Adwaita is part of WikiProject Turtles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use
turtle resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information
.TurtlesWikipedia:WikiProject TurtlesTemplate:WikiProject Turtlesturtle articles
{{
Extinct turtles}} and fossil forms of both living and extinct turtles requires attention:many extinct articles require either expansion or creation and sources seems hard to come by. A list
of fossil forms is being compiled so progress can be charted.
Patrol: recent changes to turtle articles and check for improvements or errors.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of
India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Zoo, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to zoos, aquaria, and aviaries on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ZooWikipedia:WikiProject ZooTemplate:WikiProject ZooZoo articles
A fact from Adwaita appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 29 March 2006. The text of the entry was as follows:
It must be a mistake. It was brought to the Indian Zoo in 1875 (and has been there since). It was brought for Clive at the late 1700's.
JackO'Lantern 17:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Suppport of merge. As the two articles use the same BBC article in their lists of sources, it appears that both articles refer to the same turtle while using alternate spellings of name. --Allen3talk 18:46, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support obvious need to merge.
JackO'Lantern 18:55, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
Support. Of course the two articles refer to the same tortoise. Just the spelling is different. We can follow the BBC spelling, which is Adwaita that also conforms with the Bengali spelling better.--
Dwaipayanc 19:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
As there appeared to be concensus that this was the same turtle, a history merge has been performed on the two articles. --Allen3talk 19:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)reply
From
WP:CPMV, it appears that history merge should be done only for cut and paste moves and no where else. This is also confirmed by a reading of
WP:MM. Am I missing something? --
Gurubrahma 15:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)reply
The traditional spelling is Calcutta not Kolkata.
Oldest creature?
The claim that Adwaita may be the oldest creature is wrong. See
List of long-living organisms. 'Oldest animal' might be correct, though.
DirkvdM 19:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)reply
There are various sponges and corals which can live well over 1,000 years, so Adwaita cannot be the oldest animal, but if he really was 255, I believe that would make him the oldest recorded vertebrate in history.
Oisín(Message) 14:29, 23 October 2011 (UTC)reply
Carbon dating
Carbon dating? Are you all fucking idiots? Carbon dating a corpse tells you how long ago it died, not when it was born. Adding to that the already mentioned fact that the half-life of 14C would make the results here statistically random, this is a totally useless method for this purpose. I don't personally believe anyone outside Wikipedia has suggested carbon dating a fucking tortoise that fucking died last fucking year. --
76.223.221.122 20:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)reply
Do you realise how embarrasing you sound like? --
194.100.2.65 (
talk) 09:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I was thinking the same thing, albeit in slightly less vulgar terms. Radio carbon dating is about as useful for this purpose as singing the national anthem of Tonga backwards. No one seriously involved in trying to determine the age of and organism for scientific purposes would propose anything as ludicrous. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
194.144.85.130 (
talk) 10:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)reply
I have removed the material regarding carbon dating the shell. It is indeed impossible to do.
Keegantalk 18:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)reply
does anyone have a link to an actual scientific study on this? i wouldn't call the risk management society a credible scientific source and the BBC could have made a mistake which was later embellished to a full blown urban legend. carbon dating isn't really plausible for the reasons given above —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
210.56.95.161 (
talk) 11:54, 7 February 2011 (UTC)reply
No one asked the Turtle how old he was at any given point in time? If someone had, maybe we could find that person and ask him how old the turtle said he was, and go from there. --
1sneakers6 (
talk) 12:31, 15 February 2011 (UTC)reply
Gotta agree with the original poster, User:Keegan and 210.56.95.161 - radiometric dating methods are used to tell how long ago something died. They aren't useful for telling how long something lived as living things are constantly taking in carbon-14 and other radioisotopes, thus the level of parental isotopes is kept constant despite the constant breakdown. A news organization misunderstanding science is hardly surprising.--
Khajidha (
talk) 23:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Genome
Is there a public accessable genome sequence avaible?
78.35.204.188 (
talk) 23:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)reply