Talk:Megalania

Copied from this

Much of the article seems to be taken from here, verbatim: http://www.environment.sa.gov.au/parks/naracoorte/wonambi/animals/extinct/megalania.html

Still around

Some cryptozoologists think that the Megalania may still exist in the Australian Outback See this site [1]

Please be careful, citing information from Rex Gilroy, since he has been discredited on several matter ( e.g. Gimpy Pyramid discussion). Please cite additional sources as well.

~The post that sightings huge monitors only began after Megalania's initial discovery are crap since since the aboriginies have reported huge monitor lizards for several hundred too even a few thousand years they even in the distant past would have told stories off how these monsters brought with them fire and destruction so the thought these animals have just started being reported needs too be re thought. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

~ I think the longest possible size for any monitor lizard today based on the most believable report of a giant montior lizard I could find would be 22 feet or a foot less than the extinct Megalania. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

If you'll read the page, you'll note that there is a legitimate possibility that aborigines actually encountered it when it was alive, and have presumably kept the story alive via oral storytelling traditions. However, there are precisely zero reputable reports within the past several thousand years. Mokele (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

~Well you know why there are no reputable reports of it coming from the natives there at the moment it is because that they are suspicious of talking about their encounters and don't want to be ridiculed which is how most people are now with their monster sightings which means while your still here doubting that there have been sightings of it before it's initial discovery you forget that there could very well have been sightings of it but none really felt comfortable about mentioning it until they learned in 1859 that there was actually such a creature and that pushed them too come forward with their encounters and that is why people only really started talking about their claims of encountering monster lizards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:15, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The possibility of Megalania still being alive is in fact much greater than the idea of it having become extinct 40 000-30 000 years ago. I see no evidence that it would be extinct, and extinction cannot even be proven, but survival can be proven. There are appearantly several reputable reports of creatures that fits the description of Megalania within the last one thousand years. And the evidence for Megalania's survival are the eyewitness reports (which many refuse to believe because of their own paradigmas), the cast of one of several appearant Megalania footprints, and the 300 year old Megalania bones that was discovered on in the winter of 1979, and theres also a rumour about a piece of Megalania skin lying on top of a bar. In my personal opinion, I certainly doubt Megalania is extinct, and I certainly have many reasons to believe that it might still be alive. TurokSwe (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Personal opinions do not amount to anything at Wikipedia: Reputable and verifiable sources are what matter. That, and the talkpages are for suggesting and discussing improvements to the articles, not for starting or reviving forum threads concerning gossip.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I know reputable sources are what matter, but sometimes people who don't believe in living Megalanias just erase them. I wasn't impying that my opinions are what matters on wikipedia so therefore you should never assume that I think like that, my friend. TurokSwe (talk) 17:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Except that you also said that sources don't matter. And please stop trying to insert your personal opinion that megalanias are not extinct into the article.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I never said that sources don't matter, that you made up, but because of your evident belief that it is extinct you're removing my sources. I'm not trying to insert my personal opinions, now you're being ridiculous, I'm just inserting some information that people should know about. Please stop removing the content, I'm just stating the obvious, and just because you might believe it's extinct that gives you no right or reason to change the article information and mix it with your belief and opinions. TurokSwe (talk) 17:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Sources need to be reliable. That one isn't. FunkMonk (talk) 15:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Then why does one reference still refer to Cryptozoology.com? I think you only refer to that because that sentence denies the idea of living Megalanias and therefore supports your belief. I think you're just going on your opinions/belief now. TurokSwe (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I'm pretty sure I'm not. And that reference should be removed too, it is still not reliable. FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Well, look at it this way, the references are references to sites which include the claims, but it doesnt mean they are true, just that the claims exist and people should know about them. TurokSwe (talk) 17:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I suggest you read the following Wikipedia guidelines: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources FunkMonk (talk) 15:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC) And in the meantime, please stop trying to push the unreliably sourced point of view that the megalania is still alive, especially since trying to do so without verifying such claims to be true confuses the reader, and is a sign of poor scholarship.