perhaps not by children. Actually, it is far more common the see British English books on these animals to use the phrase "Turtles and Tortoises" for the entire group, just as we'd say "Horses and Ponies" or "Trees and Shrubs" for exactly the same types of semantic, contextual problems. Neale Monks 08:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Start another turtle article already! There are two meanings of turtle here, and neither of them is wrong, and I'd like to propose a solution other than just renaming the article. I've seen similar seemingly endless debates at the Hacker article. Geeks like to call themselves hackers (in what they call "the positive sense of the word") while on the other hand the media likes to refer specifically to computer crims as "hackers". The two meanings are similar to those of turtle. The broader meaning encompasses the narrower one. The hacker article was long and ugly as it wrestled with the two meanings. I eventually split the article into Hacker and Hacker (computer security) and the debate ended. I plan/propose to do the same with this article. Split it into:

• Turtle (Testudines) - which will be pretty much the article as is
• Turtle - a short article about non-tortoise turtles with links to the other turtle article.

If anyone has better ideas for the names or how to split the article, suggestions welcome.—Pengo 00:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this is a brilliant idea. It solves the entire problem in one fell swoop. The important thing will be to highlight the parts of the biology that are general to all the members of the group, and those that are specific to the aquatic ones. Terrapin should remain associated primarily with the Malaclemys though there should be a comment there explaining that outside of the US, and especially in the UK, terrapin is often applied to freshwater turtles. Neale Monks 08:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. The current situation is rather confusing. A-giau 03:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have added a bit that was deleted a while ago about the linguistic differences to help clear this up... I really don't think the answer is to divide the article up. i also don't think the answer is to change the title to chelonian as only scientific folks use that term, and wikipedia is not for scientists specifically. sunja 10:04, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I have added some tweaks and had earlier fixed up Testudines. The term form taxon and some internal links should have fixed the matter. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Anapsid vs. diapsid

Regarding this issue in the main article---“Reanalysis of prior phylogenies that affirmed an anapsid ancestry suggests that their inclusion of turtles within Anapsida was due to both the starting assumption that they were anapsid (most prior phylogenies concerned what sort of anapsid they were) and also due to insufficiently broad sampling of fossil and extant taxa for construction of the cladogram. While the issue is far from resolved, most scientists now lean towards a Diapsid origin for turtles.”---would a Diapsid origin for turtles challenge the widely held belief that turtles existed at the beginning of the dinosaurs [about 300 million years ago]? Comments, please.

AFAIK, the earliest turtle fossils date to about 200ma, in the Late Triassic, around the same time dinosaurs first appeared on the scene. So whether or not they descended from Archosaurs or Pareiasaurs, the current timeline of their evolution would probably reain largely the same (though it seems likely that earlier "transitional" forms must have existed).Dinoguy2 19:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Shell breathing

HELP PLEASE! Would you be able to tell me why turtles cant breath when they are on their shell? Greg

erm.. "on" their shell? I'll just assume you mean "in", and i don't see any reason why they couldn't breathe. 24.77.18.71 (talk) 02:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think he means if they are upside-down, but I still don't know if it's true or if it, why. Lime in the Coconut 20:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Molting

Do turtles molt?

no

I added a section for this. They do not shed their skin in a single sheet, like snakes, but they do slough off small pieces, just as we do. If you keep a terrapin in an aquarium, you will often see small pieces of dead skin floating about. The scales on the shell are not shed though, and it is the accumulation of dead scales that makes the shell grow in thickness. Neale Monks 07:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Turtles do actually shed the outermost layer of their scutes. They are thin and translucent. "If you keep a terrapin in an aquarium" you would know this. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brien_sm (talk • contribs) 09:18, 31 May, 2006

I can verify that from my own pet turtle. - CobaltBlueTony 14:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

There's a distinction between moulting -- the deliberate shedding of excess skin -- and simple abrasion or loss of skin. I'm not 100% convinced that chelonians deliberately set out to shed scutes from the shell in the same way they obviously do with the rest of the skin. I think it's more likely that some scutes simply get worn off over time. It is also important to make the point that it is the accumulation of scutes (i.e., modified scales) that builds up the thickness of the shell. When I kept red-eared terrapins as a teenager, body skin was quite commonly seen in the aquarium, but finding a lost scute relatively uncommon. Neale Monks 17:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Chelonia

Resolved

Chelonia currently redirects to Turtle, but Chelonia is the monotypic genus containing the Green Sea Turtle. Shouldn't it be Chelonian-->Turtle, and Chelonia-->Green Sea Turtle? jimfbleak 2 July 2005 05:08 (UTC)

• Yes you are right. I changed it. sunja 00:26, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Testudines vs. Chelonia

Resolved

The taxobox refers to the order Testudines, but the article says that turtles/tortoises/terrapins make up the order Chelonia. Can any biologists set this straight? Is this a case of old vs. new taxonomy? Gwimpey 04:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Testudines is the correct name for the order when all turtles, living and extinct, are included. The crown group of all living turtles is Chelonia. I've modified the text to hopefully clear this up.Dinoguy2 23:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Turtles and tortoises in popular culture

I created a new page where people can keep adding pop culture content, so that this page can focus on the biology. We have done the same at Frog, creating Frogs in popular culture. Hope everyone agrees that this is a good idea. Best, Samsara _contrib ^talk 12:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

addition by 63.20.123.26

Resolved

The addition by 63.20.123.26 to this article seems to suit more into a discussion page of evolution theory or Creation-evolution controversy... My proposal is to remove it as containing no pertinent information. Kaarel 02:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Done. I have removed the questioning by this user. Pengo 03:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sizes, Americanisation, and anapsids/diapsids

I've re-written the section on biggest and smallest species, which was hopelessly US-centric. Who cares what the smallest or biggest species in America are, if there are smaller and bigger ones in the rest of the world? Unless we're going to list smallest/biggest in Asia, Australia, etc., isn't it best to stick to global record breakers?

