Talk:Harriet (tortoise)

Age

Shouldn't this tortoise be 155 (1992-2005) years old, instead of the 174 years old as said in the picture?—Reply to David Latapie 17:44, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19566724-2,00.html says 176 years old.

Well, using her conjectural birthdate of November 15, 1830 you get 175 years 220 days... however, one has to wonder that if the Darwin connection doesn't hold water, how well autheticated her age can really be? I do remember her from the news in 1997, though, when it was reported that based on DNA testing she was 167 years old. Question: does anyone know how an organism's age can be determined from its DNA? --Anshelm '77 19:27, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Meanwhilst, this article linked to from Australia Zoo claims her to have been born in November 1830 making her 175 (I have corrected the article, we may as well go with the owner's claim). I wonder if the autopsy (assuming there is one, which I'm certain there will be) will give us a better idea? Either way, she was very, very old! Zerbey 17:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Related issue

Harriet (14 November 1830 - 23 June 2006) was a Galápagos tortoise (Geochelone elephantopus porteri) who had an estimated age of 175 years at the time of her death in Australia

Query: If we can state her birth date with such precision, why are we saying "estimated age of 175 years"? They can't both be right. -- JackofOz (talk) 05:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Origin

So where is she from, a by whom was she found? How did she end up in Brisbane? - Matthew238 03:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's a story about her:

http://www.cbc.ca/storyview/MSN/world/national/2005/11/15/oldest-tortoise20051115.html Also, here's a story on a supposedly 250 year old tortoise: http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2006/03/23/tortoise-060323.html And to top it off, searching Wikipedia by inserting Addwaitya into the search field on the left, seems to make the search engine here completely choke!!! Charlie Richmond 19:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

DNA Testing

I have removed the sentence regarding the use of "DNA testing" to determine age. That is not something that DNA testing can be used to do without a huge amount of work involving the rates of mutation within a species, knowledge of diet, personal radiation exposure history (i.e. what altitude the individual lived at over the course of their lifetime; exposure to rocks producing significant amounts of radon, etc.). I very much doubt such information exists with regard to tortises, particularly Harriet. It may be possible to determine age using either protein racemization testing or perhaps C14 dating but those generally require the destruction of samples (such as teeth or perhaps shell) formed during the earliest periods of animal growth. Unless a specific reference is found with clear documentation as to the method(s) used, their error range(s), etc. the statement is either highly misleading or completely false. DNA testing can be used to determine population sub-groups so that part of the information from the BBC source may be correct. Someone needs to contact the zoo and get more precise data with respect to the history of Harriet and any *real* scientific research which has been done with her.

Hi, Robert Bradbury (I'm assuming that's you from the article history)

I'll have to disagree with that, as The Times Online had this to say:

What is not in doubt is Harriet’s age. The US research on tortoise DNA “baselines” showed big changes in tortoise DNA on Santa Cruz island after a terrible cull there. Harriet’s DNA predates the cull, making her at least 170.

So I guess they compared her DNA with those of tortoises from different time periods, which would not necessitate measuring rates of mutations, c14, etc.

Then again, the article also said that she is the "oldest creature currently walking the planet," which was not true, since I am looking at the newest Time Magazine right in front of me, which says :that Addwaitya, age 250, recently died. JianLi 21:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seached the scientific literaure, and beyond the claim i the popular press, there is no information available. I have removed the info based on WP:RS and WP:V, as this is clearly not meeting those criteria. Based on my own klnowledge of molecular genetics, it is not an easy thing to determine it was of a certain age. Kim van der Linde ^{it's a girl} 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Robert 15:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I would suspect that "big changes in tortoise DNA" involve a population bottleneck (due to the cull). This simply would imply that most younger tortoises lack genetic variability due to the bottleneck. Harriet would have greater variability due her birth predating the cull. So that could serve to set a minimal age. But there is obviously a wide range between 170 and 250+ if the other claims are accurate. My basic point was that methods of determining a precise age cannot easily be based on DNA at all. You would have to have accurate mutation rates for a variety of tissues in that species and a complete record of the physical location and diet of that specific individual. (DNA mutation rate is determined by exposure to environmental hazards as well as frequency of cell replication.) I doubt sufficiently detailed information of this nature is available for Harriet. Almost universally anything in the public press about DNA is talking about DNA variation across generations (hundreds to thousands of years) and not about determining the age of a specific individuals. I believe the protein racemization methods are the best that have been developed to date for that type of research.