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It does certainly not confuse the reader, it makes it all more clear, at least that's what I've heard. I have been trying to give references but you keep removing them. This and your attitude gives me the impression that you are completely against the idea of living Megalanias and unlike you, I'm neutral in these subjects. Call it bad scholarship, call it whatever you want, that is only a matter of opinion, my friend. TurokSwe (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2013 (UTC) "Opinion" is not allowed on Wikipedia, only reliable sources. So if you keep continuing with the questionable sources, don't be surprised if you get blocked... I would stop now, if I was you. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You are not being neutral when you are insisting that they are alive without conclusive evidence, while accusing mainstream scientists of having "a controversial claim" of the beast being extinct due to fossil evidence and a profound lack of living individuals, while using a cryptozoologist's homepage as the only source.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I never said that opinions were allowed either, niether did I include any opinions in the article. I believe that they are alive, but it is the evidence (all eyewitness reports [which for the record started before the animal became publicly known], the cast of a footprint, the appearant 300 year old bones, and a hide on a bar, still a rumour though) that I have been trying to provide but you just keep discrediting and removing my sources. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that you are actually letting your belief that they are extinct get in the way of letting the evidence into the light. I am neutral, but the evidence exist, and it's pretty convincing if you ask me. To my mind, it would seem ignorant to discredit the evidence, and especially just because they havent been brought up on a "reliable source". I would say this is practically a war about opinions/belief, and please don't say "it's not about opinions", because even though Wikipedia might not be about opinions, opinions and beliefs are still being brought up in the articles. TurokSwe (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2013 (UTC) It is neither about opinion or belief. It is about reliable sources. If what you say is not backed up by reliable sources, it can't be used on Wikipedia. That's all there is to it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Then I suggest we remove for example the insertion "now extinct" or change it to "claimed to be extinct". Because I see no reliable source or evidence for this claim. TurokSwe (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Then you should maybe try to check every single source used in the article. They all state it is extinct. FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC) They could aswell have stated "alive" or "thought to be alive" or "claimed to be extinct" for example, the sources arent that different from non-"reliable sources", except that they are built up in a way that makes people classify them as "reliable sources". But where's the evidence? My point still stands, if it can't be removed then at least it should be renamed to "claimed to be extinct". TurokSwe (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Of course the only reason why you claim these sources are unreliable is because they disagree with your personal opinion that Megalania is still alive.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Just for starters, how the heck would such a huge lizard be able to hide for thousands of years? If you say "the desert", what exactly could it feed on that is large enough to sustain it? AndI'monly asking this because it seems the discussion is going nowhere, if you don't care about reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for you. It is a core principle. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Don't act like if you know what I'm thinking. I don't call these sources unreliable, but they could aswell have been unreliable if they werent built up like they are, thats the difference. Then I'd say they disagree both with my personal belief and the collected evidence. Megalania is puny compare to the continent of Australia. There are still unexplored parts of the continent. It could feed on farmers, travelers, dogs, snakes, crocs, kangaroos, still surviving Moa birds and Diprotodon and hadrosaurs (yes, I know, cryptozoology) for example. We don't know until we stop being so ignorant and lazy and starts to investigate. TurokSwe (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Lulz. I rest my case. I think we're dealing with a troll. I don't know where to start, but just one thing, you do know that moas never lived on mainland Australia, right? FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Ridiculous accusations. I might be wrong on the Moa part, then lets try Emu or Cassowary. TurokSwe (talk) 23:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Size

