Talk:List of largest reptiles

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	List of largest reptiles is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Turtles (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turtles, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject TurtlesTurtles

Untitled

Where is the komodo dragon on this list? Ayersmm (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of largest reptiles. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 00:35, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Largest amphisbaenian?

Encyclopedia.com suggests Amphisbaena alba as 'probably' the largest (extant). This paper states Listromycter leakeyi as the largest ever known. I feel it is incumbent upon Wikipedia editors to find a definitive answer to this urgent and pressing question. CrashingBoar (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion, change or addition...

Reptiles is a non-scientific grouping of lizard-like vertebrates as well as snakes. As the notion that birds are more closely related to crocodilians than crocodilians are to for example Komodo dragons, I'd think it'd be time to change this article, either to merge the bird article and this article or to completely delete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:F1:2F29:1347:E0B5:1720:B2C3:3EE0 (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Improvement of the list

Greetings, It is being observed for some time that this page is being edited constantly at the editing user’s own will and preferences. The list is way out of proportion as can be seen by the table (see the table of largest living reptiles under the Largest Organisms wikipedia page). It would be very convenient if someone changes the table, better yet, add some more species with more accurate data backed by reliable sources. Thank you. Adpr99 (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Used unreliable data and missed out some reliable ones

The 6.8 metre Orinoco Crocodile is considered unreliable because it comes from a hunting record and that length is literally 222 years old as it came in the year 1800. So is this Gustave crocodile whose reliable lengths measurements are not available.

Now, this should also include a 5.63 metres Mugger Crocodile as it comes from R. Whitaker who is one of the most reliable sources when it comes to data about crocodiles. R. Whitaker clearly says “the maximum reliably recorded length for the Mugger is 5.63m” 42.105.206.192 (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in List of largest reptiles

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of largest reptiles's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "devosjoli":

From Blue iguana: De Vosjoli, Phillipe; David Blair (1992). The Green Iguana Manual. Escondido, California: Advanced Vivarium Systems. ISBN 1-882770-18-8.
From List of largest extant lizards: De Vosjoli, Phillipe; Blair, David (1992). The Green Iguana Manual. Escondido, California: Advanced Vivarium Systems. ISBN 1-882770-18-8.
From Green iguana: De Vosjoli, Phillipe; Susan Donoghue; Roger Klingenberg; David Blair (2003), The Green Iguana Manual, Advanced Vivarium Systems, ISBN 978-1-882770-67-0

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:31, 15 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Standard of rankings

Stipulating criteria for the overall rank of a given species is required, like what other list pages do. Are we using length or mass, average or maximum, confirmed measurements or the largest estimation?

Besides, it is inconsistent to have the upper limit of "mass range" data different from the "maximum mass". If Species A weighs 400-1300 kg, shouldn't the max be 1300 kg instead of a skyrocketed 2000kg?

Why are snakes not included on the overall league? Some serpents, the green anaconda included, can overweigh some of the tortoises on the list. RoyalRover (talk) 18:00, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, I found some of the purportedly supporting sources questionable. For instance, I failed to see this source & the Oxford handbook mentioning the maximal black caiman mass of 1,100kg.

I believe there exist a lot of unconfirmed or unverified statistics here on the league. Looking at some other good articles on wildlife, like the great white shark, only those scientifically accurate & reliable measurements are mentioned. We ought to at least stipulate which are purported & which are confirmed. RoyalRover (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I'm not fond of this page given they are a non-natural group - maybe make it a "list of lists" article and remove/transfer all information to daughter lists Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on morphology, the estimated mass of black caiman is around 1,100 kg. I can say the same about alligator. The heaviest alligator considered reliable was 626 kg (1,380 lb). But, it has been provided with 1,000 kg as its maximum mass, which doesn't have any solive evidence either except for being provided in book.

The claims about great white shark is also uncomfirmed. The heaviest recognised (or at least recorded) was 1,208 kg in Australia. The largest sharks (for example, "Deep blue"), has been estimated to weigh 1,905-2,268 kg, not recorded to weigh that much. Everything is based on assumption.

If you have any further concerns, you may express. Thank you. Adpr99 (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Given that a few crocodilians (c.porosus & c.niloticus) have been recorded to weigh over 1,000 kg (2,200 lb), the possibility can't be ruled out that other larger species can also exceed such massive sizes. Unlike mammals, there is greater variation in reptilian sizes due to variety of factors. Adpr99 (talk) 20:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, 400-1,300 kg is the mass range.

It is being mentioned in the pretext that the mass of reptiles is subject to conjecture and estimation, no need for further explanation.

The large species of constricting snakes might rival these in length, but not in mass. The heaviest reliable one I know of is a 183 kg (403 lb) Burmese python, in captivity. Still, it is not considered to be on the top spot on the list of largest snakes. The title goes to the Green anaconda based kn estimated weight of up to 250 kg (550 lb).

Hope this answered. Adpr99 (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The heaviest green anaconda recorded in the wild was 97.5 kg. It is almost half the weight of the giant tortoises. Adpr99 (talk) 20:10, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]