Talk:Biodiversity of New Zealand

Renaming

This is a great article, I was thinking that it might be better renamed to Natural history of New Zealand, any concerns or objections? --nixie 07:04, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

• I can't say I've met a scientist these days that would talk about Natural history. It sounds kind of, well, Victorian. I'd rather it didn't change but if you do make sure you change Biodiversity of New Caledonia too, and let me know cause I am planning still more articles along those lines. Sabine's Sunbird 15:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm plannning to write one for Australia, and although Natural Hisotry is a archaic term, it covers geology, ecology, botany and zoology pretty well. If you've got a better idea, I'd like to know since natural hitory was the best I could think of.--nixie 23:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
    • My articles were more specifically about the diversity and origin thereof. I was more interested in the biogeographical history, evolution (in broad strokes) of the faunal and floral communities, and such (and any geological descriptions within were simply to explain biogeopgraphical history). But if the article evolves into a broader ecology, zoology, botany, geology I guess it might outgrow the title (though I have grave reservations about mixing geology and geography into the mix). See what other people think, I guess. And let me know when you make the article on Australia, I'd love to contribute. Sabine's Sunbird 00:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I would prefer leaving it as it is, although Biota of New Zealand (which I've just redirected) may be better. We need a standard way of naming these articles. Flora and fauna is terrible, because it limits the article to two phylogenetic groups of organisms, while biodiversity isn't so bad, but biota is probably more accurate. Regarding content, natural history broadens the scope too much, though we do need more/better articles on other aspects of the country's natural history, including geological history. Richard001 03:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Biota of New Zealand sounds good to me. I came to the Talk page to see if there was any discussion about a change because it seems odd to me to put the focus on one aspect of the biota, ie, its diversity. Natural history of New Zealand would be a good name for an article, but not this article. There would be a place for a new, broader article similar to Natural history of Australia. Nurg 07:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

New finding of ancient mammal fossils in NZ

The article currently has this sentence: "No mammals, other than bats and marine mammals, reached New Zealand before humans did." That will have to be revised in light of findings of mammal fossils that date from the period 19-16 million years ago. [1]. --Mathew5000 03:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Yup, looks like it. And, also, WOW! That is very cool. Sabine's Sunbird talk 06:12, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The range of ancient fauna is not well known, but at least one species of terrestrial mammal existed in New Zealand around 19 Ma ago.

Which one was that?--80.141.12.61 (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Snakes and crocodiles

It looks like there was a report at the 2002 International Palaeontological Congress of snake and crocodile fossils having been found in New Zealand, dating to 18-14 million years ago. However, I can't find anywhere this was written up, in a peer-reviewed journal. References: [2] [3] [4] [5] --Mathew5000 21:17, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Are these peer reviewed

• Molnar RE, Pole M. 1997 "A Miocene crocodilian from New Zealand" in Alcheringa [0311-5518] vol:21 iss:1-2 pg:65-70

• Pole M, Douglas B, Mason G. 2003 "The terrestrial Miocene biota of southern New Zealand" in Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand Vol: 33 Issue: 1 Pp: 415-426 mentions crocs and snake.

Nurg 08:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing/inconsistent information between the New Zealand article and this one

The biodiversity section of the New Zealand article appears to contain some additional information not in this article. Additionally, I think the yellow-eyed penguin and, possibly, the white-tailed spider should be mentioned in this article (but possibly under the New Zealand biodiversity section as well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Toth (talk • contribs) 22:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Commercial photos

I reverted the inclusion of an external link to what appears to be a commercial site - the photos are for sale. Kahuroa (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Biodiversity of New Zealand. 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/20070930165155/http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=39636 to http://www.doc.govt.nz/templates/MultipageDocumentPage.aspx?id=39636
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110113191119/http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/research_details.asp?Research_Content_ID=28 to http://www.landcareresearch.co.nz/research/research_details.asp?Research_Content_ID=28

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) 10:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Biodiversity of New Zealand. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.royalsociety.org.nz/media/publications-journals-nzjb-2001-026.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014004117/https://www.nabis.govt.nz/nabis_prd/index.jsp to https://www.nabis.govt.nz/nabis_prd/index.jsp

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) 18:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)