Megalina's size has been subject to considerable exaggeration, due to poor extrapolation of fragmentary remains. The most recent, reasonable estimates put it as a average length of 3.45 meters (11.3 feet) and a mass of up to 158kg (347.60lbs) Please see page 4. http://www.bio.usyd.edu.au/staff/swroe/Wroe2002review.pdf.

Whoever said that Megalania was 11.3 feet long and weighed 347.60lbs is stupid. Come on that's the size of a very large Komodo Dragon. The article for Megalania says it was 18-23 feet long and weighed 2.5-3 tons, this is very likely and hopefully it stay like that. I changed this.64.107.164.130 19:43, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it did not stay long like this. The reason is that such exaggerated claims may have been fashionable 10 years ago, but science being as it is, they have been refuted by now. The source is right above your post. What's more, the "20-foot Megalania" has apparently always been a mythical beast that roamed the works of scifi hack writers, the animal's true size being known since the 1970s! If you want to stick by your claim, please cite scientific sources refuting Wroe (2002) who may be "stupid" but certainly is a trained vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Sydney who as opposed to most people contributing to this article has had the advantage of handling and analyzing actual megalania bones.

V. prisca, on average, was the size of a very large Komodo Dragon. That still makes it the largest known lizard known to science. Dysmorodrepanis 02:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry but it said in many websites that it was that big, I always thought it was that big, oh man, well I guess we have to have it like this.66.99.53.61 12:55, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem at all. It is hard to always keep up-to-date with current research - I only stumbled across this issue by accident either... Also, the proportions of the megalania were different, it had a short tail and a more massive body. So while it may not have been that much longer than the Komodo Dragon, it was MUCH stockier and had a larger mass. If the Komodo Dragon was an excavator, the megalania was a huge Caterpillar D9 bulldozer, so to speak. Many people think about length, but it is bulk that really matters as it grows as per body length cubed. As you can see, adding perhaps 2 feet of length with a change in proportions will result in DOUBLE the weight of a Komodo Dragon. And that is indeed huge enough to bring down a diprotodont, but as opposed to the overestimates still lean enough to hunt faster prey. Indeed, while the lower estimates make the animal smaller, they make it actually more dangerous as one would have been able to outrun a ton-sized megalania. The new data turns it into a beast for which humans were a funny toy and a tasty snack; twice the weight of the average adult human and hardly any fat at all is still enough to secure it a top spot among the most fearsome predators since the extinction of the dinosaurs. Dysmorodrepanis 14:28, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay now the article says that Megalania is 15.3-20 feet long, hopeful that is the right size. I am sorry but 11.3 feet long sounds too small for a massive lizard, well to me anyway.64.107.164.130 18:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah would it be okay to keep the current size of Megalania like this. It be better.64.107.164.130 18:24, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw a picture of a skeleton of a Megalania in a website with a person in it and believe me, it didn't look like a "puny" 11.3 foot lizard.64.107.164.130 18:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Just try to keep in mind there is a big difference between average and maximum size. Very few Komodo Dragons exceed 50kg in the wild, (Indeed I think the largest one examined by Auffenberg was about 50kg), and they average much less then that, but there are still giants up to 100kg out there. So the maximum might very well have approached 400-500kg and 15f+, but would be very rare.

I think there is one problem. Wroe speaks about 3,4 as average length, but this was accoring to Hecht not average total length, but snout-vent-length, whith the smallest known adult specimens of 2,2m snout-vent-length. And this is a huge difference. The tail of adult komodos is nearly exactly 50% of the whole size. In Megalania it is very probable, that its tail was in proportion a bit shorter. That means that adult Megalanias were at least 4m in length, and as they were very heaily built, had surely a higher weight than a komodo of the same size. Such an animal would have a weight of about 250 kg. Longer specimens with a total length of 5,5m would be around 500kg or more.

Picture

I remember seeing picture of Megalania from a BBC TV show or something like that. If someone can get around to uploading it and figuring out the copyright issues, that would be great. Bibliomaniac15 19:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Name

It's interesting to find out that Megalania has been renamed Varanus. Does that mean Megalania is now the common name? Excuse me, but I have an interest in this fiddly little nomenclature stuff.--Gazzster 22:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Most (all?) scientists do incllude this species in the same genus as all other monitor lizards, Varanus. I guess megalania is left as a common name since everyone still uses it, but that's probably due to ignorance of the current situation. It would be like using Brontosaurus as the common name for Apatosaurus, or Megalodon as the common name for Carcharocles megalodon. True in that it's "common", but it's actually more of a "common mistake".Dinoguy2 22:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you--Gazzster 22:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Not to get too anal here, but despite the statement of various herpetologists (who are notorious lumpers as it is. See Eleutherodactylus, or Anolis for examples) that Megalania should be sunk into Varanus, none of them ever do it. The latest info that I've obtained on this comes from Molnar's 2004 book on Megalania (well worth the read). As it stands, the name seems to still be controversial, but unresolved. - Jura 23:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And so the name should stay! Come on, does anyone seriously feel comfortanle saying Varanus prisca?It's not a monitor, it's an icon!--Gazzster 02:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is a monitor (in the sense that it's still in the family Varanidae). On the one hand, I agree the name has iconic value and will remain in the popular lexicon as "Megalania," much how the species named for Carcharocles megalodon has become symbolic of the animal. That said, from a taxonomic standpoint, the name should have some scientific credibility in order to stay. If we ever get enough material, or find someone willing to work with what's there and give us a thorough description of the creature's anatomy, it will be easier to determine whether, or not it's a valid genus. Currently, the best thing to do (IMO) would be to have herpetologists agree to elevate the subgenera to generic status. This would alleviate some of the bloating in Varanus (which has at least as much variation as that seen in Felidae [and that's broken up into 18 genera]), and hopefully reduce that lumping urge. Jura 21:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Name Part 2

