Talk:Mammuthus sungari

Contradictory Information

We can't say that Shokako Mammoth is the largest mammoth, at 4.7 m height, when the article for the Imperial Mammoth says that M. imperator was 4.9 m tall. Contradictory, yes? At least, not until we get all the facts straightened out.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Sorry but, can you tell me the reference or remains away from wikipedia that shows a Imperial mammoth of 16 feet tall at the shoulders???, If you want I can show you a 17,4 feet tall Shokako mammoth, the mammoth of photograph is about 5.3 meters high and is mounted in ibaraki nature muesum.-- Mr Asier (Asier) 8:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Then why was it originally written as being 4.7 meters tall?--Mr Fink (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I don´t know, but can you give me a souerce telling a 16 feet high Mammuthus Imperator??, the largest skeleton mounted is about 14 feet--Asier (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk)

Don't forget, even if it was only 4.7 m tall, the article mentions its sturdy build,so that it still may be the most massive mammoth, if not the tallest. I, for one, have run across alot of variability in the sizes given for various species of elephant/mammoth. For example, on wikipedia itself, the Deinotherium article lists it as the largest elephant.152.14.80.138 (talk) 15:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Finally the largest land mammal is the Songhua River mammoth, larger than any elephant or mammoth--Mr Asier (Asier) 16:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk)

I am a little confused about the overall height of the mammoth. The speciman examined in the mass calculation is listed as 4.7 m tall, while the specimen in the museum is listed as having an overall height of 5.3 m. Are they the same speciman? Is the extra 0.6 m coming from the little stands that are below the mammoth's feet? Cbmclean (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello! These two are the same specimen! Originally, the fossils showed a 4.7 meters high at the shoulders. The museum mammoth is based in those fossils. In the article is listed the 5.3 meters high, because in the webpage´s of the museum tells that. I´ve been examining a lot of photos of the mammoth in the museum and I concluded that it doesn´t arrive to 5.3 meters. The most likely thing is that the shoulder height for the mammoth is 4.7 meters high or a bit more. Go to youtube and type Ibaraki Museum, you can watch there the mammoth with some lines next to the Mammoth in the wall that indicated the mammoth height meter by meter, the 0 meter line is a little stand like the mammoth feet. I prefer to use the official 4.7 meters to make the calculations. It isn´t good to speculate the size of the mammoth in the museum, because the stimations would be badly made. --Mr Asier (Asier) 19:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Asiertxo. I am an amateur elephantophile, so I was really fascinated when I found this article, and I had never heard of this particular species. I was especially struck by the first illustration you posted, showing the size of the mammoth as compared to an average african elephant. That really brought home the mammoth's true size. Anyway, I'm curious where you got that illustration from. I think it's really beautiful. It's worth a thousand words, I think. I'm curious who made it and if it accurately reflects what scientists think the mammoth may have looked like in life. I also noticed that the tip-top ofthe head of that mammoth extends slightly above the 5 m line. Is that from the inflated 5.3 m figure given by the museum, or is the 4.7 m figure strictly the shoulder height. I noticed in the drawing that comapres the mammoth to the Indricotherium, the "shoulder height" is listed as 4.7 m, but the 4.7 meter line seems to extend to the very tip of the head, which is considerably above the shoulder height. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.85.66.157 (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, The image I make it in my own, the image mammoth is nearly 5 meters at the shoulders because the skeletal reconstruction is 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but in life the Mammoth with the muscles and hair is predicted to reach the 5 meters at the shoulders. But for make calculations I prefer to use the 4.7 meters eskeltons high because is something verifiably the 5 meters high in life is something that I predicted, but is very posible. (and 4.8 meters high of Indricotherium is from the skeletal r3econstruction, I have to be most carefully posible to make this important calculations. For me ther isn´t doubt, Mammuthus sungari is the largets land mammal ever. I´m very happy to make you happy with this article.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

If the Shokaku mammoth isn't 5.3, or even 4.7 meters at the shoulders, but at the tip of the head, then we are not justified in saying that it is the world's largest land mammal. We really, really need to get the facts straight before we can state such things.--Mr Fink (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Oficcialy the fossils shows a mammoth 4.7 meters at the shoulders, the largest indricotherium found is 4.8 meters at the shoulders but is more gracile than Mammoth. You can see it in the imagen, volumetricaly the Mammoth is much bigger.--Mr Asier (Asier) 9:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk)

Ibaraki Museum Mammoth

Mammoth, Probably this mammoth is over 4.7 meters at the shoulders. But I don´t konw 100%, so I can´t make my calculations with a mammoth over 4.7 meters. I try to be as profesional I can, and do the things the best I can. For now, I prefer to make the estimates with 4.7 meters high (official Measure) mammoth.

