Talk:Saltwater crocodile

Crocodile size

On this page it is stated that the largest crocodile found and measured was over 8 meters long, while on the crocodile page it is stated that there is no scientific records of crocodiles longer than 6.7 meters. Maybe some references would be nice?

This is an issue for the crocodile page, I think. The actual statement appears to be "According to some scientists there are no truly reliable records of any non-prehistoric crocodiles over 22 feet (6.7m)." Furthermore, that page also states that "In the town of Normanton, Queensland, Australia, there is a fibreglass mould of a crocodile called "Krys the Croc", shot in 1958 by Krystina Pawloski, a teacher/taxidermist who found the 28-foot, 4-inch (8.64 m) animal on a sandbank on the Norman River near her school outside Normanton." I myself would still like to have some verification for C. porosus's size, and I will look around. Mang 18:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Crocodile and saltie pages have been updated. The problem with the size of the largest crocodile has been fixed. News; On June 16, 2006, A 23-feet (7.1m) giant saltwater crocodile was captured in Orissa, India and was crowned the world's largest living crocodile. It lives in Bhitarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary and in June 2006, was entered in the Guinness Book of World Records. [1]

Referencing allexperts.about.com about the size, it turns out to be much less. I guess 1500 kg is a product of imagination. Any idea?

A 6m long crocodile (like the famous hybrid Yai) has a weight of about 1200kg, so 1500 kg for an extraordinairy large 7m long crocodile would work well. No, that's wrong. Truth is, large crocs have only been estimated, not weighed. look at it, the big belly looks big, no? But it's empty inside. Most of the weight are the tails and the heads, please. 1000 kg, no, a 6m nile croc is 700 kg, so a 7m saltwater is about 800 kg, no more. A Croc looks heavy, but isn't that heavy.

HERE IS THE OFFICIAL 23 FOOTER- http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=298369&rel_no=1

As of now there should be no mroe argument about whether or not 23 foot animals exist.....as even Guiness recognizes this now.

Unfortunately, this crocodile was not captured and measured, and hence its size (23 feet) is only an estimate. Although I can't provide a direct citation for this fact, you certainly won't find a citation that verifies that the crocodile was measured. The largest crocodile that was captured, measured, and the result published was 20.2 feet (6.3 m) by Jerome Montague 1983 (J. Herpetology). The size came from its skin, and croc skins are known to shrink slightly after they dry, plus the crocodile was missing a small portion of its tail. Dr Montague therefore estimated the actual size to be 20.7 feet / 6.3 m, and this is the figure reported by myself at [1]. That does not mean that larger crocodiles do not / have not existed, but that's simply the largest verified size. There are larger skulls where the total body size was never recorded, and these are the only real evidence we have that 22-23 foot crocodiles existed. More will be published on these findings by Rom Whitaker and myself in the coming months. --Krayzkrok 04:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The sizes are quite the underestimation. There are several instances of 16 foot/5 meter crocs measuring at or near 2,000 lbs/ 1 ton I can give you the links. So a 7 meter Croc would weigh far more than that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DinoJones (talk • contribs) 02:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

We're seeing still more re-edits of this page to introduce 7 and 8 meter crocodile lengths. I would challenge anyone to find a single scholarly or otherwise reliable reference that states a crocodile was actually MEASURED snout-to-tail at 23 feet or more. I haven't seen any references to so much as a photograph of these purported giants. (And of course photographs can be doctored anyway.)

The best we have is some wardens of wildlife areas boasting about how big the crocodiles in their areas are. The skull in India has been estimated to come from a 23 foot croc by scholars, and that's the ONLY tangible evidence of a croc longer than 21 feet. The plaster cast in Australia was NOT made from an actual crocodile, but rather built from scratch to mimic the reported size.

I will edit the section to make clear the controversy about this subject, but at the same time I will make it absolutely clear that no MEASURED crocodile has ever been found to break 21 feet.If the largest saltwater crocodile would have to be 27 feet though since if it was 20ft 7inches then that would make the nile croc the largest measuring 21.3ft.Plus ther is a skull of a saltwater crocodile in think in Harvard that is 5ft 6inches long there is also a picture showing the skull on display in the building so the largest saltwater crocodile at the minimum would have to be atleast 25-26ft. - Atarr (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Heres the story:In the Philippines in 1831, a giant saltwater crocodile, considered to be one of the most dangerous reptile species, ate one shepherd (and one horse) too many. The animal, known appropriately as Mugger, measured somewhere between 27 and 30 feet, was 11 feet around, measured just behind its front legs, and had a head that was 5-feet-6-inches from the nose to the first vertebra.