I thought that "Megalania" meant "butcher" or "killer." Do we have a source of it meaning "strider"?--Mr Fink 15:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Both the Museum of Victoria [[2]] and the site of the Naracoorte Caves, South Australia [[3]] give the meaning as 'giant ancient butcher'. So yes, we need a source for 'strider'.--Gazzster 22:23, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

It does mean "giant butcher" (prisca means "first") but it is, interestingly, feminine. The ordinary Latin word for butcher is lanius, but I assume they made it feminine so people wouldn't think it was a giant relative of Lanius (the shrike). Vultur 01:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry folks, but despite the popularity of "giant butcher," it is not the correct meaning for the name. It really does mean "giant strider", or "runner." When I put that change in, it had the reference to back it up (Owen, 1859). If one checks the bottom of the first page of Owen's description, one will find the etymology behind the name. Owen wanted to make it evident that this giant lizard was not waterbound. Jura —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.64.127.45 (talk) 23:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Lania" is the feminine of butcher, in Latin, but, apparently, the "lania" in "Megalania" is apparently a modified form of "plaina," which is Greek for "to roam about," as explained in the first footnote here [4]--Mr Fink 20:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the clarification. Also thanks for getting the actual Latin in there. Getting ahold of the proper characters (no choice given that Owen didn't give an english version of the Latin) looked to be a pain in the butt. Jura 00:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's because it was Greek, and not Latin, in fact. If it was Latin, then it would have indeed meant "Great/giant (female) butcher"--Mr Fink 00:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Argh! Right, my bad there. Jura 01:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Name Part 3

Should we mention Megalania often being mistranslated as "great butcher," or no?--Mr Fink (talk) 17:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, given how prevalent the latter meaning shows up in popular descriptions of Megalania, I think it would be a good idea to add that in. I threw in a simple description. If you could add the necessary Greek and Latin characters to flesh it out, that would be great. Jura (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Megalania Weight Estimates

Just an FYI for editors. The recent 1,940kg estimate could initially be viewed as contentious. So to avoid an "editing war" over the size section, I've included a direct quote from Ralph Molnar's 2004 book on Megalania.

From page 127:

"...the Lau and Frost specimens (SVL estimated at 2.2 to 2.4 meters) seem to be close to the average, to judge from the sizes of the vertebrae held in the Queensland Museum. Blob's corrected equation gives a mass of about 320kg for a 2 meter (SVL) individual. The largest specimen (QM F2942) gives an estimated body length of 3.8 meters, which in turn gives a mass of approximately 1,940kg."

Jura (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Derivation of the name

I'm very unconvinced about the derivation from "plaina" - allegedly Greek for "to roam about". For a start, Greek verbs are normally cited in either the first person singular present indicative ("I roam") or the present infinitive ("to roam") - "plaina" doesn't seem to have the right ending to be either of these. Moreover, why would the p have been omitted, totally obscuring the nature of the word? I've added the "fact" template pending some better explanation. --rossb (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I should have read the introduction to the article first! - in fact of course the Greek word is "alainō" - the "plaina" is clearly an (inexplicable) mistake --rossb (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

On further research there is a Greek word "plazo" also meaning to wander about - maybe this may have contributed to the confusion - but it clearly has nothing to do with the name of the creature. --rossb (talk) 21:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

And I've now consulted Owen's paper - the footnote makes it clear that the word he was using was actually ἠλαίνω (ēlainō) which my dictionary gives as a poetic or Ionic form of ἀλαίνω (alainō) which is the form quoted in the article. Still not very clear how the p crept in! --rossb (talk) 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Good detective work. :) Abyssal (talk) 21:55, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Name Part 4

What's the deal with italicising the name "Megalania"? Now that it is being used as the common name and is no longer the generic name, I don't think it qualifies to be written in italics. We don't italicise "rhinoceros" or "hippopotamus" when we are using the names colloquially. Secret Squïrrel, approx 04:15, 25 Maybe 2009 (Earth Standard Time)

In popular media

1. On TV, sequences from Jonny Quest's Dragons of Ashida were used to promote the show, original air date December 18, 1964: En route to Japan's outlying islands, Dr. Quest finds that an old biologist friend (now insane) is breeding oversized carnivorous lizards for the purpose of hunting human prey.
2. In literature, Neal Stephenson's Cryptonomicon on page 277 has Bobby Shaftoe encounter a 'big lizard' ... -Sparky (talk) 16:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

using the wayback machine for this - http://web.archive.org/web/20060426215521/www.metaweb.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Stephenson:Neal:Cryptonomicon:277:a_sharpened_Y...%28Alan_Sinder%29