I've also added a section explaining turtle, terrapin, and tortoise. They aren't difficult to understand. Terrapin is a Native American word, despite not being used much in America. It refers to any fresh or brackish water 'turtle', as opposed to the fully marine species. Tortoise is used in both British and Australian English for any land 'turtle'. To a Brit, calling a tortoise a turtle sounds/reads very strangely.

The word chelonian is actually the preferred word among scientists, since it is language-neutral and doesn't cause confusion. Whether or not this article should eventually migrate to that title instead of the US-centric "turtle" heading is a good question. Are we producing a world encyclopaedia, or one for Americans too lazy to learn the linguistic subtleties of the English language as a global language?

Finally, Anapsida is correct, Anapsids isn't. In scientific nomencature, formal names, e.g. Crustacea, are captialised, whereas informal names, like crustacean, is not. Hence Anapsida, but anapsids.

Neale Monks 10:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What's this animal? Seems like someone's vandalizing here: Angana Greenback (Angana arnoldus) is a freshwater turtle (670 lb) found exclusively in the Philippines. Bushop (talk) 00:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Metric conversion fixed and further comment on "Americanisation"

I've fixed the English->metric conversion for the weight of the smallest tortoise. The English weight is shown correctly at 5oz rather than 0.5oz, according to common sense and a Google lookup on "speckled padloper tortoise". In grams that's 140, not 14. ...But is this really the smallest turtle/tortoise? I've seen much smaller ones in pet shops; maybe they're just babies? My impression was that they were full-grown. They are common here in the U.S. Their round shells are no more than about 4-5 cm, and they are quite flat-bodied so they must weigh much less than 140g (5oz.) I'll look into it when I have the time.

...p.s. Linguistic subtleties...Lazy Americans???? Who's to say what's right? You have your dialect, I have mine. They are two of many. There are always regional differences, even in different sections of a given country if it's large enough. In the U.S. (at least the part I'm from), "turtle" is an all-encompassing term for anything that looks like a tortoise, a turtle, a terrapin or whatever; and "tortoise" is a more specific term for one of these that lives on land. It takes a great leap to get from this fact to "Americans are lazy." It is unrealistic to expect people to learn ALL dialects. It should be enough to expect them to be civil when encountering dialectal differences.

Here's the definition of "turtle" from dictionary.com: 1. Any of various aquatic or terrestrial reptiles of the order Testudines (or Chelonia), having horny toothless jaws and a bony or leathery shell into which the head, limbs, and tail can be withdrawn in most species. 2. (Chiefly British.) A sea turtle.

Barring further discussion here, I'll soon be editing the Australian attempt to divine the American definition of "turtle", while refraining from any jibes like "Too lazy to learn American English, are we?" except in jest. Again, it's not sensible to expect any one person to know all dialects of English...if it's even possible. The problem is, you can't determine what you don't know. This is a great example. I had no idea that "turtle" had a different meaning elsewhere than what I've always known (and found in the dictionary!) How could I know, except by the pure chance of a Wikipedia random article? No doubt YOUR dialect is also chock-full of words that have different meanings elsewhere, of which you are blissfully unaware.

p.p.s. I would like to discourage attempting to solve the issue by using the word "chelonian", other than in scientific circles. It is likely to elicit a blank look from the average Aussie, Lazy American, or Brit alike. That's the problem inherent by definition in "language-neutral" terms: one must pick a term which is near-unknown in ALL dialects rather than favor one dialect over the others. If the term is adopted at all, it's likely to be adopted in spotty fashion, thus contributing to the problem rather than alleviating it. Who's going to look up "turtle" or "tortoise" by typing "chelonian"? And if a significant number of people learn what "chelonian" means and start using it in everyday speech, has the language gained ground or lost as a communication medium? It's one more word a sub-group of people will be using. That is precisely the definition of a dialectal difference.

"Chelonian" is probably not a good idea for another reason. "Chelonia" can mean C. mydas, the green sea turtle, which is the only member of genus Chelonia. Or it can mean "turtles and tortoises" (dictionary.com again.)

Shyland 02:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Shyland, OK, apologies for the lazy American jibe. Also, thanks for correcting the weights and measures.

The definition of "turtle" will vary on where you look. Examine the Oxford English Dictionary, and you get something along the lines of (this is from AskOxford.com) : noun; a marine or freshwater reptile with a bony or leathery shell and flippers or webbed toes. Hence, quoting from an American dictionary (such as Dictionary.com), or a British one, doesn't really solve anything. I assume the British English usage is older, but that doesn't make it necessarily "more correct". Ironically, tortoise and turtle have the same Latin root, with tortoise coming directly from tortuca while turtle came via the French, tortue.

I agree with you about chelonian as the Wikipedia term; while it is widely used among scientists and biologists (of which I'm one), and to a lesser degree among people who keep these animals as pets, it isn't yet widely used among non-experts.

I will admit to preferring tortoise, terrapin, and turtle for the three types of reptile. It is immediately obvious what is meant by a tortoise for example, as opposed to a turtle or terrapin. With the American use of turtle for all chelonians, you need a further clarification to know whether a terrestrial, amphibious, or marine species is being referred to.