PD: If mammoth were 5 to 5.3 meters high at the shoulders, it wouldn´t be larger than Indricotherium, it would be much much larger than indricotherium.--Mr Asier (Asier) 14:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

comparision to elephant

This article says this mammoth weighed 17 tons, or three times that of an African elephant, but the article on African Bush Elephants says they weigh up to 22,000 pounds, with one exceptional one killed in 1955 weighing 27,000 pounds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.94.88.100 (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but, What is that logic?, the man of the picture is about 6 feet, but the NBA players are up to 7 feet and 1940 Robert Wadlow die with a height of 2.72 meters.... It doesn´t have any sense what you have written. An avergae African elephant is about 5 to 6 tons and 3 to 3.5 meters high rarelly the elephants grew more, the largest elephants use to weight 7.5 tons and 3.8 meters high. The 1955 elephant (4.0 meters high) has never been weihged, that wieght is only an estimnate. Today the 27.000 punds are dismissed, now is accepted that this elephant weighed between 8-9 tons or 18.000 to 20.000. There isn´t any evidence of 22.000 pounds elephants.... --Mr Asier (Asier) 21:20, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

General Information

Asier, I have had trouble finding more information about this mammoth. In fact, I didn't even know of its existance before I found this page. Do you know of any scholarly literature in English that describes this mammoth's lifestyle, morphology, habitat, or relation to other mammoths? Cbmclean 204.85.66.157 (talk) 22:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen any information in scholarly journals, either. I haven't searched except on-line, though, and there are abstracts in this area that may not be on-line. The only information I've seen is about exhibits in Hong Kong. In fact, this article has no sources. I'm not even sure it does exist. --Amaltheus (talk) 00:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, of course that it existed. Yes is very very strange I don´t know why ther isn´t information in google. And please, don´t tell me that this is an hoax... The most information I get form chinese and japanese pages and I´m in contact with a lot of paleontologist. It´s ironic but many of them didn´t know about this mammoth. Again Hoax? you have the reconstruction of the eskeleton of the Mammuthus sungari... this skeleton is based in 2 giant skeleton found in 1980 in Mongolia, one of them it was 40% complete and the other more than 60% and they were in incredibly good conditions with fingers and toes complete. They were two extremely large male of about 45 years. 1984 were found another 3 skeletons of Mammuthus sungari, one of them has skeletal reconstruction of 4.33 meters high. In total have been found 13 skeletons. Give me your e-mail and I will give you all the links about this information. And please, remove the label of the hoax.

I´ve been weeks and weeks working in this project with amateur paleontologist and world recornized paleontologist. So please... Who are you to say that this is an hoax and telling that this article could be removed, you only spend a few minutes searching in google... Is this a Joke?--Asier (talk) 8:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

For now, I have removed the {{hoax}}, and changed the {{unreferenced}} into a {{refimprove}}. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, What information need to be referenced??, I uploaded more links and references--Asier (talk) 13:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.30.89.103 (talk)

Buf.... I can´t understand... Who is the "smart" person that remove Mammmuthus sungari from Mammuthus article?. Is incredibly. Some people is much Ignorant that I could never have thoutgh... That demostrated that people is making changes Without knowing anything. I can´t beleive this... Please people who didn´t know anything about proboscideans, mammoths and paleontology... don´t make so ridiculus changes, don´t make me spend time. Thanks --Asier (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Asier, please remain WP:CIVIL against your fellow editors. Anyone on a wiki can edit anything he wants. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but if you don´t know anything about a theme, Why are you changing articles... It doesn´t have any sence. The wikipedia it should be a site the most objetive and well done as is posible, these actitudes don´t contribute to it.--Asier (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk)