Extinction date

The issue of when, exactly Megalania went extinct was examined in detail in Molnar. A precise date isn't known, only that no fossils are known from before 30,000 years ago (though the fossils in question don't have an exact age yet), and there was a major fauna & flora change (due to climatic changes) approximately 48,000 years ago. Previously reported dates of around 20,000 years are apparently wrong due to some specific technical issues about calculating recent dates (the way Molnar phrased it implied everyone was doing it wrong prior to 1985). Mokele (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Genus name or common name?

Hello folks. I am not clear whether Megalania now counts as a common name and therefore does not need italics? There were a couple of places where it was treated with italics like a genus name (which of course it was originally) so I took the liberty of changing the name to italics throughout. If we can get a reference to back up the idea that Megalania is now used as a common name, and not as a genus name, then I suppose it does not need italics except where the word is being used to refer to the original taxon. I do apologize if I have created extra work for someone. Invertzoo (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good point. As Secret Squïrrel said above three years ago, we don't italicise generic names when used as common. If the consensus is that this is a species belonging in Varanus, but it is still referred to as "Megalania", it seems clear to me that Megalania is the common name.

I would have been bold and done the opposite. I'm fairly sure that when I last looked at this article all instances of "Megalania" not referring to the binomial were not italicised - yes, have just checked history and can see that there was an edit made back in January 2012 to this effect which was unchallenged up until now but which you have effectively reverted.

I think this is non-controversial so I'm going to undo (it's quicker) your edits but will note their good faith in the edit summary. 203.206.1.188 (talk) 07:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree--Megalania is no more a common name than Brontosaurus. Rather, it's a widely-used inaccurate synonym. Unless there are any sources using the term "megalania" lower case non-italic as a common name and they are in the majority. If so, that needs to be discussed and cited in the text. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For precisely MMartyniuk's reasons, which are surely correct, I undid 203.206.1.188's edit to Reptile; I was not aware of this discussion. Owen introduced Megalania as a genus name, with italics, and nothing has happened to transform it into a vernacular ("common") name. In particular, being taxonomically invalid and being vernacular are two different attributes. It should be italicized in the title of the article and throughout the text. Peter M. Brown (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the matter is a bit more complicated. Just as it is unobjectionable to write of "a beaver", so it is proper to write of "a stegosaurus". Both are vernacular names. It does not matter that Stegosaurus is a scientific name while Beaver is not. So, when Eric A. Powell, in a favorable review of the movie Land of Lost Monsters, reports that—in the movie—"an ancient Australian succumbs to the poisonous saliva of a megalania," he violates no standard. "Megalania" is a scientific name though perhaps not a valid one; "megalania" is a vernacular name, used by Powell in his review.

When the scientific name of an extinct genus consists of the same letters as the vernacular one, Wikipedia's practice is to italicize it in both the title and the body of the relevant article. The articles include Dimetrodon, Triceratops and many others. There is no implication intended that use of the same letters, uncapitalized and unitalicized, is objectionable. As the genus is extinct, Megalania, the italicized form, should be used in the Wikipedia article. (The pattern does not apply to extant genera like Gorilla.) Peter M. Brown (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I support deitalicizing megalania when using it as a common name noting "mastodon" as a precedent. Abyssal (talk) 01:37, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone disputes the point that, when a word is used as a common name, it should not be italicized. Powell's use of "megalania", quoted above, is a case in point. Since the term "mastodon" was in use prior to the advent of binomial nomenclature (the Oxford English Dictionary quotes a 1706 usage), it is very much a common name and the Mastodon article quite properly does not italicize it. The present issue, though, is how terms that are both scientific and common should be treated in Wikipedia. Should the article be titled Megalania or Megalania? I have argued for the latter. Peter M. Brown (talk) 02:56, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand:

There are many articles, Mammal for example, with titles that are vernacular names that derive from the corresponding formal names with slight modifications. There seems no pressing reason not to entitle articles using vernacular names that come from formal names with no modification at all.

The Megalania article is about a species. A title designating a genus, valid or not, is inappropriate. The use of Megalania as the title should remain as should references to "megalanias" in the body of the article.