Cheers,

Neale Monks 19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Flippers or Feet

Resolved

I went to this website wanting to know if turtles have feet or flippers. Perhaps its something you could add.

Added. Neale Monks 19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Reptiles?

Q&A

Turtles spend a lot of time underwater. If they're reptiles- how do they breathe underwater?

They don't. They come up to the surface and breathe air. Gary 21:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not quite true. A very small number of terrapins (freshwater turtles) can extract oxygen from the water across the surface of the cloaca. (Colloquially, this is described as breathing through their butts.) These species still need to surface periodically, but this cloacal breathing allows them to stay underwater for longer. Most terrapins and turtles cannot do this though, so your general point stands. Neale Monks 05:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most surface, but some can, um, yeah, "breathe through their butts"... 61.230.78.158 07:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

they have very permeable skin,so they can breathe thru it under extreme conditions[rarely],Silver4 15:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Article needs more info

Suggestions for what the article could use more info on:

• turtles as pets
• cultural connotations of turtles (e.g. association with longevity; mythological giant turtles posing as islands; Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles; etc.)

—Lowellian (reply) 22:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

• my husband says a turtle is 7 different kinds of meat....is that true?

Time to standardise!

This article is getting cumbersome. A recent revision to the "turtle, terapin, or tortoise" bit insists that the correct usage in America is turtle for chelonians, and sea turtle for the marine species. I actually disagree with this, having heard lots of Americans refer to land and freshwater chelonians as turtles. But what I think doesn't matter, the problem is that there clearly is no consensus on what a turtle is.

An obvious option is to move everything to Chelonian, laving a re-direct behind, so that anyone looking up turtles goes straight there are generally gets the chelonian background before going off to find out about specific groups, like sea turtles. As a biologist, I favour chelonian because that's what's used in science and it is language-neutral and so removes confusion (one you know what a chelonian is!).

I'd suggest using chelonian as the noun for all the different types, and then rigorously stick to use sea turtle, freshwater turtle, and tortoise where different groups within the Chelonia are meant. Terrapin can be explained in the bit about linguistic differences, and then dropped, and we can recognise the different groups thus:

Sea turtles

• Family Toxochelyidae (extinct)
• Family Cheloniidae (Green Sea Turtles and relatives)
• Family Thalassemyidae (extinct)
• Family Dermochelyidae (Leatherback Turtles)
• Family Protostegidae (extinct)

Tortoises, or land turtles

• Family Testudinidae (Tortoises)

Freshwater turtles, or terrapins

• Family Proterochersidae (extinct)
• Family Chelidae (Austro-American Sideneck Turtles)
• Family Araripemydidae (extinct)
• Family Pelomedusidae (Afro-American Sideneck Turtles)
• Family Bothremydidae (extinct)
• Family Podocnemididae
• Family Chelydridae (Snapping Turtles)
• Family Meiolaniidae (Horned turtle, extinct)
• Family Haichemydidae (extinct)
• Family Sinochelyidae (extinct)
• Family Lindholmemydidae (extinct)
• Family Geoemydidae (Asian River Turtles, Leaf and Roofed Turtles, Asian Box Turtles)
• Family Emydidae (Pond Turtles/Box and Water Turtles)
• Family Adocidae (extinct)
• Family Carettochelyidae (Pignose Turtles)
• Family Trionychidae (Softshell Turtles)
• Family Dermatemydidae (River Turtles)
• Family Kinosternidae (Mud and Musk Turtles)
• Family Platysternidae (Big-headed Turtles)

Cheers,

Neale Neale Monks 16:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. A similar way to go about it is instead of moving the article to Chelonian, to move it to Turtle (Chelonian), which I think would make everyone happy. (I threatened to do this before but never went through with it). —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 07:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm against Turtle (Chelonian). For us Brits, that still implies only sea turtles (which are a sub-grouping of Chelonians), following the same logic as Secret Army (TV series) and many other pages. How about Chelonian (Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins) or just Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins? Or perhaps Testudines? Personally, I'm happy with the simple Chelonian? Bluap 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, another US vs UK dialect difference is that the word normally used for a large expanse of salt water is ocean in the USA, but sea in the UK. If you look at the section Turtle, tortoise or terrapin you will see this difference in the various paragraphs Bluap 18:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguments over the usage of chelonian are good, but we do need to agree before moving or dividing. My vote goes for Chelonian (Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins). As for ocean versus sea, then call them "marine turtles" and be done with it! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

According to the article, the marine turtles are called sea turtles in the US, so I would suggest going for that. As for redirects, I would suggest Turtle -> Chelonian (or whatever we use), Land turtle -> Tortoise , Terrapin -> Freshwater Turtle with a note at the top of Tortoise about the Australian use of the term to mean Freshwater Turtle Bluap 19:28, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

On second thoughts, just plain Chelonian (or Testudines) is fine by me. Bluap has a point that "Turtle (Chelonian)" remains ambiguous; and Chelonian (Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins) is unweildy and overly redundant. Whichever name is used, we should have the sub-articles on Sea turtle, Tortoise, and Freshwater turtle ready. —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 23:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not it's "sea turtle" in the US isn't really (and shouldn't be) the deciding factor. It should be sea turtle, but by the same token as things like sea hare, sea mouse, seaweed, sea eagle, sea snake, seahorse, etc -- it's simply more common in English (of all types) to call marine creatures sea-whatever rather than ocean-whatever. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:57, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not "sea turtle" vs "ocean turtle" that is in question. In the most of the rest of the world, "sea turtles" are referred to simply as "turtles". Bluap 21:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