Everyone tries to contribute. Sometimes they are wrong, and then they are usualy swiftly reverted. It is safe to say that almost all editors act in good faith. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Asier; This is cbmclean, who has been corresponding with you about this mammoth. I think that Martijn Hoekstra was wrong if he declared this article a hoax without knowing more about it. However, I have to agree with him that there is a scarcity of non-scholarly information about this mammoth on the web. I haven't done a search of scholarly literature yet, but I plan on it. I, for one, am fascinated by this mammoth. I had never heard of it. I want to know what its range was, what the climate was like in its habitat, and its evolutionary relationships to the other mammoths. Was the original description of the species done in English?

Hello I don´t think that it is descrived in English, I´m trying to get the original description. This mammoth lived areound 100.000 to 10.000, the giant 4.7 species remains shows 34.000 years old fossisls. They have a thick coat like M.primigenius And they lived in the gobi desert. Asier (talk) 12:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The article is sourced enough

Asier it isn´t worth to be justyfing yourself on your work. I´ve read many articles on paleonthological subjects and this is the only one in which the weight of the species is justified or at least explained by your calculations cause I´m surprised by the lack of consensus on this issue. It is the only article about giant prehistoric animals which shows volumetrical models incredibly well done. The article shows a reconstruction of the eskeleton that proves the actual animal´s size. It has helped me a lot with my survey on proboscideans, Im writing a thesis just now! The links you refer to also justify the size. This article has much more references than any other article about any other mammoth species (except the one on mammuthus primigenius).What more references are people asking for?? I believe that the people who submit their opinions don´t have a real basis on the subject. For instance, in the article on mammuthus imperator it is said that it had a shoulder height of 4.9 meters which isn´t by far the truth. The largest M. imperator remains show a eskeletal reconstruction of 4.08 m high at the shoulders (around 4.25 m at shoulder flesh). It is also said that it was the largest mammoth species, how can this be true if remais of M. trogontherii much larger have been found? For instance a humerus nearly 5 foot long. And of course, M sungari was even larger too. --Airam (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I ask for additional sources, because it is turning out really hard to find sources about the existence of this mammoth. That is not an attack, or a claim you are not doing good work, but a request for more sourcing. I don't see what's wrong with that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:09, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh my God, thank you! finally someone taht know about this theme. Again Martijn??? are saying that Mammuthus sungari doesn´t exist like species?? What about the skeletons reconstructions in hong kong, inner mongolian museum, ibaraki muesum and many more ???? .... [Mammoth in Atlanta museum]. This photo is a Mammuthus sungari showed in atlanta museum in 1995. What moreeeeee??????????????????????????--Asier (talk) 19:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

As a first note, one questionmark is generaly enough. No, I'm not saying that the species does not exist, I am saying that it is really hard to verify it's existance, and it would be nice if we had more links proving this. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are two links, one about the first mammuthus sungari found in 1973, it was nearly complete. And another,an abstrac with a table with the 13 mammuthus sungari discovered and location (mentioned above). [First sungari] and [13 sungari].

Asier, do you know how to locate the original species description? That would settle alot of questions.Cbmclean (talk) 18:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

For all those concerned, I looked at the link provided by Asier and labled as "13 sungari." It is the 13th artcle from the top. It mentions mamuthus sungari as a "giant" speciman. It also seems to ilmply that mamuthus sungari is alternately classified int he genus parelephas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbmclean (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello Cbmclean, Parelephas (subgenus) only means that this mammoth is very near to other Mammuthus genus like M.trogontherii and M.columbi. That link shows how many and where are mammuthus sungari found.Asier (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk)