MMartyniuk would require that sources using the term unitalicized be in the majority. Unless there is a search engine that distinguishes italicized from unitalicized search terms, it is impossible to show this. I suggest that there is no need to try.

Peter M. Brown (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

"Unless there is a search engine that distinguishes italicized from unitalicized search terms, it is impossible to show this" There are other ways to do research other than Google. One could search "Megalania" from a university library and access the sources directly. Someone knowledgeable about this topic could be brought in to advise. The fact is that the burden of proof must be on the person asserting that "megalanias" is a common term, not simply saying "prove it's not one" and leaving the article free of citations. Actually, there is a way to check it--if it's a common name, there should be plurals in the literature or in secondary sources. So a Google Books or Google Scholar search for "megalanias" in quotes should give some idea of how common this is. Scholar yields one unrelated result, Books yields one unrelated result and one possessive use of the genus name. A similar search for "brontosauruses" itself an incorrect usage no serious researcher would endorse) yields thousands of results in Books and nearly 200 in Scholar! By this method, we would be somewhat justified to create a separate page for the species Apatosaurus excelsus with the title "Brontosaurus" but would still need to re-name "Megalania" to Varanus priscus. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The burden of proof is easily met. The word "megalania" can be used as a vernacular ("common") term. Eric Powell, cited above, has done so.

As the Megalania article correctly notes, the proper assignment of the megalania to a genus is controversial. Some academic sources, this one for example, refer to Megalania prisca quite unapologetically. Neutrality between the competing views is therefore essential. What one can say about Megalania, the genus including the animal with the vertebrae Owen was studying, depends critically on this choice: on one view, the genus is monotypic; on the other, it includes all monitor lizards. To write a truly neutral article about Megalania, one indifferent to this distinction, would be nearly impossible. One can, however, write an article about the megalania, a large extinct lizard, using the term in a vernacular sense. Such articles have been written; one of these is the Wikipedia article Megalania.

Peter M. Brown (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

What is wrong?