"Most of the rest of the world" is a big place. I'm pretty sure the Chinese have their own words for sea turtles, and likely so do the Indians, Italians, and Iranians. What we're talking about here is the clearest English language wording. The very fact we're having this argument demonstrates the need for clarification. The assumption that one person's turtle is what another person means by turtle isn't solid enough: Brits, Americans, and Australians all use these words differently. Really, the only logical solution is to have an article, Turtle, that disambiguates to the scientific terminology -- Chelonian (Turtles, Tortoises and Terrapins) -- while also explaining that the word is also used to mean all chelonians in American English, all aquatic chelonians in Australian English, and all marine turtles in British English. The etymology of the word should also be provided so that people can understand where the differences came from (and why they actually all mean the same thing). Trying to force vernacular terms to mean one thing to speakers of all versions of English is pointless and impractical. And it isn't fun either; I for one enjoy the differences and like learning about them. It's good for people to understand that even words in "the same language" can mean different things to different people. There's a life-lesson there. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:52, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I know a bit of Chinese. 龜 is the generic name of testudines, no matter it is on land or in sea. You might observe the head, tail, shell and legs in the character. 龜 is any animal that looks like tortoise, turtle and terrapins with a hard shell. The soft-shell testudines Trionychidae is known as 鱉. At the time English meets Chinese, 龜 is translated to tortoise in English, and turtle is translated to Chinese as 海龜，which means a sea tortoise. Tortoise is indeed the generic of hundreds of years.

Here is the definition from an America dictionary.

 Tortoise \Tor"toise\, n. [OE. tortuce, fr. OF. tortis crooked,
    fr. L. tortus twisted, crooked, contorted, p. p. of torquere,
    tortum, to wind; cf. F. tortue tortoise, LL. tortuca,
    tartuca, Pr. tortesa crookedness, tortis crooked. so called
    in allusion to its crooked feet. See {Torture}.]
    1. (Zool.) Any one of numerous species of reptiles of the
       order {Testudinata}.
       [1913 Webster]

    Note: The term is applied especially to the land and
          fresh-water species, while the marine species are
          generally called turtles, but the terms tortoise and
          turtle are used synonymously by many writers. See
          {Testudinata}, {Terrapin}, and {Turtle}.
          [1913 Webster]

 Turtle \Tur"tle\ (t[^u]r"t'l), n. [AS. turtle, L. turtur;
    probably of imitative origin. Cf. {Turtle} the sea tortoise.]
    (Zool.)
    The turtledove.
    [1913 Webster]

 Turtle \Tur"tle\, n. [Probably the same word as the word
    preceding, and substituted (probably by sailors) for the
    Spanish or Portuguese name; cf. Sp. tortuga tortoise, turtle,
    Pg. tartaruga, also F. tortue, and E. tortoise.]
    [1913 Webster]
    [1913 Webster]
    1. (Zool.) Any one of the numerous species of Testudinata,
       especially a sea turtle, or chelonian.
       [1913 Webster]

    Note: In the United States the land and fresh-water tortoises
          are also called turtles.
          [1913 Webster]

The tortoise is the generic name while turtle is sea tortoise in English world. The American classification here causes much confusion to the rest of the world.

— HenryLi (Talk) 00:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Help identifying turtle/tortoise?

While out walking a few years ago I came across a turtle or tortoise walking slowly in the sandy soil. I took a few pictures of her and continued on my way. On my way back I noticed she had dug a hole and was laying eggs in the hole. I'd like to add one or two of the pictures to Wikipedia in appropriate articles, but I need help identifying the particular species. She was located near the St. Lawrence River (Thousand Islands region). Here are two low-res images for identification purposes: [1] [2] Once she's been identified I'll sort through the images and prep higher-res versions for Wikipedia. Can anybody help? -- Moondigger 14:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

She looks like a Snapping turtle of some sort. Great capture, she is beautiful. --liquidGhoul 14:40, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Your turtle is a Common Snapping Turtle (Chelydra serpentina). MFuture 21:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely snapping turtle. Impossible to mistake for anything else! Dora Nichov 10:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Nutrition

What do turtles eat Silver4 15:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Though it depends on the species, generally they eat virtually anything they can. But each has their preferences: sea turtles prefer seaweed and jellyfish, snapping turtles eat mostly fish, frogs and smaller turtles, box turtles like mushrooms and many tortoises especially like catuses. Dora Nichov 13:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Turtles and Longevity

What about turtles and longevity..? According to this nytimes article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/12/science/12turt.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5094&en=703f2d9d852258ce&hp&ex=1165899600&partner=homepage

"Behind such biblical longevity is the turtle’s stubborn refusal to senesce — to grow old. Don’t be fooled by the wrinkles, the halting gait and the rheumy gaze. Researchers lately have been astonished to discover that in contrast to nearly every other animal studied, a turtle’s organs do not gradually break down or become less efficient over time.

Dr. Christopher J. Raxworthy, the associate curator of herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History, says the liver, lungs and kidneys of a centenarian turtle are virtually indistinguishable from those of its teenage counterpart, a Ponce de Leonic quality that has inspired investigators to begin examining the turtle genome for novel longevity genes.

“Turtles don’t really die of old age,” Dr. Raxworthy said. In fact, if turtles didn’t get eaten, crushed by an automobile or fall prey to a disease, he said, they might just live indefinitely."