References and Original Research

As an explanation for some of the tags, here are a couple of specific problems with this article:
1. There is only one unchallenged reference that refers to M. sungari. Of the remaining three, two are references on the mass of Indricotherium, and the third has an unreliable tag and appears to be self-published, which is a no-no. There are several external links, but unless those are cited somewhere in the text, they don't count as references. At least one appears to be a blog post, which is also unacceptable as a reference,while several are in Chinese and Japanese, which is only marginally better, albeit understandable given that the topic of the article is an obscure taxon from China. Either way, since they're not cited, they're not references. This leaves a single source which, based on where and how its cited, appears to document that Songhua River Mammoth is the common name of M. sungari, useful information, but not nearly enough given the length of the article.
2. Given the reference problems, as written, the section "Size" violates WP:OR. You're not presenting information on the mass of M. sungari that has been published elsewhere, you're publishing it on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helioseus (talk • contribs) 18:26, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Helioseus, thank you for your questions to improve the article. Firts I´m tying to find the paper of the formally description of this animal, If exist, I don´t think that It will be in English. I´m in contact with an proboscidean expert chinese Paleontologist, and probably he could get the paper of the description(for next week). Yes you have the reason there are a lot of links, but ther aren´t "Scientists" links, anywat I will upload better ones. Is very dificult to use google in chinese and japanese. Any way is ovbious that the mammoth exist and that it is enormous. The mass is my calulation, I use volumetricall model for this, it can be use to, shoulder height (acording with Per Cristian paper, a mammoth of 4.7 meters high would weighted even more than 17 tons), femur lenght and humerus and femur circunference. --Asier (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk)

Probably should be nominated for deletion

I think the article needs deleted for now. The editors don't want others working on it, and they don't seem to have found reliable sources. The Chinese references on the web are about the same as this, self-published sources that use on academic references. The writers are aggressive about keeping it here, but they don't have any energy to find academic references, and there's no place in the world where a new mammoth would not be extensively published in the press and in peer-reviewed journals, at least an abstract. IF the writers want the article to stay on Wikipedia all they have to do is source it. But if they spend time attacking me, they won't get it sourced. They will, however, distract from the controversy of whether or not the mammoth exists. It's time to focus on the lack of sources. No mammoth this large and this unique is going to be without scientific references in Chinese, Japanese, and English. If there are no references, maybe it's because there is no .... --Amaltheus (talk) 01:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

PS I was willing to say it might be a hoax, but I'm more inclined to think it is because the writers simply haven't put up references. It would be so easy, with a mammoth this spectacular, to get references. It's time to put up. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you Paleontologist??, So why are you making changes without any idea about this mammoth?? you can ask before...So you have been making ridiculous changes without any aproach... I upload an abstract above, why are you making changes if I uploaded "mammuthus sungari" in your list?, please stay away--Asier (talk) 10:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.39.51.14 (talk)

I'm making changes because you haven't provided any sources, if no one has any idea about this mammoth, quite simply, no one can make changes while having any idea. That's the point of asking if it is a hoax, there are no sources that indicate this mammoth has been studied by the scientific community. Simply give links to appropriate sources that show the science behind this mammoth so this article can stay, be well sources, be well written, and be used by those who read Wikipedia. I don't see an abstract anywhere. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, please give Asier a little more time before trying to delete this site. I agree that it is frustrating that this mammoth seems so obscure. But it seems that the animal was discovered and described completely out of the "mainstream" of english-speaking paleontology. It seems to have been discovered in China and/or Mongolia at a time when those countries were much less open to the west than they are now, so it is not inconceivable that such an exciting find might be virtually unknown in the west. Especially if the animal was not originally described in English. Asier says that he has been working on this animal with a professional paleontologist. Hopefully, this means we will soon se some more published information in English level journals. Asier, please understand that you can't reasonably ask other users to "stay away" on Wikipedia. The strength of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. Unfortunately the weakness of Wikipedia is that just about anyone can edit just about any article they want. So even though this article is "your baby," anyone on wikipedia has the right to alter it, even if they have no idea what they are talking about. Ideally, people will refrain from editing articles about which they are uninformed. However, Asier is objecting not so much to the content of your article, as to the quality. He feels that the source material just is not adequate. This is a legitimate complaint. However, I think he is being a bit hasty, so I have asked him to just slow down and give you guys some more time to get more information together. Hopefully he will agree. Cbmclean (talk) 19:31, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You have the abstract in the external links. Tell me please, Which source are you looking for? This mammoth is totally clasificated as mammuthus genus by sience. There are links with sience behind this mammoth. Check them please.--Asier (talk) 21:15, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Asier, I'm not trying to be difficult. It's just that I can't read Chinese or Japenese, so I can't check those references. At this point I just kind of have to put my hands up and defer to you unless I find better information contradicting you.65.191.184.209 (talk) 02:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To Amaltheus User

