Talk:Chlamydosaurus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former good article nomineeChlamydosaurus was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
November 24, 2009Peer reviewReviewed
December 16, 2009Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee


Untitled[edit]

this doesn't say much about the thermoregulation of the lizard, i'd expect somthing along the lines of the frill increasing surface area allowing the lizard too cool it's self more effectivly. i'm sure, anyone know what other functions it may have? Spicypeanut 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

The lizard is fauna. The niche of the lizard is to keep down the insect population. Without the lizard, the insect population won't effect much because of other predators such as spiders and ants. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.159.88.60 (talkcontribs) 19 February 2006.

Most people don't know about this organism because it is not widely known. In my research I have not found this organism endangered. This animal is great for people into science and vetinarians because the animal is interesting and very active with the predator defense meckanism the frillneck lizard has. I hope you have as much fun as I had researching this cool organism. —This unsigned comment was added by 198.234.255.233 (talkcontribs) 7 March 2006.

Need info on diet, venom, and pet trade[edit]

There is no information on the frill-necked lizard's diet. There is no information on whether the lizard is venemous. There is no information on whether the lizard is kept as a pet. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbroadwe (talkcontribs) 15:52, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Is the frilled lizard really venomus?[edit]

no it is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.106.167 (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Juveniles[edit]

Could some images of Juveniles be included?143.216.49.250 (talk) 03:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)Marc.S

hhhmmm[edit]

I own a frillie and i am big fan of them its mouth is pale pink not brigh or yellow. he doesnt have and red or orange scales on his frill. there are two diffrent types of frilled dragons. cant rember them at the mo (im at work) but i think this article could do with more work. also would be nice to see some info about them as pets as they are becoming popular with reptile keepers. would do it my self but i have never done a big edit on here. any questions feel free to ask. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Me lewie (talkcontribs) 12:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Frilled lizard wallpaper[edit]

National Geographic Frilled lizard wallpaper Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:43, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

References[edit]

Potential References List
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
  1. "Animal Fact Sheets". ARAZPA. Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  2. "Frilled Neck Lizard". Australian Fauna. Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  3. [Birgit]. "The Australian Frilled Lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check |author-link1= value (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  4. Shine, Richard; Lambeck, Robert (1989-07-12), "Ecology of Frillneck Lizards, Chlamydosaurus Kingii, in Tropical Australia" (PDF), Australian Wildlife Research, 16: 491–500CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  5. "Frill-necked Lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  6. Savage, Melissa (2001). "Chlamydosaurus kingii frillneck lizard" (html). Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  7. Christian, Keith; Bedford, Gavin (05/13/1994), "Seasonal Changes in Thermoregulation by the Frillneck Lizard, Chlamydosaurus Kingii, in Tropical Australia", Ecology, 76 (1): 124–132 Check date values in: |date=, |year= / |date= mismatch (help)
  8. Shine, Richard (1989), "Function and evolution of the frill of the frillneck lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii (Sauria: Agamidae)", Biological Journal of the Linnean Society, 40 (1): 11–20, doi:10.1111/j.1095-8312.1990.tb00531.xCS1 maint: date and year (link)
  9. Christian, Keith; Green, Brian (1994), "Seasonal Energetics and Water Turnover of the Frillneck Lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii, in the Wet-Dry Tropics of Australia", Herpetologica, 50 (3): 274–281CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  10. Harlow, Peter; Shine, Richard (1999), "Temperature-Dependent Sex Determination in the Frillneck Lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii (Agamidae)", Herpetologica, 55 (2): 205–212CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  11. Griffiths, Anthony (1999), "Demography and Home Range of the Frillneck Lizard, Chlamydosaurus kingii (Agamidae), in Northern Australia", Copeia, 1999 (4): 1089–1096CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  12. Griffiths, Anthony; Christian, Keith (March 1999), "Androgen Concentrations and Behavior of Frillneck Lizards (Chlamydosaurus kingii)", Journal of Herpetology, 33 (1): 12–17CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  13. Crabtree, Michael. "Frilled Dragon". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  14. Griffiths, Anthony; Christian, Keith (April 1996), "Diet and habitat use of frillneck lizards in a seasonal tropical environment", Oecologia, 106 (1): 39–48, doi:10.1007/BF00334405CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  15. Bedford, Gavin; Christian, Keith (April 1996), "Physiological ecology of frillneck lizards in a seasonal tropical environment", Oecologia, 106 (1): 49–56, doi:10.1007/BF00334406CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  16. Stiebritz, Matthew. "Frilled Lizard". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  17. "Frilled lizard, frillneck lizard, King's lizard". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  18. "Frilled Neck Lizard". African Fauna. Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  19. "Commonly Observed Native Animals in the NT". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  20. "Frilled lizard". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  21. "The Coin Page". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  22. "The Frilled Neck Lizard". Retrieved 09/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  23. "Frill-necked Lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  24. "Frilled Lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  25. "Weird animals : The Frill-necked Lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  26. GRIFFITHS, A. D. (1996). "The effects of fire on the frillneck lizard (Chlamydosaurus kingii) in northern Australia". Australian journal of ecology. Blackwell, Oxford, ROYAUME-UNI (1976-1999) (Revue). vol. 21 (no4): pp. 386-398 (35 ref.). ISSN 0307-692X. Retrieved 9/20/09. Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)CS1 maint: extra text (link)
  27. "FRILLED NECK LIZARDS". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  28. "frilled lizard". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  29. Griffiths, Tony. "We like our lizards frilled not grilled! – The short-term effects of fire on frillneck lizards in the Top End". Biodiversity Publications. Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  30. Humble, Gary. "Frilled-neck Lizard Babies Are Out!". Retrieved 9/20/09. Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