Well, the turtles eat neither hamburgers, nor pizza. That explains everything! Rursus 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Turtle eggs as a food

Note: I'm not RECOMMENDING them! I note that the article at present does not mention turtle eggs as a food, nor is there a separate article on turtle eggs. The article on aphrodisiacs mentions the popularity of this item in that context and the effects that the popularity may have on the survival of the turtle population in certain areas. It seems that this would be a worthwhile section, though I wouldn't personally know how to go about pulling together the relevant info. I also was looking for "turtle eggs" as a topic so that I could note that one popular Salvadoran online site for children has as a major sponsor a campaign to discourage the eating of turtle eggs, as I thought this fact would be of interest. Lawikitejana 00:35, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that if anyone ever added it, it was removed as it has to be included with the appropriate info on the conservation of frogs. Also, the illegality of it needs to be discussed, so if anyone does include the info, it can't be half-assed. --liquidGhoul 00:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

As a starting point for gathering data.. You can search the IUCN Red List for turtles threatened by being harvested for food, and check which of those mention eggs. For example the entry on the Green Sea Turtle (Chelonia mydas) mentions "extensive subpopulation declines in all major ocean basins over the last three generations as a result of overexploitation of eggs ...". (Remember to click "Comprehensive" on red list entries to show all the info) —Pengo ^{talk · contribs} 01:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Proganochelys NOT oldest

I've heard about some older fossils, but I cannot remember what name... Please remind me! Rursus 16:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Might be the new guy(s) just described. See also Testudines. Proganochelys is still the oldest fully shelled turtle. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:06, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

What eats them?

Article should answer: What animals are the main predators of turtles? And how do they coax 'em out of that shell? Tempshill 03:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

All kinds of things eat them. Baby sea turtles are eaten by practically everything from crabs and seabirds through to large fish. Larger sea turtles are eaten by sharks, not always whole: it's quite common for sea turtles to have missing flippers thanks to shark attacks. Terrapins are eaten by alligators, otters, and other such predators with strong jaws. Tortoises are very vulnerable when young and get eaten by most carnivores given the chance. As they get older, only certain predators are able to deal with them, most famously eagles lifting and dropping tortoises to smash the shells. All turtle/terrapin/tortoise eggs are dug up by opportunistic terrestrial predators such as foxes and lizards.

Sea turtles are of course widely used as human food (meat and eggs), and terrapins are a delicacy in some parts of the US and elsewhere. Tortoises are eaten by people, but not so often. More as at a subsistence than by choice.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

care to add this to the article? ;) sunja 11:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When I have time to dig out references (i.e., not today!), yes, I'll add. But I think the priority is dividing up the article in "turtle" the colloquial name used in UK/USA differently and "turtle" the gorup Chelonia. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:36, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

well like i said somewhere above its best to not split the article up over who calls what what, imo. Its easy enough to deal with that in this article... sunja 09:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The freshwater adults are attacked by raccoons, alligators and jaguars, which can easily crush the shell with their jaws. In the sea, killer whales and sharks may attack sea turtles, biting off their flippers. The largest tortoises aren't attacked by anything, but the smaller species can be killed when eagles smash them on rocks or hyenas crunch them up. Dora Nichov 11:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Snapping Turtles & Painted Turtles

I wondered if anyone can tell me if Snapping Turtles will "get along" with Painted Turtles in a pond habitat?

Thank You. TSchlauch

This isn't really a place for asking questions about pets. But, for what it's worth, the is most probably a BAD combination. Snapping turtles will view any smaller animal as potential prey. Cheers, Neale

Semi-protection?

Given the amount of vandalism on this page, would anyone object to it being semi-protected? (This would mean that only established users could edit the page.) Bluap 04:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving bits of Turtle to other articles

OK, I know we've been round this a dozen times, and the only thing we all seem to agree on is that the present article is unsatisfactory. There's too much duplication between this article and tortoise; and now that I've created a proper terrapin article, the need to explain that term here in depth is somewhat redundant as well. So how about moving the taxonomy and evolution stuff off to a new article I've created, Testudines, and then place the ecological bits in the sea turtle or tortoise articles as required. Freshwater turtle/terrapin stuff can either be added to the terrapin article or left on the (super)family-level articles such as Trionychoidea or Emydidae where it properly belongs. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to add a small comment. Don't forget about those of us users that don't really even have any idea the difference between turtle and tortise and terrapin. IE keep a dumbed down introduction and a see also so guys like me don't get lost in the mechanics of naming conventions and other scientific stuff. JohnCub 23:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

pet care section to Pet turtles

I've moved all this stuff to its own article. Given there are hundreds of chelonians of which a handful are kept as pets, there's no real reason to keep all that stuff here. Sufficient to mention perhaps that one commercial value of chelonians is as pets. The pet turtles article could do with a copy-edit, to make it less like a how-to and more like a proper article. Adding in-line refs would be a good start. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Pet turtles largely moved to Wikibooks

This article was flagged as a How-to guide. So, I moved most of the stuff to Wikibooks. It needed a bit of work, as it seemed to be entirely centred on the US hobby. And some stuff, like recommending live feeder fish as food, simply isn't supported by professional pet animal keepers or writers (of which I'm one). So that had to go! Otherwise, for those who keep these beasts, that's the place to focus your efforts on keeping red-eared sliders and the like.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Keeping_Pet_Turtles

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 12:50, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Turtles are racist?