It´s imposible to work with users like you (Amaltheus) or Martijn Hoekstra (although this user now asks before changing any data). Asier has been giving responses to each question formulated by us and working on improving the article´s references while you haven´t even asked anything, you just delete information without making any sense and adding that this species might be an hoax, which is crazy!! Asier has lately answered with some agressiveness but I understand him ´cause it must be frustating that someone who doesn´t understand the subject has this attitude towards his work. Who are you to threaten anyone on deleting an article? This is interesting information for some users like me as well as a new subject for research. I would appreciate some respect from you towards this work. --Airam (talk) 17:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a threat, it's a suggestion that imo it would be appropriate to nominate an unsourced article for deletion, particularly one where the authors seem to have time to attack others, claim they own the article and don't want other writers, and haven't made time to add references. Respect the article itself and the organism by posting references. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Airam. I am wondering why you think it is impossible to work with me. The only edit I made to the article was this one. I can't uderstand how you see that as problematic. The same goes for my edits to this talkpage. I would like to hear your views on that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you state the article is unsourced? It is because of the size of the sungari mammoth? There are a lot of reconstructions of this mammoth in asian countries. What references are you refering to? The scientific existence of this mammoth is proven by the Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing. Tell me exactly the points you want to clear up so we can achieve an agreement over this article.--Airam (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.138.204 (talk)

Add a link to source one. The Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology is well known and publishes plenty of abstracts in English. Simply add a link to an abstract in English or Chinese on a reputable website, not a blog or user page. In fact, simply link to the Institute's web page with the abstract. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Know I understand Asier, is uploaded!!!!!!.--Airam (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.138.204 (talk)

I don't see the abstract you are pointing to anywhere, please link precisely to it and post the link here. I don't know what you are talking about, and the references in the article don't link to specific volumes. I'm not going to do any searches since this article has people claiming to own it. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

...abstract it is in the extrnal links of thi article!, Asier explained this above!. Is normal that Asier is fed up with you.--Airam (talk) 18:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.36.138.204 (talk)

Cut out the "fed up" stuff--it's a waste of time. You just keep showing that this is not very scientific and not been posted by scientists, and making me question the article more. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Amaltheus, if you check out the link that is provided, the first heading is not about the mammoth. YOu have to scroll down to the 13th bold-faced heading. It is entitled "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE." I can vouch that it does mention sungari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.191.184.209 (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, everybody, I was the one who left that second to last comment. I had mistakenly put Asier's name, but I meant to say "Almatheus." So, Almatheus, I was trying to tell you about the abstract that Asier was talking about. It's the 13th bold-faced entry, as described above.Cbmclean (talk) 01:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the help! Yes, I see it.

This is on a somewhat unrelated website, the Russian "Foundation for Agrarian Development Research." Can we find a link to the original source in Chinese from the Chinese Institute of Vertebrate Paleontology and Paleoanthropology? Again, if it is published by the Chinese IVPP it will have abstracts other than on a Russian agronomy website.

Can we do this without the unscientific and uninteresting jabs and pokes, Airam, that are just making me think I'm correct and this is a hoax and should be nominated for deletion? I work in the sciences, my work is challenged all of the time. I have to provide references that others can find to make decisions for themselves. It's pretty simple to ask and provide references back and forth among scientists when writers can't do this, but can issue repeated petty attacks, it makes me question what's behind it. If this is real, reference it politely. If it's not, get it off of Wikipedia, but don't waste your time attacking me instead of getting rid of it, as this won't work, and it will waste your time also. But, if there's no substance to the article, waste away.