ABC Newsradio

ABC Newsradio is using this as a source for Harriet the tortoise. [1]. Well done to all involved. Capitalistroadster 15:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Timeline

I've removed the timeline of Harriet's life, as it was from a Mirror.co.uk webpage. And even if it was written by someone on digg, you can't just post it on wiki, as it's not automatically GFDL.

Some Clarifications

First up I want to point out that a very intensive DNA survey was done on Harriet, I know this I was involved in it and I published it. However the person above is correct an exact age cannot be determined from a DNA annalysis and I, nor anyone else, ever claimed it could be in the scientific papers on her. What was shown in a study of over 900 tortoises looking at sub populations, populations and subspecies was that was that harriet was actually unable to be matched to any known population of galapagos tortoises. On re-annalysis it was found she was a G.n.porteri however that she was a minimum (and thats all we said minimum) of two generations older than any other tortoise of her subspecies examined. The oldest approximately aged tortoises were two that were caught as adults in 1907, hence the minimum 2 generations takes her back to about 1860. Thats as far as DNA testing can take us and all that was ever claimed, whats been said in newspapers and books is not correct, myself and several other people have been seriously misquoted and taken out of context.

Ok the date of birth being Nov, 1830 comes from me from my 1995 paper on Harriet. How did I get her age, well from a combination of factors, basically historical evidence, the results of the dna could be used to rule out a lot of possibilities (eg she had been recently smuggled in or something) and a lot of digging through thousands of records. Basically she had to have been alive by 1860, this we knew. So how could she have become a resident of Brisbane. There were actually only 2 imports of Galapagos tortoises prior to 1900 in Australia, one a shipment of 2, the other a shipment of 3. The 2 were at a hospital in Sydney and both specimens are now actually in the British Museum, so they are accounted for. The other shipment of three was by John Clements Wickham, First Leiutenant of the Beagle, under FitzRoy. Where did Wickham get 3 Galapagos tortoises in 1841 when he arrived in Australia? Incidently 2 of these 3 tortoises are accounted for. Harriet is one, Tom another is in the Queensland Museum after dying in 1942. Point to note that Darwin wrote a letter to Huxley in 1860 telling him he should talk to Wickham about the last living Galaps from the 1835 expedition as he had them and that Wickham had just moved back from Australia to Paris. He left the tortoises in the care of the Botanic Gardens as was written on the carapace of Tom in the spirit collection of the Queensland Museum. I actually think the evidence that harriet was collected by Darwin was pretty strong and I have yet to see it refuted. Or any viable alternative come up with.

The birthdate of Nov, 1830 is based solely on FitzRoys measurements of the tortoises in 1835, they were 11 inches in length on average so I averaged out that they were about 5 years old in 1835, as they hatch in November there is her birthdate. The exact day was randomly picked from the month of November for no other reason than they could have a day to wish her a happy birthday, I had nothing to do with that detail. Her age is accurate based on evidence to within 2 years. I would suggest that if people wish to site sources of information try going to the literature rather than the newspapers.

In the 1995 paper we published a Timeline for Harriet, it was republished by Reptilia Magazine later that year and again in 1997. All authored by Steve and Terri Irwin and myself.

Based on the stuff I have seen in the Media in the 11 years since I published the findings on Harriet, and in several books I could bore people for ages. But this is just to address a couple of points. Yes I am happy to be questioned on this. Cheers. Faendalimas 21:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Who's next?

So who is the oldest tortoise now? --Thenickdude 10:09, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

I felt this needed to be rewritten.

I have rewritten the article on Harriet adding much of the information that is contained in the original peer reviewed papers on Harriet, other data from my own research notes, including some material that has come to light more recently.

There were a number of points in the article that were incorrect, or at best innacurate. They were also misleading. I brought some of this up in the discussion here. I felt the article should be accurate. I am fine with it being argued against and even refuted, but this should be based on facts not opinions.

Scott Thomson.. Faendalimas 04:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Some of the edits

I am a little curious about some of the edits that have been done. I am fine with the typos etc, of course they had to be corrected.

However I would like to know why the timeline was changed when it was cited exactly from a published source. The previous timeline someone removed because it was felt not to be appropriate so this time I put one in that was on public record, and authored by myself. I quoted it exactly except for the last three lines and I pointed out I had added them. What this edit has done is actually make it an innacurate citation. I thought accuracy was an issue for any encyclopedia.

The second one is that my comment at the bottom was removed. Iwould appreciate knowing why that was removed also. If there is a good reason fine I will accept it. But I would like to know. Faendalimas 04:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The artilcle is much longer now, which is good, but maybe it could do with some headings to break it up. - Matthew238 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Detective Work

Regarding the statement that "Darwin ... sent a letter to Huxley in 1860 informing him that he should speak with Wickham in Paris about the last of the tortoises from the 1835 expedition as he had them."