Under the "Anatomy and morphology" heading you can find the sentence "Turtles are racist" in the first paragraph. What does this mean? They do not interbreed between different species of turtle? Maybe this could be written in some way that allows you to be more certain of what the article is saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.63.102.177 (talk) 14:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What it means is that somebody seriously deficient in intelligence, maturity and sense of humour vandalised the article. It has now been fixed. Awien 16:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL vandalism at its best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.57.121 (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Turtles vs tortoises: nuances of usage in America

Whoever wrote the turtle/tortoise/terrapin section regarding the various usages in English, was greatly misinformed about American usage. There is a graphic chart indicating that American usage is to call tortoises turtles. Not so. Americans call tortoises, tortoises; and turtles, turtles.

This notion that Americans say 'turtle' for 'tortoise' seems to be a kind of urban legend in Britain. It probably arose because in America fresh-water turtles are far more common, both in the wild and as pets, than tortoises are. Another point of confusion may arise from the unusual circumstance of North American box turtles (species Terrapene carolina; various subspecies). These are fresh-water turtles, the best-known subspecies of which have almost entirely adapted to land. Taxonomically a box turtle is a turtle, but a casual observer unfamiliar with the species may look at its domed carapace and dry feet, and readily assume it to be a tortoise.

The article correctly notes that in American usage 'terrapin' is restricted specifically to the true terrapin, while in Britain, where there are no true terrapins, the word is applied loosely to any fresh-water turtle. Thus an American box turtle in Britain might be mistaken for a tortoise or defined as a terrapin, but in reality is neither.Sallieparker 11:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not unsympathetic to this argument, the comments higher up this talk page would seem to suggest that "turtles" is a phrase widely (most widely?) used by Americans for what others call tortoises. A quick search on Amazon for example will reveal books such as "The Turtle: An Owner's Guide to a Happy Healthy Pet " -- with a picture of a tortoise on the front! On the other hand there certainly are books like "Turtles and Tortoises (Complete Pet Owner's Manual)". As a Brit who has lived in the US, I can add that my experience goes along with this: some Americans use "tortoise", and some don't. I have at least one pet reptile book (Alderton 1986, full citation in Terrapin) that says that "...in the US and elsewhere, the name 'turtle' is widely used for all chelonians, which frequently leads to confusion". Find me a reference that says the opposite, that all Americans use the word "tortoise" for terrestrial chelonians, and we can change the article's wording accordingly. Cheers, Neale Monks 15:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

As a Briton living in the USA, I can confirm that at least some US people call terrestrial chelonians "turtles", and that others call them "tortoises". Generally, I think that "turtles" is more common, and is used as the generic term for all chelonians. Bluap 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

For Neale Monks: I have looked up the book you referred to [3] and the green reptile is in fact a fresh-water turtle, a Red-Eared Slider or Elegant Slider. Not a tortoise. (Fair disclosure: I own one.) I also found a thumbnail for the title, with what appears to be red-legged tortoise, but I don't know if that was actual cover-art or a placeholder image. I don't see any need to produce some preposterous statement to the effect that 'all Americans say tortoise.' Better just to check with the members of the New York Turtle and Tortoise Society, or possibly the California Turtle and Tortoise Club, or the Mid-Atlantic Turtle and Tortoise Society (etc. etc.), and ask them if they use the word.Sallieparker 21:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Sallieparker -- there appear to be multiple versions of that book. Here [4] it has a tortoise on the cover. But regardless, this is a non-argument. I'd LOVE to convert all the articles to tortoise, terrapin, and sea turtle -- or some variation thereof -- but the plain fact is there are plenty of Wikipedians who have insisted that *they* don't call tortoises anything other than turtles. As I said before, and in keeping with Wikipedia tradition, find a published reference that says Americans widely call tortoises tortoises and not turtles, and then add it to the article! That isn't "preposterous" -- it's just the way things are done here. So even if you consider that a waste of time, you opinion by itself doesn't count for much. I'm a zoologist by training and would rather everyone used Latin names and formal taxonomic groupings anyway: genus Testudo, family Emyidae, and so on. Arguments over "common names" always become a mess, just like this one. For what it's worth, take a look at the talk page for Sleet; it seems many Americans use this word in the British sense rather than the way used by the American meteorological agency! These sorts of things can be a real minefield. Cheers, Neale Monks 22:53, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What do Turtles/Tortoises eat?

Some may think this is an idiotic question. To improve article quality … it would be nice to answer the most basic questions that any topic novice might have on any given animal. Such as, are turtles/tortoises herbivorous? What do different kinds of such consume for sustenance? Nonprof. Frinkus 23:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Testudines

Why is Testudines seperate from this article? In almost all other cases, the scientific name and common name for a group share an article, and Testudines seems to be simple the taxonomy section branched off, which makes little sense to me, as again, taxonomy is included in the main article for all other animal groups on Wikipedia. The introductory paragraph even appears to be exactly the same in both articles. Looks like an easy candidate for a merge. Dinoguy2 06:28, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. Though I have fixed up the intro in both, so that the various uses of "turtle" are now explained here, and the systematics and taxonomy of Testudines and Chelonia is explained in the other. In any case, a merger would better take place at Chelonia to respect the Evolution-given rights of good (not-so-)ole(-as you-might-expect) Australochelys ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Amazing?

I wonder who added this:

They make amazing meals and pets.

Someone should change that?

Why? Because you don't like it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.40.146 (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Because words like "Amazing" don't belong in an encyclopedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.67.255 (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

turtles as pets

health hazard?