WP:NOTFORUM
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please, tell me what is wrong with this "The megalania (Megalania prisca or Varanus priscus), sometimes called the giant ripper lizard or devil dragon, is a very large goanna or monitor lizard (and the world's largest known lizard), claimed to be extinct by mainstream scientists although it is a controversial subject. It was part of a megafaunal assemblage that inhabited southern Australia during the Pleistocene. It has been claimed to have disappeared around 40,000 years ago.[3] The first aboriginal settlers of Australia may have encountered living megalanias.[4] Some Aboriginal Dreaming stories may even be about them.[5]". I don't understand why you're trying to remove this, I can't see anything wrong with it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TurokSwe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I repeat, what is wrong is the fact that no reliable sources are used to back it up. What the hell is a "ripper lizard", and when was this name ever actually used?! FunkMonk (talk) 18:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I did not write anything about "ripper lizard". I just added "Devil Dragon", search the internet and you'll find out that it is another common name for Megalania. TurokSwe (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It's also not even remotely controversial. That a few people on the internet claim otherwise makes it about as controversial as the shape of the Earth or Heliocentrism. HCA (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It's about as controversial as the amount of people claiming it's extinct. We don't know whether Megalania is extinct or still alive, we can only guess, at least until more evidence and a possible body or a living animal is brought in. I'd say there are more than a "few" people on the internet and in the world believing that Megalania might very well be still alive. The possibility of Megalania being alive at least seems more probable than the idea of it having gone extinct some 40-30 000 years ago. TurokSwe (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) That, and it is implying that it is still alive without citation, and is factually wrong, given as how the large mosasaurs, which are also true lizards, easily dwarf Megalania in size, weight, and length.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:12, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Your reply made no sense. There's nothing wrong with implying that Megalania would still be alive, the only thing wrong would be some people's minds which were brainwashed since kindergarten to just swallow without tasting anything they hear about science and extinction. They accept it without even a thought of questioning it. I question everything, but then again, you must believe and be convinced about something and have opinions. And don't get any ideas that I'm implying to use opinions and belief, you have to let go of that idea. Also, what has mosasaurs with Megalania or this topic to do other than that mosasaurs and Megalania might be related? TurokSwe (talk) 20:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) There is everything wrong with implying Megalania still being alive because there is no credible or reliable evidence of it being still alive. We can not post false information in Wikipedia, and accusing me and other editors of being brainwashed, while falsely denying you're trying to push a non-neutral point of view does not make your own personal opinions as good as fact. That, and I bring up mosasaurs because they are lizard who are much larger than Megalania, thereby falsifying your claim that Megalania is the largest lizard ever.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:34, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Yet again, reliable sources is what it's all about, everything else is just a waste of time. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Yet again, I never stated that reliable sources is not what it is about. And what is really a waste of time is totally a matter of opinion. TurokSwe (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2013 (UTC) This is not a matter of opinion, TurokSwe. It is a matter of whether there are reliable sources for your claims. It is a purely factual question: can your provide reliable sources? If not, the claims should not be on the page. Mlewan (talk) 19:45, 11 April 2013 (UTC) This is not a matter of opinion Mlewan. It is a matter of whether there are reliable sources for your claims. It is a purely factual question: can your provide reliable sources? If not, the claims should not be on the page. You should follow what you've said yourself, but yet your opinion/belief is still included on the page. TurokSwe (talk) 23:43, 11 April 2013 (UTC) Extinct? The article mentions "now extinct", yet where is the reference for that? Where is the reliable sources? Where is the evidence? I'd say that this is just an assumption, an opinion, a belief. And I thought such werent allowed on Wikipedia and this article. This part of the text needs to be removed, unless there are some concrete evidence for this claim other than someone's assumption that "it has to be extinct because it has not been seen". That is nothing we know, there are several people who claim to have seen this animal, and we can't just discredit their stories just because we havent seen a living creature. I require that the insertion "now extinct" will be removed, since it is completely unecessary, or it should be changed to "claimed to be extinct" for example. TurokSwe (talk) 23:10, 12 April 2013 (UTC) The onus is on you, TurokSwe, to provide reliable, verifiable sourced to support the claim that Megalania is unequivocally alive. Please stop accusing people and sources of being unreliable, or brainwashed or conspiring against you simply because they do not agree with your opinions and unsupported claims. If you can not, then just please stop wasting everyone's time trying to push your own personal opinions as fact.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Stop creating wild accusations against me. I'm not pushing my personal opinions as fact, I'm trying to discuss the evidence and reliable sources topics. If you cannot prove that Megalania is extinct then the insertion "now extinct" should either be removed or changed to "claimed to be extinct", because otherwise the former insertion is just an opinion, an assumption that is ignoring eyewitness reports, yes, it's cryptozoology but the evidence still exists and should not be ignored, my friend. And why are you reporting me for doing harmless edits and trying to discuss this? That is ridiculous! TurokSwe (talk) 23:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC) You're not making "harmless edits," you are edit warring over semantics and really crude sophistry in order to state that Megalania is still alive, even though you have not provided any reliable sources to support your personal opinion.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I removed two spaces and removed a statement including an unreliable source that even you claimed to be unreliable, but when it supports your belief then suddenly it's reliable, is that what you're implying? And constantly trying to block me so that you can keep the article your way, the way that supports your personal opinions and beliefs. My sources are completely harmless, my friend. You're overreacting. Try to discuss instead, without being so hostile against me. TurokSwe (talk) 23:52, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I am not trying to get you blocked because of my personal beliefs, you are insistent on edit warring to put bad information into articles as per your own personal agendas. And stopping calling me your "friend" if you're also going to hypocritically accuse me of being closeminded or brainwashed because I do not agree with you. And to repeat a question asked of you yesterday: "Can you provide reliable sources that state that Megalania is still unequivocally alive?" Or, can you even clearly that how and why stating "Megalania is extinct" is an extraordinary claim without resorting to really crude sophistry?--Mr Fink (talk) 21:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC) Go read Molnar's book on this animal, Dragons in the Dust. In addition to excellent paleontology on the species, he deals with these claims explicitly, including pointing out a fatal flaw in most "sightings". HCA (talk) 21:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megalania. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111227201333/https://www.bbc.co.uk:80/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/3046.shtml to http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/3046.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Italic title?

Given that consensus seems to be to use "megalania" as a common name throughout the article (going by the comment at the top of the article), shouldn't the title of the article not be italicized? Spizaetus (talk) 22:18, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Should depend on whether there is consensus for Megalania not being valid as a scientific name for the animal or not. FunkMonk (talk) 22:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

This is the comment I was talking about (I should have been more clear in my earlier question, sorry; it's visible only when editing the article):

"It has been held that, as the term "Megalania" was introduced as a genus name, it should be capitalized and italicized. The validity of "Megalania" as a formal genus has been contested, however. The subject of the article is the largest terrestrial lizard known to have existed, the species that has "megalania" as its common name; in the interest of neutrality between conflicting classifications, the common name is used in this article except where the context dictates otherwise."