Edit Summary[edit]

AP team - please complete the edit summary when making changes to the article or leaving comments on the talk page - this will allow others to monitor the progress and more effectively assist where necessary! In fact, as a group project, it is essential so that your team may monitor each others contributions. See me in class if you need assistance with this task. JimmyButler (talk) 18:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification[edit]

  • The frill of the Australian frilled dragon is used to scare off potential predators — as well as hissing and lunging. the frill hisses?
  • Why two legs - is it better suited for climbing - is it faster to be bi-pedal? What is the adaptive advantage of such a strategy?
  • The descriptive section is very limited. It should be a verbal explanation of its appearance. Not only how big it is; but, color (color variations) proportions (tail to body), etc... examine some other lizard articles (good ones) to ascertain the level of detail.
  • In the habitat section you begin with the scientific name - perhaps consistency in the use of common vs. scientific would reduce confusion. Is not italics required for Genus species? Also it is the Frilled neck lizard in some sections and just frilled lizard in others.
  • aforementioned ---- vocabulary over-kill - I use the general rule if I would not use the term in conversational English - then I'm reluctant to use it in Wikipedia.
  • However, the trees are most importantly used for camouflage. I suggest - the trees are used for concealment while there is something (yet to be determined) that makes the lizard camouflaged.
  • One of the most intriguing facts noted by scientists. I suggest a more sterile approach -unless the use of intriguing denotes a wide-spread scientific perspective.
  • Being a reptile, the frill-necked lizard is, 'of course', ectothermic, Of course any reader not knowing this is clearly a moron?
  • Make GA so I don't have to do this for a grade. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

In culture[edit]

I personally believe that this section is irrelevant and degregates the quality of the article, i have tried to remove it but it is continually replaced. Can anyone provide me with reasons why it shoud remain????Deoxyribonucleicowen (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, the only significant reference to the Frill-necked Lizard in culture that I can point out is that the JP Dilophosaurus has tendencies similar to this species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talkcontribs) 16:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The cultural references all seem quite relevant to me, and I would point out that this species has unusually high cultural significance in Australia. Djapa Owen (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

Hi, I'm reviewing this article. My initial impression is that it needs much cleanup. I'll see what I can do to help. Triplestop x3 04:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced statements[edit]

There are statements tagged with {{fact}}. Please address this.

Reliability of sources[edit]

These sources appear to be less than reliable. They are by a single person with no editorial oversight; is there any evidence that these are reputable enough to be used? Are there any other better ones that can be used in their place?