{{expand article}}

Bergmire-Sweat; et al. (01/25/2008), Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, Centers for Disease Control, pp. p. 69 http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/wk/mm5703.pdf {{citation}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help); Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

69.140.152.55 (talk) 03:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Accuracy of Terminology Chart

This chart seems fairly inaccurate as it is based on opinionated regional terminology which is not factual information rather than scientific terms. --75.67.13.238 (talk) 04:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the fact that it is opinionated regional terminology is the exact point of that section. The proper scientific term is "chelonians" in any case. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

NO - what he's saying is that the regional terminology is wrong. The opinion isn't within the region, it's on the whole. And it's completely wrong, because "tortoise" is the correct term in US English, whether the general population is aware of it or not. Here's an anology: I'm sure a good many US English speakers refer to spiders as bugs, but it would be wholely inaccurate to say "People in the US refer to arachnids as 'bugs'".

Simply changing the US portion to reflect that land turtles are called tortoises would do a lot to correct the misconception. The chart implies that the word tortoise isn't used in the US. FWIW, you could label all three groups "turtle" for the US portion, and would be accurate, but useless. It's a broad term for all shelled reptiles in the US. That doesn't mean that more specific terms don't exist or aren't commonly used. Lime in the Coconut 20:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Diamondback Terrapin Turtle

The Diamondback Terrapin Turtle is one of the most beautiful turtles of its kind with it's diamond shape patterns on its' shell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.240.72.250 (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Are there any turtle without shell?

most of whose body is shielded by a special bony or cartilaginous shell developed from their ribs.

What does this sentence mean? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.45.103.7 (talk) 00:22, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

[turtle snapping turtle lether back turtle] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.187.155.94 (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC) i understood, thanks.--60.45.103.7 (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Turtles Without Shells or With Aberrant Shells

I'd like to start out by saying that I'm not some silly little kid who can barely tell the head-end from the tail-end of a turtle.

I own a few. I live on a lake and see at least four species all the time. Turtle nests have hatched on our property. Turtles have died and left their empty shells in my neighborhood. I know that turtles and tortoises can not leave nor be removed from their shells without killing them. I consider myself a smart and educated person with a lot of first-hand turtle experience but I never seen a turtle, besides in zoos and on the tv, that I recognized as being genetically less than normal (albino, two-headed, etc).

That being said, does anyone know of a turtle, tortoise, or terrapin that has been discovered alive, dead, or stillborn, that is completely without a shell, missing a lot of shell, or has a shell that is malformed for genetic reasons??

Where?, How?, and Why? or Why Not?

• Where?

The three possible origins of such a turtle (in order of likeliness) would be 1. from a turtle farm, 2. from pet owner's offspring, or 3. from the wild.

• How?

Three possible situations for finding a turtle without a shell or with a severely malformed shell (in order of likeliness) are 1. a fertile egg that failed to hatch is opened by a curious human or pet, or hungry predator to reveal a stillborn baby, 2. a newly hatched baby fresh from the nest, 3. a wild turtle is seen.

• Why?

I believe that turtle farms are the most likely place to produce aberrant-shelled turtles whose bodies will be found because of the protection from predators, abundance of food, and the ideal incubation conditions provided. I know that turtle farmers regularly hatch thousands of turtles and routinely find bicephalic (two headed) babies -- commonly called "conjoined twins" or "Siamese twins". They also produce turtles that are albino, leucistic, hyper-, and hypo- melanistic, and more. Many of these conditions are the result of recessive genes. My ignorance on the subject of turtle farming leads me to speculate that inbreeding occurs more often in those facilities than in the wild and that the conditions allow animals that would die in nature from genetic defects or harmful aberrant genes to survive and reach sexual maturity.

• Why Not?

I know that turtle vertebrae are fused to the shell. I don't think that the anatomy of a turtle is such that its body is capable of sustaining life without a shell -- perhaps, without the shell's structural support, the body would just collapse in on itself. The vertebrae could sag and pinch nerves, causing pain and twitches, or prevent body parts that are posterior/ventral to the pinch from receiving data and orders from the brain/CNS. Also, I wouldn't expect turtle farmers to ponder and study the contents of fertile eggs that failed to hatch.

Once again, I'm asking for opinions on and/or proof/documentation of turtles that are shell-less or aberrant-shelled for genetic reasons. (Although, if a turtle could survive an injury that could remove most of its shell then it would be possible for a turtle to be born without the same amount of shell.)

P.S. This question arose when a 10 year old neighbor asked me about shell-less turtles and said he thought that he had seen one on our lake. I told him that what he saw was either a mud-covered turtle or not turtle at all.

Gatorgirl7563 (talk) 19:51, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

Sister Group Relationship of Turtles to the Bird-Crocodilian Clade Revealed by Nuclear DNA–Coded Proteins http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/4/810

I am a editor of Wikipedia in Japanese. I think Evolutionary history section should be updated after this paper. but I cannot write good English. Are there anyone who can review recent papers of evolutional history of turtle? --60.45.103.7 (talk) 12:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The paper above is consistent with the article: "More recent phylogenetic studies with this in mind placed turtles firmly within diapsids, slightly closer to Squamata than to Archosauria. All molecular studies have strongly upheld this new phylogeny, though some place turtles closer to Archosauria." This would come under the "some place turtles closer to Archosauria". While I agree with the paper's conclusions, I'm skeptical about the use of molecular techniques to resolve deep phylogeny issues due to the inability to include extinct taxa coupled with the high sensitivity of phylogenies to the species used to build them.