If Asier is "fed up with me" and is a scientist, then probably Asier should focus on getting the references, and probably Asier can speak for him/herself. Hopefully in a more reasonable manner about the topic, not about me. Thanks. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, first of all you are correct Airam user doesn´t have to write "fed up", for me... Amaltheus I don´t want to be angry with you. But of course I was fed up with you, until now you dindn´t make me any question ... you have been making changes and removing information with any aproach and logic. Why don´t you make me questions? I was answering every user. While you were criticizing me that there wasn´t sourcers, I was updating the page and uploading new links and sourcers to external links and references area. But I saw that you didn´t even read my uploads to improve the article, you didnt read the article and the disccusion... I upload the Scientific Abstract several days ago in the disccusion and in the external links... but you continued with your attitude... I don´t understand... why you have been removing and making changes without read the discussion and article?? this hurts me. I uploaded another link, of a chinese dinosaur page, dinosaur.net and I think that is enough valid for a reference, you can obvser there the first Mammuthus sungari. Otherwise, the google traductor works quite well with the chinese and japanese translations, try it.--Asier (talk)11:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one who has a problem with reading the Chinese. I can read enough scientific Chinese to know that the original references posted were not links to scientific pages. As I keep pointing out, Chinese articles include Enlgish abstracts. Today, much Chinese research is published primarily in English, with a series of Chinese journals dedicated to this. Simply link to the original abstract on the Chinese IVPP page, as I've requested. If it is a major Chinese paleontological find there will be more than the one 1959 article, also. Find one or more of these. Your continued discussion of me has nothing to do with this article. --Amaltheus (talk) 18:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You have only been Criticizing this article since I uploaded, YOu don´t make anything to improve this article, you only Criticize. Why don´t YOU get the original abstract? and make something productive. Why don´t yoy try to get information. Make something to improve this article and abstain to Sabotage the article more. The abstract is totally valid, is acopy from the original. Other mammuthus artciles don´t soucered any link of the genus or to prove the existance of the mammoth... I don´t know why this article have to be more sourcerd, I think is enough sourcerd with Scientific abstract and webpages. I remeber you, that I added the "Mammuthus sungari" in your "F off I own this article" section, please be consistent.--Asier (talk)21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk)

Of course I'm not editing, I was told to f off and leave it alone. Why would I edit under those circumstances? You can't have it both way, you tell someone to f off and not edit, then demand they edit. It's your job to edit it now. --Amaltheus (talk) 01:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, check this link, is a Scientific Book, Memoirs of Beijing Natural History Museum Vol.1 it talk about mammuthus sungari species. It si valid reference?--Asier (talk)21:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.86.90.21 (talk)

This is what I'm waiting for the abstact for. Look if it is only published once, anywhere, in the entire world, yet it's supposed to be this fabulous discovery, why is there no scientific interest in it? Why should Wikipedia show significantly more interest in a fabulous mammoth than the scientific community? Maybe because there is something wrong with the mammoth or the find or the interest-like there is none. Cough up. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Amaltheus, but I´m not with that comment. Science is every time making mistakes and ignoring some wounderful discoveries. EJ: Antarctosaurus is known by science since 1929, but it wasn´t became a little "famous" until few years ago. In XX century all books and paleontologist used to said that the biggest dinosaur was Brachiosaurus even Apatosaurus and Antarctosaurus remains indicated a much bigger dinosaur... there wasn´t any reference to Antarctosaurus. In the other side, we have Ultrasaurus,in 1979 Jim Jensen only found a vertebrae and a shoulder blade but It took little to say that is was the largest dinosaur ever, and finally all about this dinosaur was wrong. If Mammuthus sungari was discovered in USA, all us we would know about it in since 30 years ago, but is a chinese mammoth... That is the truth, and is very sad.--Asier (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC) -->

Hello, I´m in contact with two chinese paleontologist (Adrian Lister students), I´m waiting for their answer. So, soon we could know the truth about this mammoth.--Asier (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Your rediscoving it for science and putting it on Wikipedia is original research (WP:NOR. Original research on paleontological subjects is submitted to peer-reviewed journals, not to general encyclopedias. If what you're doing is original research, the article has to go. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Officialy described

I´ve talk with Adrian Lister chinese colleges and they answer me that this species was described in 1959 by Zhou, M.Z. I´ve uploaded in the refereneces. --Asier (talk) 02:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong reference

this paper is given as a reference, but the name sungari does not occur in this paper at all. I have heavy doubts about the sources given in this article.--Altaileopard (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That paper was the reference to calculate the animal height in live (shoulder height in the flesh), that paper only talk about body mass calculations... I don´t know why you based all the references in only that paper?. Chek this reference talking about mammuthus sungari paper.--Asiertxo (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