Wouldn't that mean that (in this article) the name should only be italicized in discussions about its use as a genus (like in the taxonomy section), with all other references to the animal (e.g. size estimates, the article title, etc.) being formatted like a common name? Or is there another reason why the title's formatting appears not to follow that comment? (Or, alternatively, is there now any more consensus than there was when that comment was written to treat either Varanus priscus or Megalania prisca as the valid name to use throughout the article?) Spizaetus (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

It is a claim in the article that it is a consensus view, sourced to a single source. I think we would need to do a search in the literature, for example on Google Scholar, to find out if it is really that clear cut. FunkMonk (talk) 09:02, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Have we settled on this genus controversy yet?

A cursory glance shows that many recent papers found on Google scholar mostly classify Megalania as "Varanus priscus" or "Varanus (Megalania) priscus/prisca", most likely following the paper by J. J. Head et al. in 2009 (which is also referenced in this very article). I've been confused by this supposed controversy for years now. Most of the papers about the taxonomic classification of Megalania are over a decade old and as far as I know, haven't been contested, am I missing something here? Monsieur X (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

There is a slightly untidy, perhaps conservative, overview at Aust Museum. It is very interesting and the article might take some leads from Musser's synopsis in detailing where things are up to. Even with other support, conserving the name may still be a matter of convenience for Australian workers; a systematic review that includes the later work is yet to be published? cygnis insignis 15:29, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I think we should be cautious to put trust in an article that's probably a decade old & hasn't been updated all that much. A quick search through the internet archive shows that most articles related to extinct species haven't been changed all that much. Also, their Megalania article also only has one reference compared to the myriad the other species have. For comparison: Here's their Procoptodon & Alamitophis articles from 2009 & here's their respective modern counterparts as seen here & here. Not much has changed. Monsieur X (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Definitely a paucity of research and material, but Musser at AM is writing in 2018 and would be reflecting the current consensus (in Australia?). cygnis insignis 10:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I have my doubts as the very same Museum published this paper in 2016 referring to the taxon as Varanus (Megalania) priscus, yet the paper itself is from 1930. Monsieur X (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

The first description of the name? I didn't hunt out the answer, but the age would be irrelevant. The links at AM often are whatever is relevant and published in Australian museum's own journals. cygnis insignis 13:01, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think one issue is that the genus Varanus itself is very lumped, so whatever priscus is found to be closest to of modern species, it will most likely be within Varanus. And there, it has to be placed in the genus as well for it to remain monophyletic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I definitely agree that Varanus as a genus is quite lumped. If the various subgenera were split off into their own genera, Megalania might still be classified within Varanus due to its placement within the subgenus of the same name. Whether its relations lie with the perentie or the Komodo dragon & lace monitor. Monsieur X (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. De-italicization found to be sufficient. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 20:31, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

---

Megalania → Varanus priscus – There seems to be full consensus that Megalania is a junior synonym of Varanus, so I'd say there's 2 ways we can address this: either we move to page to Varanus priscus as is standard, or we keep it as Megalania without the italics and use it as a common name (as we sorta do with megalodon). Just quickly going through google, I see https://doi.org/10.1093/sysbio/syaa102 and https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quaint.2021.06.013 from 2021 which use "megalania" without italics. I can't say I really have a preference, but this issue should be addressed because it's confusing to read that it's classified as V. priscus when the article uses Megalania throughout Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 19:56, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom binomial either. After a little reading the deitalicisation seems reasonable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Support keeping the current name but removing the italics Megalania is still by far the common name in popular culture, I think giving this article the Megalodon treatment would make the most sense. Maykii (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support either measure- on one hand, we don't want to give the impression that Megalania is in any way still a valid name (whereas Megalodon still has some connection with the species name). On the other hand, Megalania is definitely the more common name in wider society. I am more inclined to vote for the accurate, scientific name, but the semi-scientific name sans italics also has a precedence, which you note. SuperTah (talk) 07:44, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

• Support de-italicization per WP:COMMONNAME (at least, to the general public). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 29 August 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose move to Varanus priscus, support de-italicisation Megalania remains the common name for this taxon, as much as "Megalodon" remains for Otodus megalodon, but "Megalodon" is not italicised, and I don't think this should be either. I de-italicised this a while ago, but an IP brought it back. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.