No problem, really. The paper makes for a wonderful ref to put behind "...phylogeny, though some". But "All" would of course need to be changed to "Most", it makes no sense otherwise whether the ref is used or not. (As you observe correctly, in deep-time mol-phyl it is always better to leave wiggling space) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

As for general revision, there's two questions: which group are turtles related most closely to, and how did a presumably lizard-like ancestor become a turtle? The former, we've taken stabs at, and the current wording is fine - it seems as if turtles branched off *very* early from whichever group, so the difference is slight at best. The latter is totally unanswerable until we find fossils. There's been some interesting evo-devo work as of late, but all that says is how turtles develop *now*, not necessarily how they originally became turtles. Honestly, where turtles came from and how they became turtles is one of the great mysteries of paleobiology. Mokele (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The fact that the oldest Testudines are older than the oldest known Chelonia does not help ;-) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

How do turtles breathe?

Is their shell slightly flexible, or do they use their midriff or something? Shinobu (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Added to text in 'shell' section. Mokele (talk) 17:09, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many pics...?

I believe there are too many useless pictures... even one of the pics is called "random_turtle" and i think it's not necessary. Either we start a gallery or we start removing less-useful pics... i haven't removed any yet, i'm just pointing out this idea... what do u think? --AlexDuarte (talk) 10:29, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. But per WP:POINT, your contribution of another is not a useful way to fix it. DMacks (talk) 21:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Adaptations

why dont u write about adaptations of turtles and how do they help them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.191.136.30 (talk) 03:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

We'd love to have that! Why don't you look up some information and write a paragraph or two for us? DMacks (talk) 06:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

turtles

I know that it would be preety awsome to have a pet turtle. But the thing you dont know about turtles is that they carry many bactria on their shells and plus if you dont wash your hands after you touch one you probobly get sick.So im telling you this if you really need one then please wash your hands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.18.200.20 (talk) 15:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Time to archive?

This talk page is getting quite long. Is there any opposition to the idea of archiving it? 0x0077BE (talk) 02:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Merge with Testudines

I propose merging the article with Testudines since they both cover the same group of animals. There no point in having two different articles. Bobisbob2 (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. We don't have separate articles for birds and aves or for lizards, and lacertilia. The content under testudines should become the evolution/systematics sections of the turtle article. The naming "controversy" makes more sense being discussed in context. Kjaer (talk) 16:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. Mokele (talk) 23:17, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Blanking a page and removing a substantial amount of information from wikipedia is not merging, it is vandalism, so I restored it. I removed the taxobox from this article, again. cygnis insignis 16:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not substantial infomation. It's the same information found in this one expect for this systematics section which I moved here. Other than that the Testudines article is a redundant article that covers the same info as this one. And please don't make false claims of vandalism. Vandalism only refers to an edit that purposely tries to ruin the article/site. Bobisbob2 (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Tortoises being portrayed as turtles?

The article presently contains two pics of "turtles," one from a Czech zoo, and one from a zoo that sounds like it is located in an Arab country, that both appear to be pics of tortoises. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 05:36, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

do turtles (et al) hibernate

I am originally from the state of minnesota and I know we have several types of turtles but I am curious where they go during the hard winter months? do they hibernate under the water? if they don't hibernate how do they breathe with ice covering the lakes? thank you carol75.250.110.237 (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

In cold climates, all terrestrial ectotherms (turtles, snakes, lizards, frogs, etc.) hibernate. Some burrow deep underground, others sleep at the bottom of ponds. One turtle, Chrysemys picta, can go for *months* without oxygen, and for this reason has become a popular study animal in science. However, hibernation does not occur in all turtles, since many (possibly even most) species live in tropical climates where it isn't necessary. Mokele (talk) 14:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, I think the proper term is "bruminate or brumination" when refering to reptiles. Not sure exactly, but I remember seeing it around. Lime in the Coconut 20:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Swedish translation

Hi,

I want to expand the Swedish translation of this article, but I can't because it is protected. Is there a way to remove this protection or to add the

tag without having full access to the article?

split

I think this should only cover sea turtles, as land turtles are correctly named tortoises. 123abcdoreme3 (talk) 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

please stop deleting this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123abcdoreme3 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Flat-out incorrect. "Turtle" applies to *all* species of chelonian, land or sea. In the common language, we call species on land "tortoises", but that term is poorly defined, and only really applies to a single family within turtles. Think of it like this: a square is a special type of rectangle. A toad is a special type of frog. A tortoise is a special type of turtle. Mokele (talk)

reproduction

the reproduction section isn't great. and i need my question answered. what time of year do turles lay their eggs in north carolina or in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.138.9 (talk) 19:13, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• you should look at specific turtle types' pages since it varies. 'summer' would be the broadly general answer though. sunja (talk) 22:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Lifespan?

Given that this is such a prominent feature of these animals, surely there should be more mention of their lifespan than the mere few sentences already present? Mokele (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Is it's me that am stupid?

As of 2003, the consensus is that Testudines diverged from other diapsids between 200 and 279 million years ago.

McGeoch DJ, Gatherer D (2005). "Integrating reptilian herpesviruses into the family herpesviridae". J. Virol. 79 (2): 725–31. doi:10.1128/JVI.79.2.725-731.2005. PMC 538573. PMID 15613300. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Now, this is herpetology, certainly, but what does that have to do with herpesviruses? The link is phantastiqual, since it pretty definitely say that herpesviruses of reptiles, such as turtles on the one hand and birds on the other hand have coevoluted, but also involving mammals... There's not very much about the host animals' DNA in the link! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot! Section Systematics and evolution third paragraph, contains this extremely mystifying citation. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 18:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

yea inappropriate reference link is now deleted sunja (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 15 July 2009 (UTC).