To Everybody

Hello, I´m Asier. The person who created the Mammuthus sungari article. Since some people are making changes without asking before and with any idea about this species. I decided to leave a short version. I´m a little surprised because this article was more accurate to what sizes concerns. I aported photos, I convinced a japanese friend to go to the museum and measure the skeleton, I made volumetrical models... For example in other mammoths and other large prehistoric especies articles, nobody questions the sizes. The imperial mammoth article says that this mammoth was up to 4.9 meters at the shoulders, there isn´t any evidence of this. The largest Imperial mammoth mount in the world is less than 4 meters at the shoulders, "Kika" the giant female M.trogontherii, isn´t 4.7 meters by far. The Indricotherium article doesn´t says the truth too. The world largest Indricotheriums remains suggest a creature less than 5 meters at the shoulders...

The largest proboscideans mounts in the world are based in the two giant M.sungari found in 1980. This mounts are obviously the biggest in the world by far. The second largest mammoth mount in the world is based in Mammuthus sungari too, in one specimen found in 1984. This one is 4.33 m at the shoulders. Another Deinotherium giganteum skeleton mounted in bulgaria is very near in size.

I talked with many paleontologist of every were from USA, Europe to China before making this article. On chinese paleontologist told me that the largest M.sungari specimens are probaly Palaeloxodon sp. and he was with me that theese ones are probably larger than Indricotheriums.

May be one day, one paleontologist decide to make a serius research in this species and all of you will remeber that extensive wikipedia article talking about M.sungari.

Regards.

--Asiertxo (talk) 10:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Asier. May be you are right and M. sungari was the largest Mammuthus species (if it was realy a species and no subspecies or late form of Mammuthus trogontherii), but the problem is, that you have to bring scientific references, which can be found and checked by other persons. If I see a living Mammoth in siberia, I am not allowed to wtite this in wikipedia. Well, Its good to have people which do wiki-work about prehistoric mammals, but the information always must be checkable.--Altaileopard (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Late Pleistocene?

Here an IP MADE AN EDIT, but according to the given source (Dong Wei, Xu Qinqi, Jin Changzhu, Liu Jinyi "THE QUATERNARY HERBIVORE FAUNAS IN NORTH-EAST CHINA, EVOLUTION UNDER CLIMATE CHANGE", Institute of vertebrate paleontology and paleoanthropology, chinese academy of sciences, beijing 100044), M. sungari survived not into the end of the late pleistocene.

" The giant Mammuthus (Parelephas) sungari, evolved from less giant forms from Siberia, was extinct during the beginning of the Late Pleistocene."

I WILL CHANGE THAT!--Altaileopard (talk) 15:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As the text sounds a bit incomplete now, I will add its existence in the middle Pleistocene: The same source says: "While Jinniushan fauna (about 280 kya), composed mostly of the temperate forms, had some cold forms (e.g. Mammuthus sungari, Coelodonta antiguitatis)."Cheers,--Altaileopard (talk) 15:07, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Taxonomy

The Chinese Paleontologist with wich I am in contact, confirmed me some weeks ago that the original fossils are clearly Mammuthus, not Palaeoloxodon as previous authors suggested. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asiertxo (talk • contribs) 18:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

validity of species

I have been looking for a while and have not been able to confirm that this species was ever officially described. The Zhou 1959 reference does not appear to address any taxonomics, and nothing more recent on the species comes up in searches. Does anyone have access to the 1959 paper to verify if there is a formal description, or if the designation is an informal one that was sucked into the popular media due to the size estimates. --Kevmin (talk)

In any case, it has been sunk into M. trogontherii and should redirect there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposing for deletion

Giving the recent description of M. sungari remains actually belonging to M. armeniacus, rendering this species invalid, I wan't to propose the deletion of this article, but before putting the tag I want to know if there's anyone against it. thoughts? Mike.BRZ (talk) 08:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

• The best thing would be to merge the information here into the Mammuthus armeniacus article and then merge the histories with this article becoming a redirect.--Kevmin § 09:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I've added the content to the Mammuthus armeniacus article, what do you think? Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me.--Kevmin § 19:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I didn't understood the part of merging the histories, I'm relatively new editing Wikipedia, sorry. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Msungari.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Msungari.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests December 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)