Misplaced Pages

Talk:Olm: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:28, 15 March 2012 editYerpo (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers11,870 edits →"The only European cave-dwelling chordate" ?: re← Previous edit Revision as of 01:55, 2 January 2013 edit undoLittleJerry (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers47,482 edits →Copyright/plagarism issue that needs to be corrected immediately: new sectionNext edit →
Line 178: Line 178:


Tadpole is accepted for any amphibian. For the 'display' stuff, I think it is a matter of territorial battles rather than strictly a display, with the territory controlled by one contributing to mating success, or perhaps some pheromone stuff? Display is probably not the ideal word, but is generally what is used for any sort of ritual mating stuff. As far as the pigment stuff, I'm pretty sure it just has low levels of pigment, don't have any sources on that though :P ] (]) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC) Tadpole is accepted for any amphibian. For the 'display' stuff, I think it is a matter of territorial battles rather than strictly a display, with the territory controlled by one contributing to mating success, or perhaps some pheromone stuff? Display is probably not the ideal word, but is generally what is used for any sort of ritual mating stuff. As far as the pigment stuff, I'm pretty sure it just has low levels of pigment, don't have any sources on that though :P ] (]) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

== Copyright/plagarism issue that needs to be corrected immediately ==

I nocticed that "Sensory organs" and its subsections are copied almost word for word from . Someone needs to paraphrased this. ] (]) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:55, 2 January 2013

Featured articleOlm is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 5, 2007.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 13, 2007Peer reviewReviewed
June 19, 2007Featured article candidatePromoted
Current status: Featured article
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconAmphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconOlm is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Misplaced Pages a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconSlovenia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Slovenia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Slovenia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SloveniaWikipedia:WikiProject SloveniaTemplate:WikiProject SloveniaSlovenia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Slovenia to-do list:

Here are some tasks you can do (watch):

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconCroatia Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Croatia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CroatiaWikipedia:WikiProject CroatiaTemplate:WikiProject CroatiaCroatia
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:AARportal Template:WP1.0 Template:Maintained

Someone copying someone?

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

baby dragons

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

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

Something lost in translation?

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

Causality can be problematic when you talk about biological systems... I know the sentence is a bit weak. Actually I meant to say something like "the olm lives the whole life underwater, and has such and such features that enable it", but wasn't able to phrase it decently without implying causality (is the non-native speaker argument too old already?). After all, we don't know whether the need for fully aquatic life came first in the evolution and the olm eventually got pedomorphic, or was it vice versa. This actually isn't mentioned explicitly in the original article, it's just because the intro needed expansion. --Yerpo 05:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Yes my problem was with the implied causality. The rewrite is much better, but what do you think about "The adults retain some of the larval characteristics, such as external gills, which are advantageous in an aquatic habitat."--BirgitteSB 13:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Not sure, since they aren't just advantageous, but (at least in the case of gills) necessary. I say we leave it as it is. --Yerpo 18:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice this?

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

Refs

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

Today's featured article

Well, are we going to make a move towards it? bibliomaniac15 01:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Erm... sorry for ignorance, but how is it done? --Yerpo 05:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can do it if you'd like, since I've done it before. You go to WP:TFA and go to "Main Page Requests" on the bar to the right. You can also request a specific date for it to appear. bibliomaniac15 19:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
No prob, I did it myself. I just didn't know you had to do the request separately. --Yerpo 07:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Why does the genus Proteus link to the myth, not more members of the genus? Arthurian Legend 00:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Because the mythological figure is the namesake of the genus. You can go to the disambiguation page to see more pages that may have the name "Proteus." bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 01:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is Olm capitalized?

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

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

Lifespan?

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


Boris Bl

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

"The only European cave-dwelling chordate" ?