I'm concerned with this one because it is a commercial site:

Triplestop (talk) 17:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead section[edit]

The lead section seems to contain unnecessary details; the lead should be just an overview. The details in the lead should be incoporated into a seperate section on its anatomy if possible. Triplestop (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

NOTHOWTO[edit]

The pet ownership section contains unnecessary details in violation of NOTHOWTO. Simple statistics like life span are fine however unnecessary details like the size of the tank are not. If possible, talk about its desirability or popularity as a pet and reword some of the existing info to be more encyclopedic. (see this example). Triplestop (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the above concerns, this article cannot be passed at this time. If believe you can address these problems, I can wait or you can file another nomination in the future. Triplestop (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

article name[edit]

It should be named "Frill-necked lizard" (lowercase L) in accordance with naming policy. Your thoughts? Jalwikip (talk) 19:24, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded Strombollii (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, but I don't think anything should be moved until this one is cleaned up first. Seems like packing up garbage to throw out when you move to a new house.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

General Evaluation Section[edit]

Concerns

  • This article would have benefited from a taxonomy/evolution section describing the basis for its classification and relationship to other lizards. The absence of content in a RESEARCH paper carries a heavy penalty.
  • This article would have benefited from conservation status section describing current threats and human introduced pressures. What is it current status? Is the species in nature experiencing threats from habit destruction - over collection for the pet trade - etc.?
  • See edit history for my quick copy/edit - addressing complex sentence structure and verbose dialog. Still in need of a thorough copy/edit - which would have been done for you if there had been evidence of sincere efforts to respond to GA concerns.
  • Grossly under cited - I've added a few citation needed tags; however, there are complete section without any referencing. Wikipedia's credibility depends on verification. This is not an option for most of the claims in this article.
  • The lizard is a member of the agamid family. It a relatively large lizard, growing up to 91.4 cm. The lizard is also capable of [bipedal locomotion. From classification - to size - to method of locomotion. This sequence in the Description Section, illustrates an overall problem of this article; the lack of connectivity. Organization of content and transitions between themes is in desperate need of improvement.
  • It is capable of bipedal locomotion. Statements of facts without explanation. When does it go into a bipedal mode? Why does it do this? How is it beneficial? Expansion on these tid-bits reflects the level of research I had expected.
  • 91.4 cm - interesting twist - usually it is a failure to include the metric - here you've chosen to befuddle the Americas. There are standard Wikipedia formats for displaying numerical data.
  • The frill-necked lizard does not have a standard colour - surely there must be a range - something to eliminate pink and purple?
  • Speaking of range - where is the distribution map. The shell group and the turtle group at the least put something together.
  • variations of colour among the species has lead some scientists to hypothesise more than one species This badly needs a reference. Speciation based merely on color? Do they use color in mate selection - with so many variations - this seems unlikely. Another example of a significant factoid - without a follow-up explanation.
  • Color is environmentally dependent. Do they adjust their color as in Chameleons or has natural selection lead to variations is specific populations. a reader may over-interpret and assume the first.
  • is found solely in northern Australia and southern New Guinea. vs. The frill-necked lizard is found mainly in the northern regions of Australia and southern New Guinea. Conflict of information is unacceptable.
  • You used one source in the Description Section "Animal Diversity Web". NONE of the information in this section can be located on that site. Failure to cite is only slightly less an offense than mis- attribution of sources. There is no way to determine if any on the information in the Description Section is credible. Utterly and Total unacceptable.
  • Your reference states this: They eat insects and spiders, and very occasionally feed on mammals and small lizards. Termites and ants are the bulk of their diet. Which you translated into this: Like many lizards, frill-necked lizards are insectivorous, feeding on cicadas, beetle, ants, and termites. Your source does not support the cicadas and beetles, nor does it substantiate your claim they are insectivores. In fact one of your source states: Australian Frilled Lizards are carnivorous...
  • Diet is addressed in different areas of your article, without consistently stating the same food sources. Ex. mainly of small arthropods] and vertebrates Here you state vertebrates are a main part of their diet. I suspect you intended the small to refer to the vertebrate part; assuming a big beetle is also a food option?
  • Bradtke in the ref section is a bad link. Considering your already limited efforts at citations and the inability to verify the facts enclosed - the one chance I have to see if this is manufactured takes me to a dead end?
  • Burke's Backyard, reference selected in the thermoregulation section is marginal at best. It certainly is not peer reviewed and I am doubtful it would meet the criteria for GA under well-researched!
  • This dimorphism is apparent in the length of the lizard; the male is generally larger than the female. Body mass and length are not interchangable. The males average ? cm in length with the females average ? cm's. Lack of specifics - general statements that remain open ended reflects a lack of serious research. Perhaps this: Frilled Lizards are sexually dimorphic with adult males reaching a snout vent length (SVL) of 290 mm, and a mass of at least 870 g. Females are much smaller, reaching a SVL of 235 mm and a mass of 400g.
  • Their long, strong tail can measure up to 65cm alone. They can weigh up to 500g. The diameter of the frill is 20-25cm, about the size of a small dinner plate! Did you know these things? Information from one of your sources that would have served the description section well - yet you opted not to include it. Their overall weight, the size of the frill. Good stuff.
  • Obviously you did not reach a point in the development of this article to address citation formatting. However, the use of a reference section - which is not actually referencing anything specific in the article combined with a separate footnote section is not my idea of GA ready.
  • Under external links. To be included in this section - there must be significant information in addition to what is presented here. One of these is on exotic pets is more ads than information.
  • Perhaps my biggest concern is the lack of research. There is no shortage of information on this topic. Your reference selection in no way represents a cross-section of experts in the field. Not to mention it is far from comprehensive. A total of nine once you eliminate redundancy.

Assets

The images are very striking. Hopefully they conform to Copyrght policies.

Suggestions for Improvement

Since most of the information cannot be verified or the references are less than credible it might be best to revert back to the original stub. I will leave that up to the Reptile Gurus; who are no doubt perplexed by what is happening here. You are fortunate that they have shown patience; unlike the low tolerance level of the shell people.

In closing

I will refrain from a grade until you have had an opportunity to defend any concerns raised above. Others within the community are welcome to either defend your efforts or add to the list of criticisms (separate section please). This review was done in a rush - having extended the opportunity for improvement to the last minute. Based on the edit history - the additional time was not necessary. I move on to the Scotch Bonnet Shell --JimmyButler (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

I still have very little idea how to properly use and write wikipedia and its articles within. I do agree with your executive decision to not use groups again. That did not work in my favor in any way. The reasons for our short reference list are valid, however, every reference found was unrelable, repetative, or sited our main source as its basis. Despite the horrid accident that was my group, my article, and my effort put forth I thank you for the opportunity to try something new as a school assignment. And I will not forsake this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deoxyribonucleicowen (talkcontribs) 14:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Frill-necked lizard or Frilled-neck lizard?[edit]

I'm sure one could find sources to support either version, but it would be nice to be consistent throughout the article. The title of the article uses "Frill-necked", but the first sentence and infobox use "Frilled-neck". Zagalejo^^^ 18:15, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, never seen or read "Frilled-neck lizard"....but sometimes see "Frilled lizard" - yes be good to get more input on this....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, looks like gov't likes Frilled lizard.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
"Frilled lizard" seems like a nice alternative, though I don't have much experience with zoology naming conventions on Wikipedia. Maybe I'll start an RFC. (I hope I remember how to do that!) Thanks for the reply. Zagalejo^^^ 02:58, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

RFC: article title[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to use the scientific name. The other consensus reached is that the other names it may be called should be used for redirects. AlbinoFerret 12:38, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking to get some input on the article title. The infobox and the first mention in the lead use "frilled-neck lizard", but the current page title is "Frill-necked lizard". It would be nice to have some consistency! Another alternative might be "frilled lizard". Zagalejo^^^ 03:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Google true hit counts:
frilled dragon - 226
frilled-necked lizard - 229
frill-necked lizard - 294
frilled lizard - 336
Not much web agreement, not enough difference to warrant a move. Frilled lizard has the lead now, but that could easily change in a year or two. Just mention all four names in the first sentence, boldfaced, article title first. For the rest of the article, avoid using any of the names unless necessary (i.e., use pronouns when possible). When necessary to use one of the names, match the article title. Avoid overthinking the disputed common name of a lizard. ―Mandruss  00:25, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
I think the infobox, title and lead should match using Frilled-neck lizard. If you look at the four names listed, three use the term frilled and only one uses frill. The lizards neck is frilled as these three names show. From a syntax or language usage perspective Frilled-neck seems the proper way to put it as in the infobox. I notice this option was not searched for in Google. It would be interesting to see these results. What makes this lizard stand out and gives it it's common name is not that it is necked but that is has a frilled neck. Even though a move is required, it not a big deal since there needs to be a page for each name for a redirect. Probing Mind (talk) 17:39, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Google also finds Frilled Neck Lizard. Maproom (talk) 06:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thank you Maproom, I did find that name used also. The name frilled neck lizard with or without the '-' along with frilled lizard appeared to be more common but I don't have numbers. I don't know how to find the number of 'true Google hits'. If numbers really means much anyway, I think the name used most often in the scientific literature is probably the more important number. Anyone have any data or opinions on the importance of usage numbers? Probing Mind (talk) 07:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Just a note. I looked at the list of potential references listed above on this page. This list happens to follow what I stated last, that I thought the frilled neck versions or the frilled lizard were more common. Probing Mind (talk) 07:57, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
What people find when they Google in strongly influenced by the "google bubble" (see e.g. this discussion), so it's advisable to tell your browser to "go incognito". And then, if you want scientific sources, to google for "Chlamydosaurus kingii". Maproom (talk) 08:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Two main points arise in this matter; firstly the irrational policy of assigning page titles on the basis of what are ignorantly regarded as "common" names, meaning what some editor somewhere regards as common because he has encountered it in one language in one region at one time, applied to at most a few species of organisms at some stages in their life histories.
    The rational approach is to use the biological term (in this case Chlamydosaurus kingii) as the article title, and to create as many redirections and disambiguations as might prove reasonable and helpful.
    However, as hell will freeze over and humanity will become rational before that approach is adopted, concentrate on the second aspect instead: stop wasting your time on it, leave the article alone, make sure that all the possible variations are represented in redirs, and forget about the matter. FWIW, I have always known Chlamydosaurus as "Frilled Lizard", but that does not affect my foregoing recommendation.
    Incidentally, in case anyone wishes to defend the rationality of the existing policy, try to do so in the context of the circumstances that gave rise to this RFC (and good luck!) JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
My opinion echoes yours pretty much...but I gave up on arguing ages ago. FWIW, the Australian government likes frilled lizard. So I guess that's a vote for that from me. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree with what JonRichfield said. However, there's absolutely no good reason that this page should be at "frill-necked lizard" instead of "frilled lizard", but this is a pretty typical example of the sloppiness that goes with picking the first "common" name at hand in order to avoid the scientific name at all costs. "Frilled lizard" is what the majority of sources cited in the article call it. "Frilled lizard" is the common name used by the Australian government. It's the common name used by the IUCN. It's the name used by The Reptile Database (which contributes to the Catalogue of Life database, which in turn disseminates whatever value is in their common name field to dozens of other databases and websites). "Frilled lizard" stomps "frill-necked lizard" in Google N-grams and Google Scholar. And please note that "true" Google hit counts found by going to the last page of results are completely useless when there are more than 1000 pages for a search term, as there are for almost any notable subject. Google only serves up the "top" 1000 pages, and then goes through 2 or more rounds of eliminating duplicate results (where 1 round can be overriden on the last page of results). The last result page is ALWAYS less than 1000 results, and all the "true" hit count represents is actually the level of duplication in the first 1000 results. This page should not be at "frill-necked lizard". There may be a good reason to use the common name "frilled lizard" instead of the scientific name in this case, but (echoing JonRichfield) WP:NCFAUNA's insistence on "common name whenever one exists" is deeply misguided (and not reflected in the wording at WP:COMMONNAME or WP:TOL). Plantdrew (talk) 03:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Plantdrew I ask this is not to start an argument, but because I am puzzled. You said "...there's absolutely good reason that this page should be at "frill-necked lizard" instead of..." You lost me there. Could you please give an example of the sort of reason you had in mind? (I have no fish to fry in the matter, because I would prefer Chlamydosaurus_kingii etc etc, but I am curious (and peculiar too of course!)) JonRichfield (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@JonRichfield:, oops, I left out a "no"; that should be "absolutely no good reason". If a common name is to be used for the article title it should have the support of at least one of the following types of sources:
  1. an "official" common name used by any regional expert authorities (e.g governments, professional societies) in the area where it occurs
  2. an "official" common name used by any global authorities
  3. the name that is actually most commonly used by by non-biologists who are familiar with the organism (this last can be difficult to determine; search engine tests are imperfect, but may give some hint)
None of these sources for common names that I've looked at prefer "frill-necked lizard" over "frilled lizard". Hence, no good reason for the current title. Plantdrew (talk) 20:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
@Plantdrew Ah! OK, no problems. Of course, I never make a slip, so.... JonRichfield (talk) 11:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm 55 and I've never known it as "frilled lizard". It's always been "frill-necked lizard" or "frilled-necked lizard" everywhere in Australia that I've been. The Australian Reptile Park uses "Frilled Neck Lizard" as the page title and "frilled lizard" in the prose on its website.[1] --AussieLegend () 21:59, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Was going to say Frilled Neck Lizard and base it on Parks and Wildlife NT [2] but then realized the article content here doesnt exactly agree with whats there so its probably a moot point arguing over page title while the articles content is so lacking. Multiple names are common within Australia its really not relevant to decide which is more common because that ultimately comes down where the greatest number of publications are generated. Whats lacking is the Indigenous names arent being checked(or even included inthe article) because of bias with the editors cultural background... To me the name should that by which it has commonly known for 30-40,000 years. Gnangarra 01:15, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Frilled(or frill)-neck lizard is definitely the common name as far as the public is concerned, I think (and like AussieLegend, I've never heard "frilled lizard"). Gnangarra's last point is very important as well, though, and I would be amenable to that name too. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