It was a formidable opponent. A French plantation owner had seen it attack a horse and rider crossing the river where it lived. They escaped when the croc's jaws closed on the saddle and tore it off the horse's back. The rider, a shepherd, drew his cutlass and waited in shallow water for the animal, despite advice to the contrary. After absorbing the man's blows with the sword, Mugger grabbed him by the leg and dragged him to his death. Two months later, the crocodile struck again, eating a horse, which was the final straw. The plantation owner, a visiting American and several local people decided enough was enough. Using lances, nets, ropes, and guns they attacked. But the crocodile held them off for six hours before it was finally killed. It reportedly took 40 men to haul it ashore. The plantation owner presented the American visitor, George Russell, with Mugger's skull. Russell gave it to the Boston Museum of Natural History, which gave it to Harvard. I will tell you were to see the picture off the skull. Just type in at Google Harvard University Gazette and if you look around you will find something that says The Museum of Natural History spin some tall tales. And if you scroll to the bottom of the page you will see a picture perfect picture of the skull.Oh and I tried the formula of determening the the length of a crocodile because of it's skull and I multiplyed 7.5, the number used in the formula, by 36 inches or 3 feet and it said on my calculater that a saltie with a 3 foot head would measure 27 feet long.

OK, edit done; I think I made the discrepancy between reported sizes and measured sizes clear, while mentioning the most reputable versions of both. - Atarr (talk) 18:23, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I commented on the subject on the Crocodile discussion page ("No evidence of lengths over 7 metres, much less 8"), as there appears to be a greater misinformation problem. --Anshelm '77 (talk) 18:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, time to sort this mess out. The fact is that no crocodile of any species, including the salty, has EVER been shown to exceed 25 feet. Anything else is nothing but rumors and 'big fish' stories. NO CORPSE, NO SIZE RECORD. Period. Also, the report of a Harvard museum skull 5.5 feet long is a total myth - the skull is 65 cm long. I've seen a 5'6" croc skull, and it came from Purussaurus which is a) extinct and b) was 40 feet long. IMHO, this is the best resource on croc size yet: http://madrascrocbank.blogspot.com/2008/08/worlds-biggest-crocodiles.html In light of this, I think we need to seriously reconsider the section on size, as it gives seriously undue weight to a lot of unverifiable wild stories. Mokele (talk) 15:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

~ Wtf? you said 22 feet 9 inches roughly 23 feet where does 25 feet come in all of a sudden? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I heard that in Northern Australia darwin Territory that 20+foot saltwater crocodiles are not uncommon is that true or not Mokele? I also have one more problem when you type in crocodile and go on the crocodile page it says that the largest saltwater crocodile measured 28 feet and weighed 2,980 pounds why is that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

20 foot crocs are extremely rare anywhere, but people suck at estimating size and tend to exaggerate, hence a) the wild rumors and b) the need to rely on documented specimens rather than hearsay. I fixed that error on the main crocodile page, as well. Mokele (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that a 20 foot or 20+foot crocodile would a little closer to very rare than extremely rare. Also one more problem on the Saltwater Crocodile page it says that due to restored habitat and reduced poaching that its is possible that 23 foot or larger saltwater crocodiles are alive today what do you mean by that? Are you saying that there could be a 24 footer alive today?

The largest measured whole was only a bit more than 20 feet. The largest skull, using the 1:9 ratio, would have come from a croc a bit more than 23 feet. It's *possible* something that large could exist today, but also quite likely that such huge crocs are incredibly rare. Mokele (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Mokele where is the skull of this 23+foot behemoth huh mokele?

http://madrascrocbank.blogspot.com/2008/08/worlds-biggest-crocodiles.html - the skull is in the Paris museum. Mokele (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I know which skull your talking about now Mokele from what I've read on a similar site the skull's current length I beieve is 98 cm long although previously was though to be 100 cm long.