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

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

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

The statement "the only European cave-dwelling chordate" is correct, if you take "cave-dwelling" to mean "troglobite" (as the link also suggests). Cave bats, cave bears and cave fish are all fine, but they aren't troglobites, since they don't live their entire lives underground. Troglophiles or trogloxenes yes, troglobites, no. This page provides some definitions. And no, there's no troglobite fish in Europe. I reverted the statement accordingly. --Yerpo 12:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice if someone came up with a citation for this - there's no other mention of it in the article, so it's unreferenced. Allens (talk | contribs) 16:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't remember the original reference. Is AmphibiaWeb considered reliable enough? It says "Proteus is the only cave-adapted vertebrate in Europe" under Comments, which is only slightly more specific. — Yerpo 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I would think AmphibiaWeb would be considered sufficiently reliable. (Of course, said page also notes that it's possible it actually is multiple species... it'd be greatly preferable for someone to write a review article including that, of course!) At this point, what is needed is the placement of the info (regarding vertebrates) somewhere in the article other than the lead, with the citation. Allens (talk | contribs) 20:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Other than this bare fact, I don't know what more can be said about the issue, so I'm not sure where can we put it without it looking out of place. — Yerpo 20:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Serbian

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

The name "olm".

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

I haven't found anything on the etymology so far, but it might have something to do with the mythological figure of the feathered/plumed serpent in Olmec mythology. That wouldn't have been the first time that olm's gills were mistaken for wings (see Research history. --Yerpo 13:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Cheers! It seems a bit far-fetched, I have to say, though I can't offer a better explanation. Keep looking and I'll see what I can dig up too! Nothingbutmeat 07:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
BTW, I didn't mean to imply that the Olmec themselves gave this name to Proteus (that would indeed have been far-fetched, as it doesn't live on that side of the ocean), only maybe some zoologist that got the association. --Yerpo 13:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Ha, ha, no, I got that too! What I meant was, it's odd to think that the name of this animal should have come from a culture on another continent that had nothing to do with it. But as you say, someone may have made that connection. Still, it would be nice to know for sure...Nothingbutmeat 06:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

pigmentation consistency

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

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

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

Whatdoe sit eat?

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

To quote from the article itself, "It is a predatory animal, feeding on small crabs, snails and occasionally insects." bibliomaniac15 Two years of trouble and general madness 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


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

Larval characteristics

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

Croatian and serbian name

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

The species's habitat area extends from Venice to Bosnia and Herzegovina. Read the article. --Eleassar 10:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Some small changes proposed

I would like to propose some small changes:

Introduction, 2nd paragraph: “...like the American amphibians, the axolotl and the mud puppy.” I propose to change this into “...like the American amphibians axolotl and mud puppy.” since the present formulation can be understood as axolotl and mud puppy being the only American amphibians.

Anatomy: Mechano- and electroreceptors, 1st paragraph: “(Bulog, personal observ.)” I think this needs some reference?

Ecology and life history, 2nd paragraph: “The tadpoles are 2 centimetres...” I think the term ‘tadpoles’ is normally only used for the very different young specimens of frogs and toads? I suggest using the word ‘larvae’ here, even if this means using this word several times in only a few sentences.

I also second the (quite old) above sections:

1) "Did anyone else notice this?" Obviously, the display isn’t visual. But what kind of display do they use then? Do they make sounds, do they circle around each other, something else?

2) "pigmentation consistency" After some years, this inconsistency is still there. I don’t have the books, so I don’t know what to keep and what to change.

Scarabaeoid (talk) 00:16, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Tadpole is accepted for any amphibian. For the 'display' stuff, I think it is a matter of territorial battles rather than strictly a display, with the territory controlled by one contributing to mating success, or perhaps some pheromone stuff? Display is probably not the ideal word, but is generally what is used for any sort of ritual mating stuff. As far as the pigment stuff, I'm pretty sure it just has low levels of pigment, don't have any sources on that though :P Nave.notnilc (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright/plagarism issue that needs to be corrected immediately

I nocticed that "Sensory organs" and its subsections are copied almost word for word from AmphibiaWeb. Someone needs to paraphrased this. LittleJerry (talk) 01:55, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Categories: