Talk:Timber rattlesnake

Measurement conversion

Since this is a strictly American species should the measurements be in standard and not metric? The Great White Hunter 00:21, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Mike_Winters

Standard? You mean imperial units.homo against that, firstly because virtually the entire scientific community favors the metric system, and secondly because using a single unit of measure for all these articles is better for overall consistency. Oh, and this species is also found in Canada. --Jwinius 01:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Broad accessibility and consistency can be achieved by adopting the inclusion of both systems as a standard practice. This will also avoid the unnecessary alienation of millions of potential users. Please understand, few American children are taught the metric system as the primary system of measurement and it is not regularly used in America outside of a few limited communities. Most of us forget what little bit we have learned of the metric system a few moments after our last science class. Respectfully submitted. Gwwiz (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)Grant_Wilson.

Fine. Done. A few limited communities? Oh, you probably mean our relatively small academic and engineering communities. Seriously, I find it really sad that the US continues to cling to the antiquated system of Imperial measures. But, it's not your fault. IMO, the fact that US public education is so poor likely has something to do with it. I know; I was there. --Jwinius (talk) 02:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on a specie of rattlesnake and your gratuitous attack on American education will not improve it. But, the country will be a better place as a whole if you continue to stay out, you arrogant ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.20.159 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Removal of text

I removed a vague, inaccurate claim about venom, as there are many different possible components of venom, not just two. I also made a change to reflect that "rattlesnake" may describe TWO genii of snake—crotalus and sistrurus. Dick Clark 07:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Common names

don't want to step on any toes here, but doesn't the list of "common names" get kind of tedious? this is a general reference, not "everything anyone would want to know about the timber rattler". if they want all the names, readers can go to the referred text, right? it seems a bit silly to me to actually have to note that another common name for the Timber Rattlesnake is "rattlesnake" -- i mean, Duh ... er, i know that comes off as snarky, and snark wasn't intended. but you get me, i hope. how about a more useful, abbreviated list of names? - Metanoid (talk, email) 00:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this particular species is known by more common names than most, but that doesn't make listing them any less important. Compared to the total length of the article, it's still not that much information either. Besides simply striving for completeness in this area, which is not hard at all compared to describing most other aspects of this animal to the same degree, listing and making redirects for all the names makes it more likely that people searching for information on this snake will end up finding this article. Also, a complete list of names and redirects strongly reduces the likelyhood that a duplicate of article will eventually be created, but with a different name. Finally, "rattlesnake" and "rattler," or rather the plural forms thereof, are mentioned as common names for the genus Crotalus, since they applies to all of its members. --Jwinius (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is this list that you speak of? I have searched the article multiple times but I don’t see any list. 172.124.72.52 (talk) 19:36, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

that was my point about "rattlesnake". how much does it tell you if ALL of them have that name? should i look up up every species of rattlesnake and mention in their entry that they are also known as "rattlesnakes"? it seems dumb. plus, what's the rationale behind removing wikilinks on for dates? i see nothing wrong with that. is it a project thing? - Metanoid (talk, email) 03:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I see what you mean. We'll remove "rattlesnake" and "pit viper" from this list of names. Both of them are listed in Wright & Wright (1957) as applying specifically to this species (this was the very first rattlesnake species known to science), but obviously those names aren't specific enough today. "American viper", though, is unique.

As for the wikilinking of date fragments, I too had always been doing it that way until someone recently explained the situation to me:

• There are guidelines for making links in several places, such as Autoformatting and linking and Dates. In general, a link should help readers to understand an article. For example, in an article on "computers" it might help to have a link to "microprocessor", but just because a significant computer event happened in 1972 does not mean that readers will learn anything from a link to the "1972" article.
• In this respect, the rules for taxoboxes are no different than for the main body of the article.
• The autoformatting mechanism has produced many full dates (day + month) with square brackets around them. This has to do with formatting -- not linking -- even though it looks the same. Unfortunately, it has led many editors to believe that date fragments are also supposed to be linked, so that now these are massively over-linked.

This is why many editors are now unlinking date fragments. If you feel the need to to comment, I think this is the right place to do so.

Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

i myself like being able to see a date, and being able to ask what happened in a particular year with a single click; that feels encyclopedic to me! but i do appreciate the info, and had been wondering myself just where one might look for the protocol on such things. thanks! - Metanoid (talk, email) 05:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

• Why are all these animal articles being titled with Latin names. This is an encyclopaedia not a biology book. A layperson does not look up animals based on their Latin name. And this encyclopaedia is supposed to be aimed towards laypeople. This is ridiculous. It should be titled "Timber Rattler", give the Latin name, and any alternate names. When people are searching the first thing they should see is the common name, otherwise it is useless to the average person. Theshowmecanuck (talk) 20:13, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Merge

I want to suggest a merge of Crotalus horridus atricaudatus into this article, since that subspecies is not considered valid according to ITIS and there are no sign that it will ever make a comeback. --Jwinius (talk) 18:13, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

makes sense to me. - Metanoid (talk, email) 05:56, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Link edit

I hope you don't mind that I made the word snake a Wiki jump link on this page? I'm reading along seeing how technical it's gotten, and I just want to make it a tad more small kid friendly? (You're an 8 year-old in Anarctica wondering what a snake is?) 66.82.9.108Magialuna (talk) 21:02, 12 July 2008 (UTC) 20:57, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but that makes no sense. Similar to linking colors. If you're an 8 year-old in Anarctica wondering what a snake is, this would surely not be the first page you'd start with. Also, maybe this would be a better place for kids. --Jwinius (talk) 00:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Geographic Range

Does the sentence "The type locality given is "America", although Schmidt (1953) proposed that this be restricted to "vicinity of New York City" (USA).[1]." seem odd to anyone else?

I don't have access to that source, but that seems like a peculiar statement...the timber rattler is spread throughout the country, and is certainly not limited to New York City....is that a thinly-veiled insult at the Big Apple?:)Can someone confirm that this is what the source actually says? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.65.34.246 (talk) 14:44, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the reference to NYC, lo, SIX years after it was added. The footnoted reference was not "Schmidt" as described in the body of the article. Appears to have been a failed attempt at humor at the expense of NYC and Wikipedia. Amazing that something like that could hang around that long.Tapered (talk) 05:26, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

TYPE LOCALITY — Once again some paranoid New Yorker has deleted the type locality for this species, taking umbrage at the late Dr. Schmidt's restricting it to the vicinity of New York City. Apparently the concept of type locality as used in the scientific field of taxonomy and systematics is too abstruse for some New Yorkers to comprehend. Simply clicking on the already cross-referenced term would have directed him or her to an explanation. There was no need to delete the paragraph and to wrongly accuse someone of vandalism and of a "dubious attempt at humor", when no humor was intended, but instead useful scientific information was being provided. 108.17.71.21 (talk) 10:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Conservation Status

C. horridus is definitely listed as "threatened" in Texas. TPWD are they guys who decide and that's what they say at http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/wild/species/endang/animals/reptiles_amphibians/ I didn't change the page because it's not clear if the "citation needed" referred ONLY to Texas. 173.184.73.243 (talk) 16:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

While I have no actual proof, but Texas is near the extent of its range and assuming this means less of them in Texas that would give reason for it to be listed 'threatened' in Texas Tkent91 (talk) 06:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

This information was removed by @Anastrophe: It's now been added back in with proper citations. On a side note, these references were easily findable on official websites and probably could have been found before removing the info from this page entirely. Garchy (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I appreciate your adding the sources. However, challenged material is supposed to be removed reasonably promptly. This was challenged in 2011. I search for sources often, but if the subject matter isn't in my wheelhouse -- and particularly has been in challenged state for more than a decade - removal is absolutely within policy. Anastrophe (talk) 20:34, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I wasn’t talking about what is or isn’t “policy”, which on Wikipedia can really go either way - it’s really more about what’s helpful. Garchy (talk) 01:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

It is also helpful to remove material that has remained in the encyclopedia in a challenged state for a very long time. The 'citation needed' tag exists for a reason. There were eleven years during which any other editor could have found a citation, upon coming across the 'citation needed' tag. When other editors fail to do so, challenged material is supposed to be removed. It should be removed. I've added thousands of citations in my time here, and removed thousands of unsourced claims. This is how Wikipedia works. In fact, my removal served its purpose: since this is a collaborative medium, the removal alerted you, piqued your interest. You found a source to back up the claim - just eleven years behind the ball. Again, I thank you for adding it. Removing unsourced claims is also critical to the project. IF Timber rattlesnakes were anywhere within my sphere of interest or expertise, I'd have made an effort to find a source. Lacking that, but presented with an absurd gap between challenge and today, I did what is both policy, and also good practice, in order to keep unverified material out of the encyclopedia. The system worked. Cheers. Anastrophe (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

gestation period for canebrake rattlers

This article should note that in the coastal plain of the southeastern US, canebrake rattlers do not mate in the spring, they mate in August and September. My husband was bitten by the female of a pair that were mating in late August (east central Georgia). This is confirmed by the University of Georgia website srelherp.uga.edu/snakes/crohor.htm They are more aggressive during this period. I would hate for anyone to be bitten because they didn't know the danger is greater in late summer and early fall in our area. Michele378 (talk) 02:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Crotalus horridus. 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/20070315074523/http://www.venomousreptiles.org/ to http://www.venomousreptiles.org/

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) 18:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)