On that same site your linking me too there is a picture of what looks like to be the skull of a truly monstrous gharial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it depends what you mean by "length". In croc skulls, the posterior process of the lower jaw pokes out behind all other elements, and that can increase the total length. The Paris skull is 98.3 cm to the mandible tips, but from nose to the occipital foramen (where the spinal cord exits, and the basis for the 1:9 ratio) is only 76cm. Mokele (talk) 21:48, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

So how many feet long would this male saltwater crocodile be based on your calculations?

Just shy of 23 feet, but within the margin of error of the measurement (1:9 is, after all, an approximation). Mokele (talk) 04:26, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So like 23.1 ft or 23.3 ft Mokele something like that?

I mis-calculated before - it's a bit less than 23, around 22.7, but the 1:9 rule is only general.Mokele (talk) 19:52, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

So Mokele what about the saltwater crocodile skull in Orissa that was said to have belonged to a crocodile 25 feet long? How long was the real animal? I nkow you must be familiar with the guess that just because the skull was measured one seventh of total body length that the animal it came from was 25 feet long.

The Orissa skull is on the page I linked to, and is a few cm shorter than the Paris skull (73.3 cm), so it was probably roughly the same size, maybe a few inches shorter. Mokele (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Mokele is it you that keeps writing on the saltwater crocodile page that it is possible that 23 foot or larger crocodiles are alive today? Whenever I change it and put in just 23 feet someone adds in larger than 23 feet.

Not me. Mokele (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also Mokele what do you mean that the 1:9 ratio is only general?

It's been tested out in a wide variety of crocs of various sizes, but while 1:9 is the average, different individuals can vary from that, kinda like how individual humans can be tall and lanky vs. short and stout. If you multiply a given skull length by 9, you've probably got the right size, but the animal may have actually been longer or shorter. The Paris skull gives a length of 22 feet 9 inches, but the actual animal may have been a foot longer, or a foot shorter. An estimate from partial remains is always just that, an estimate. Mokele (talk) 20:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is like the 20.7 foot saltwater crocodile. At first the skin was measured as 20 feet although because crocodile skins shrink instead of expand the animal's living length was put at 20 feet 7 inches. So the best evidence fora any large crocodile is the entire body. So it it seems like a maximum length of 23 feet ( 7 meters) should seal the deal for the moment. What do you think Mokele?

Sounds about right. Mokele (talk) 00:03, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I have just one more question for you Mokele. Do you believe that there is a 23 foot saltwater crocodile in Orissa state park like so may sites keep claiming?

Not until they provide a corpse; it's easy to overestimate the size of an animal based on sight alone. Mokele (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mokele on that same sight there is a skull of a gigantic gharial . Do you know or have any idea how long the animal it came from might have been?

Not a clue. They get quite large, but they're now so rare (and hunting them didn't exactly inspire the sort of tales that giant salties did) that it's hard to tell what the upper limit really is. I suspect the 1:9 rule doesn't hold well for species with long snouts. Mokele (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So Mokele do you know of any confirmed modern reports of 7 meter crocodiles?

To my knowledge, the longest *confirmed* modern croc is a captive individual at the Samut Prakan crocodile farm who, fortunately, is "placid" enough for several sufficiently suicidal individuals to accurately measure him (he's listed as 6m long). Mokele (talk) 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Mokele how heavy was the heaviset saltwater crocodile on record? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.130.18 (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

No idea, sadly. Most of the giants killed in the wild are so huge and heavy that it's impossible to transport them to weighing equipment. The captive giant Chai Yai is said to be 1,114 kg, but I have no idea how reliable that actually is. Mokele (talk) 21:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Mokele I heard how you told the people on this site to block me. That is just perfect. You know if you didn't want the responsibility of answering people questions then you shouldn't have become a guy who edits things and gives out information that is not as veritable as others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

What you need to do Mokele is think about if becoming an editer was a good idea.

So you Chill Out.

All the information you post on this site is no more reliable than any other site's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mokele just because something doesn't sound reliable too you that doesn't mean that you need to tell the entire world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 23:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Mokele what is the largest black caiman you have heard of? Huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok Mokele I copied this strait of http://janakilenin.blogspot.com/2007/02/size-matters.html and here is my reason why I say the Paris skull is longer than 22.9ft here it is:Finally, the moment Rom had been waiting for 30 years arrived. The tip of the snout to the occiput measured only 73.3 cm. We added three centimetres for the four per cent shrinkage when the skull dried out, and checked and double-checked the measurements. There is no doubt about it, by using the standard ratio for crocodile head length to total body length, Kalia would have measured 17.52 ft. (5.34 m.), significantly short of the 23-24 footer that it was claimed to be.

Some experts however, have expressed doubt if the 1:7 ratio can be applied universally. While the ratio is consistent in alligators, it varied wildly in crocodiles. In 1979, while Rom was doing a crocodile survey in Papua New Guinea, tribal hunters proudly showed him the skin of a crocodile that measured 20.34 ft. (6.2 m.). The fresh skull was 72 cm. long making it a 1:8.6 ratio. The behemoth had drowned in a tiny barramundi net.

In another instance, Australian croc biologist Grahame Webb measured a salt-water croc skull at 66.6 cm. belonging to a freshly killed 20.18 ft. (6.15 m.) animal. This ratio of 1:9.23 made Kalia a whopping 23.11 ft. (7.04 m.), closer to the Raja of Kanika’s claims.: this is my reason why I believe the Paris skull belongs to a saltwater crocodile 23 feet or a little more. Read the entire thing Mokele and you will see why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.100.52 (talk) 03:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You've got the problem right there: is the ratio 1:8.6 or 1:9.23? The ratio appears to be fairly variable, and until more studies are done, we can't know which ratio to apply to which skull. Mokele (talk) 13:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did the older reports of the record being 33 feet come from? CFLeon (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Papua New Guinea specimen

I think the 6.2 meter specimen of which only the skin was recovered and measured in 1983 in Papua New Guinea is the same specimen as the one (also of 6.2 metres) that had drowned in a fisher's net in 1979. I believe Rom Whitaker had stated that the skin they found in 1983 was from a crocodile that was killed in 1979. --95.96.192.45 (talk) 21:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

When I read Rom's description about this found I thought the great herpetologist had made a basic mistake. He only considered the shrinkage after the several days of capture but did not consider measuring the skin is actually measuring the animal "along the curve" instead of in a straight line. The along-the-curve value can easily be 10~15% more. This crocodile could actually be 550~570cm only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.103.126 (talk) 19:31, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error

The last editor made some kind of error in his\her formatting so that instead of 6.7 meters it no says that the longest crocodile was 67 meters, which i think is a bit too much. Since I don't know how to fix it without screwing up his\hers contribution I'll leave it to someone else to fix it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.92.180 (talk) 16:11, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

The size of Saltwater Crocodiles differs between male and female, this is called sexual dimorphism; it means that either male/female of a species will be smaller/bigger than the other. Source: https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Crocodylus_porosus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emunafried (talk • contribs) 18:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Intelligence

erf, the section on "intelligence" needs a tone rewrite. ... aa:talk 04:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've added a couple sources to the bottom. It looks like somebody cleaned up the silliness in the "intelligence" section, so I went with what they did and leaned it out some. I am concerned that the section is getting close to OR, specifically Dr. Britton's. Anyways, that's somebody else's call. I have added a little bit of info to the article, and it sounds less insipid now. ... aa:talk 15:17, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

intelligence

This part does not cite its sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjbex (talk • contribs)

buffalo

This story has been told many times, but only in words, with no evidence, e.g. a pic or a video of corc successfully killing water buff. I highly doubt this figure. Can a croc, kill a buff???????????

I have often seen in documentations how large nile crocodiles attacked cape buffalos, so it would be very probable that salties prey also sometimes on the larger water buffalo.

Yes, the cows and young. The bulls are too much. I have watched the documentary: "Hunter: dawn of the dragons" on NGC a few times, and there's 1 scene in which a bull gaur, outraged being attacked by a large saltwater croc in Myanmar while in the water, turns back and gores the poor croc into the sky with its heavy horns, ripping it open and bleeding to death. Buffalo bulls smaller than gaur, but still, very large.- Really? How large was the Crocodile? Is the footage old?

Any of the bulls and even one of the bigger cows of these large cattle can succesfully resist an attack, it doesn't mean that a croc can't also take one on occasion. Water buffalo resist tigers at times quite succesfully but they still fall prey at times. Cape buffalo are spectacular fighters but crocs and lions do kill them. Will in New Haven 71.234.42.229 19:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Crocodile weight

In Animal Planet the website http://animal.discovery.com/convergence/oceans-deadliest/deadliest-creatures/deadliest-creatures_03.html said they weigh more than 3500 pounds. I have ask a Crocodile Scientist and he said the average size 15 to 16 feet and a 15 footer weighs more than 1500 pounds and the 16 footer weighs 1700-2000 pounds. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.239.159.105 (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

"I have asked crocodile scientist" is not a valid reference. The most scholarly reference we have is the one I linked in the article, and this dismisses every 23+ foot extimate of Crocodile size.