Can anyone tell me where this letter can be found? If the person who wrote the above knows the actual date, that would help to find the letter in the Darwin Correspondence Project at Cambridge. Or maybe it's somewhere else???

Thanks, --John Woram 18:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Style

Interesting article, but the style of "it is in doubt that Harriet came with Darwin" in the first line and the collection of evidence in the following paragraphs isn't really encyclopedic, is it? If the evidence is as strong as shown here, shouldn't the first paragraph be changed to something along "despite some doubts (see below), it is believed that Harriet came with Darwin"? -- 132.230.104.57 08:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC) (user:tillwe)

Adwaita

This article states that Harriet was the second oldest tortoise after Tu'i Malila. What about Adwaita, who is thought to be older than both? Shouldn't he be mentioned in some way? -- Imladros 16:37, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no conclusive proof of her age as yet, once the carbon dating is completed we will have a clearer picture. Zerbey 21:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed without evidence Adwaita is heresay only. When and if the evidence comes in it can be incorporated. Faendalimas 07:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed the Island of Birth back..

No matter what you want to believe of her history there is no way she was born on James Island that is the wrong sub-species. She was born on Santa Cruz (Indefatigable). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faendalimas (talk • contribs) 22:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

Subspecies

Note that G. e. porteri (the Santa Cruz subspecies) appears to be a junior synonym for G. e. nigrita, as found on the subspecies list on the Galápagos tortoise article. The Reptile Database has it as Chelonoidis nigra nigrita (Duméril & Bibron 1835). --Anshelm '77 14:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Harriet the TORTOISE

'''Harriet was not a TURTLE!!!!!!!!!!!!!''' Who the HECK WROTE THAT?!?!?!?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.134.230 (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I gather that the term "turtle" is used for all testudines in American English. Since the body of the article uses "tortoise" I've moved the page. Hut 8.5 13:04, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

All 45 Darwin's tortoises eaten!?

BBC HD airs a 3-part series "Galapagos". In one of the episodes, it states that all 45 tortoises taken aboard Beagle were eaten by the crew and the shells tossed overboard. It specifically emphasized, not a single shell survived the trip (which could be of importance for the Origin of Species). 93.89.200.51 (talk) 05:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• Well issue with that is that there are specimens in the British Museum and in the Paris Museum that came from this. FitzRoy says differently in his memoires and Darwin notes differently in his letters as published by his granddaughter. Faendalimas (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Please see this footnote from the Galapagos tortoise article:

Chambers 2004. The origin of Harriet 11 September 2004, New Scientist. Retrieved 2010-09-13. Chambers notes that Harriet was probably 169 years old in 2004. The individual died in 2006 (though media outlets claimed the greater age of 175 based on a less reliable timeline): Harriet the tortoise dies. 23/06/2006 ABC News Online.

The case against Darwin personally collecting Harriet is reasonably strong. Please be bold and correct this article in accordance with Chambers' timeline if you have time. Minglex (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

• • The case either way is reasonably strong, however since the original publications in 1995 I am yet to see a viable refutation of the story. Chambers asked people to make leaps that were far more grandiose than we did and we were misquoted many times, for expample we never once said that dna evidence proved she was born before 1835, dna cannot do this. I am happy to correct the article but reality is that only 5 tortoises were imported into Australia prior to 1930, they are all accounted for except one, and this one was one of the other Wickham tortoises anyway. So if Harriet arriving with Wickham is wrong and the only other import is accounted for, and were both G.n.darwini, where did Harriet come from? Faendalimas (talk) 18:33, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

"James", 1834-1837.

The Guardian - Henry Nicholls - Celebrity pet: the rediscovery of Charles Darwin’s long-lost Galapagos tortoise, 12 February 2014.     ←   ZScarpia   22:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Tom, Dick, and Harry, and Harry Oakman

It seems to me that if the three tortoises were named Tom, Dick, and Harry, then they were named using the common English expression Tom, Dick and Harry. In which case, it seems unlikely one of them was specifically named after anybody. Kerry (talk) 06:38, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Supposed mention in The Brisbane Courier

The supposed mention of Harriet in an 1874 edition of The Brisbane Courier is, I think, mistaken. The article is referring to the botanical gardens in Edinburgh, not Brisbane. IVaughanC (talk) 05:05, 15 December 2024 (UTC)