  • the thing is there are just so many alternatives that the scientific "Chlamydosaurus kingii" is probably the best place with the 100 or so redirects all pointing there Gnangarra 08:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm 75 and have always called them frillneck, or frill-neck lizards, as do all of the published authorities listed at at CSIRO Publishing / Australian Journal of Zoology.Bjenks (talk) 09:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconding Gnangarra: There are just so many alternatives that the scientific "Chlamydosaurus kingii" is the best place with the 100 or so redirects all pointing there. As a North Queenslander, they were always frillnecks, frill-neck lizards or frillies. "Frilled Neck" is not a term I can imagine any Australian using in day to day speech. It's too clunky. So what we have are official "common names" that I suspect that nobody actual uses. Best to stick to the binomial Mark Marathon (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it might be a generational thing-when I was a kid (70s) they were always frill-necked lizards, but frilled lizard seems later..or more an official name that never took on. Actually I too would prefer it at the binomial. Lots of reptiles are already - we could have an RfC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Actually, looking at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(fauna), it says if a consensus on which common name can't be reached, the scientific name can be used. Lots of reptiles are at scientific names already. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Lacking consensus, the scientific name is the most neutral title, and the best in my view. Note, however, that here the genus name should be used, given that Chlamydosaurus is monotypic (see WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA) — but this guideline is widely ignored. Micromesistius (talk) 13:21, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Over the years I have heard all versions listed here, and others. Hence following policy it would be best under the binomial, or genus name as its monotypic. To me this would be a preference for all species since common names are local and change from place to place and over time. I consider common names of little value. No matter what the Government or IUCN consider its common name any legislative actions by the Government will be done under its scientific name. The scientific name is the most stable, the only names that are traceable through scientific literature and have a scientific underpinning. All common names should be re-directs. Cheers Faendalimas talk 12:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
""Frilled Neck" is not a term I can imagine any Australian using in day to day speech" - My 24-year-old son keeps reptiles and is somewhat of the local expert on snakes, lizards, turtles and so on. According to him the common name is "frilled-neck lizard". Last time I checked he is Australian so yes, it is in common use. He did speak with derision about the name changes, all apparently because somebody "discovered" that the frill is actually not on the neck. --AussieLegend () 07:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I support using the scientific name in most cases in general, and given all of the above, that seems like it would definitely be the best course to take here. —烏Γ (kaw), 21:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
    • I think this case is a good demonstration of why the scientific name would be better in many cases. These discussions only come up over common names, generally because people have heard the name they stand by where they are from. I am sure they are correct, but elsewhere there are always others standing just as firmly by some other name. Hence pin the article to the scientific name and then make every common name we hear of redirect to it. This just seems more sensible. I recently mediated a discussion over some tortoises from South Africa, were they Padlopers or Cape Tortoises, in the end the best way formard was to put them under the scientific name. It is usually the best solution, no matter what people think the common name cshould be, they usually agree on its scientific name. Cheers Faendalimas talk 17:13, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chlamydosaurus. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 18:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chlamydosaurus. 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:

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

As of 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 {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • 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) 20:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)