If you have an actual scholarly or otherwise reliable reference that places weight higher than what the article currently says, then by all means, reference it. The discovery link seems poorly researched and is certainly not more reliable than the link in the article which was written by a scientist. - Atarr 21:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

er . . .

There have been reports of larger individuals tearing down small sailboats, but on account that the people in the boat would be out at sea with a hungry crocodile, witnesses are lacking in those scenarios. if witnesses are lacking, where do we get the reports? 67.68.205.232 06:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization?

Shouldn't it be "saltwater crocodile" instead of "Saltwater Crocodile?" (unsigned)

Lack of standard: "Mugger crocodile", "Nile crocodile" and "American crocodile" vs "Saltwater Crocodile", "Freshwater Crocodile", "Black Caiman" and "Orinoco Crocodile". Same for URLs, main entries and text. Shouldn't it be Terrible_crocodile (URL), Terrible crocodile (main entry) and terrible crocodile (text)? -- unless, of course, if Terrible is a place: in this case, Terrible crocodile (text). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.36.232.9 (talk) 07:24, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

japanese soldier legend

I'll remove this legend since it is a)unsourced b)implausible
Personally I think its imposible that a hand full of crocodiles may eat 1000 Soldiers.(Their stomache is just to small and the density of croc population makes clear that there did not live enough crocodiles in this area to eat 1000 soldiers in one day (; )
sources wich contrdict this story: 1, 2

• Hello. I got a 404 on your first source while the second source is a forum. PolicarpioM (talk) 08:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Youtube historian Mark Felton isn't a reliable croc expert (although he's pretty popular generally). His video "Japanese Army vs Killer Crocodiles" 10 March 2019, looks at the Ramree Island episode. He states that at least 500 men of the retreating 2/121st Japanese Inf. Rgt. successfully completed the 10 mi. swamp journey to safety - and that these brute crocs actually attacked and killed only wounded or sick Japanese stragglers, or feasted on their already dead bodies. Felton further claims that the attacks mainly occurred at night and were heard, rather than seen, by the Indian and British soldiers surrounding the fleeing Japanese. This is a much more plausible scenario than 1,000 battle-fit soldiers falling victim to the crocs. Youtube is not a RS but the above, at least, addresses the '1000 men' doubts.

"...heard sporadic rifle shots followed by terrible screams..." Proper makes your blood run cold.86.149.56.160 (talk) 13:31, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Species Status

on http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/cnhc/csp_cpor.htm#stat the species status states its of Lowest Concerns yet on the site it remains endangered. Could someone please verify its status —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Uggenslagen (talk • contribs).

Least Concern

Did the Saltwater Crocodile get off the Endangered Spieces List? Once It said here it was Endangered and now it's Least Concern.67.175.231.147 17:33, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Link to IUCN redlist here [2]

I'm not sure where to add the link in the infobox. Trugster | Talk 12:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Frequent or not?

Although saltwater crocodiles are very dangerous animals, attacks on humans are infrequent....In the remaining portion of the crocodile's range, where very few attacks are reported and there's none of the precautions taken in Australia, attacks have been estimated to number up to the thousands annually.

"Infrequent" can mean thousands of attacks annually? Is there any source for that 'thousands' that is more up to date? If there is, I think it's incorrect to call attacks infrequent. --Niten (talk) 06:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

No Tiger interaction

I've removed a reference to Salties being preyed on by Tigers. I don't know of any interaction between the species and the crocodiles taken by Tigers in India are Mugger Crocodiles. (unsigned)

Lifespan

I could just be blind, but I could not find any indication of the life span of the Saltwater crocodile in the article, Manning (talk) 02:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bite

There is no mention of its bite force. Which was measured (on tv by a scientist so no link unfortunataly) to be 6500 pounds.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

If it's who I think it is, the publication should come out vaguely soon-ish, and I'll update the page when I see the paper come out. Mokele (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping the T. rex's bite force could be more accurately represented:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-05/uoa-fnb051807.php

Pardon me if I'm not citing this correctly, but I think it's worth noting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarcosapien (talk • contribs) 07:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits made which do NOT reflect corresponding inline citations

I took a random sample of the inline citations and many do not correspond to the figures cited - a good example of what gives Wikipedia a bad reputation. Could some admins and/or copy editors take a long hard look at the content of this article and help keep a lookout for unconstructive edits. Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 23:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed text with inline citation...

The inline citation accompanying this text does reflect the content:

Most unreported attacks most likely occur in New Guinea,<ref>Telegraph.co.uk "Mother's tug-of-war with child-eating crocodile"</ref> where the species population is very high and precautions are few.

--Technopat (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

South Pacific Island Hopping

Large estuarine crocs are occasionally seen in Fiji. There are unconfirmed stories from villagers in Vanua, Rotuma, and Kandavu (1920s) of lone crocs appearing here. These are not the extinct Mekosuchines types of Fiji and NZ, but probably from the Solomon Islands, which has much higher densities of crocs than Vanuatu. They could well come by strong zonal currents eastwards near the equator and the northwards coastal undercurrent near the Solomons. If crocs came from Vanuatu they would be swimming against the South Equatorial Current. (If you want references then find them yourself. I cast my pearls before swine. Some of the pearls are fakes, but you are genuine swine ... The Scarlet Pimpernel) Sigma-t (talk) 03:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC).

Unconfirmed stories aren't worth mentioning. Bring me a corpse of a croc killed on one of these islands, or recent bones. Mokele (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Arnhem Land

Crocodile attacks could go unreported anywhere - you can't include this comment and not base it on anything besides the race of the area's inhabitants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.124.74.181 (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Evolution

When was this species first noted in the fossil record ? How long have they been on the Australian continent ? Was it before or after the breakup of Gondwana ? --EvenGreenerFish (talk) 01:50, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Saltwater Crocodile --> Saltwater crocodile

I put in a request to move Saltwater Crocodile --> Saltwater crocodile per convention. The name already exists as a redirect, so an admin will have to do it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Broken Link

The 25th cite ("Crocodile Attack in Australia: An Analysis of Its Incidence and Review of the Pathology and Management of Crocodilian Attacks in General") is broken, does anybody have the actual link/ Cheers. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

The URL had been changed. I've provided a proper {{cite journal}} with a DOI. --Stfg (talk) 14:29, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Habitat map

The map should show only coastal and river estuary parts of New Guinea, Borneo, Thailand. To include the mountain spines of the Indonesian and Philippine archipelagoes is absurd. Borneo is three times the size of Great Britain and New Guinea is even larger. Luke Line 16:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luke Line (talk • contribs)

Crocodile kills by bite force?

The article explains that crocodiles kill by crushing their prey and doesn`t give any refference. I alway thought they mostly drown their prey. Can anyone give a refference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.145.205 (talk) 20:56, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

The Philippines giant

I see some already tried to add information about the giant captured yesterday to this article before being reverted apparantly because it isn't significant enough. This suprises me, because if I was a zoologist I would be extremely excited. Although this is likely not only the biggest specimen ever reliably documented, it's also the first wild and alive 20+ feet specimen ever to be documented on film. How can this not be significant enough to be added to this article? Is it because the specimen has yet to be officially verified by a zoologist? --213.93.187.127 (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Bingo. While it's definitely a big crocodile, the length needs to be verified by a scientist. Plus, large individuals have been turning up more frequently due to the relaxed hunting pressure since the 60's and 70's. Mokele (talk) 10:59, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I understand you're point. But this specimen is due to its size extraordinary. It may well be the largest one ever captured, larger than the one who's skin was meassured in Papua New Guinea. There are numerous other reports stated in this article of specimens who were never verified by a scientist either. --213.93.187.127 (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

If it is not significant enough, why are there already description of large crocodiles, approved for inclusion? One reason for not including this one was the WP:SOAPBOX policy, to not include self promotion, scandals, propaganda, advertising. I do not understand why that policy forbids mentioning of this crocodile, while other crocodiles are described. This is a captured crocodile, not a PR-trick. --217.209.224.98 (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Anything else that has not been verified should be deleted; I just haven't gotten around to it yet. That some bad information has not yet been removed is not a basis for adding more bad information. Mokele (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

How do you know it is bad information? This crocodile made headlines all over the world, it was even broadcasted in the Netherlands. You don't see that very often which mean this is extraordinary. I understand it needs to be scientifically meassured (if that hasn't been done already) but every human being with two eyes and a brain between them can see this croc is a 20 footer. --213.93.187.127 (talk) 17:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Your personal gullibility is not sufficient argument for inclusion. Mokele (talk) 15:26, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I found this article about Lolong. May be helpful, might not, but there it is. [3]Jasper420 15:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question, Wikipedian scientist. So I'll ask you again, how do you know it is bad information? And since I can not read, please explain to me why that krys bullshit crocodile which certainly was never verified is allowed to be included in this article while this "real" monster crocodile must first be scienticifally meassured to be included. You can easily state that this croc was "reported" to be 21 feet just as it is done with that hoax krys. Really, you wikipedian watchdogs don't make any sense at all. Locking this page due to vandalism? You got to be kidding me... --213.93.187.127 (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

So far, the only evidence of this croc's size is photographs, which can be manipulated digitally (there was an incident of this not a month ago from an Australian eco-tourism company) or just by tricks of perspective (intentional or otherwise). It's a *big* croc, no doubt, but big enough to be notable? That's yet to be seen.

As far as the other info, they are known, popular reports that have been disproven, thus are important to include so people know they're horseshit. Once we have a verified length, this croc can be added as either a confirmation or a known false report. Until then, it stays out. Mokele (talk) 01:14, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

That's a clear answer. But there's also film footage which show the same big crocodile. I don't think the pictures are manipulated but I understand you're concerns. I don't think it will take long before Guinness or some other indepenent source will confirm this crocodile as I'm sure those people will want to see this croc as soon as possible. I'm pretty critical myself but I know when something is authentic. The croc could turn out to be a few inches smaller give or take, but I have no doubt this one is in the six meter range. --213.93.187.127 (talk) 14:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some new pictures of the crocodile:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/15/what-to-do-with-giant-crocodile_n_962743.html#s360734&title=Worlds_Largest_Crocodile

--213.93.187.127 (talk) 14:03, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It's now official, Lolong has been confirmed by Dr. Adam Britton that he's indeed over six metres:

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/11/09/11/lolong-claims-worlds-largest-croc-title

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/8879042/Philippine-town-claims-worlds-largest-crocodile-title.html

--24.132.213.61 (talk) 18:16, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

In this video Dr Britton himself states that Lolong is 20 feet 3 inches. I would think that this would be enough "evidence" to include him in this article.

http://www.gmanews.tv/largevideo/related/98376/bp-lolong-inaasahang-makakatulong-sa-pagsigla-ng-turismo-matapos-ideklarang-pinakamalaking-buwaya-sa-mundo

--24.132.213.61 (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, I just saw it on his blog. I couldn't ask for a more reliable source. Mokele (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see no issue adding "Lolong" now, though I would still mention "Cassius" as having the World Record (since Lolong's record could take six months). Though at least the croc war between Darwin and Cairns will end! Bidgee (talk) 23:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest a major revision to the following two sentences found in the article:

"During the Japanese retreat in the Battle of Ramree Island on February 19, 1945, saltwater crocodiles may have been responsible for the deaths of over 400 Japanese soldiers. British soldiers encircled the swampland through which the Japanese were retreating, condemning the Japanese to a night in the mangroves which was home to thousands of saltwater crocodiles. The Ramree crocodile attacks are listed under the heading "The Greatest Disaster Suffered from Animals" in Guinness World Records.[39] "

Though Guinness World Records may have accepted this wildlife legend as fact, through research done at the British Ministry of Defence and the Imperial War Museum in London it was long ago proved to be pure fiction masquerading as fact. The research was conducted in 1984 by Mary P. Wilkinson of the Imperial War Museum, who was able to consult two reliable sources of information concerning the battle in question, a U.S. record of the Burma Operations compiled at the end of the war from interrogations of high-ranking Japanese officers, and S. Woodburn Kirby's official history, "The War Against Japan." Both documents proved that the Japanese battalion said to have been decimated by the crocodiles in fact survived, and shortly thereafter was actually back in active service.

The myth to the contrary was first published in 1962, many years after the war, in a book entitled "Wildlife Sketches: Near and Far," by Bruce Wright, and perhaps because of Wright's reputation as a naturalist (or perhaps because of its sexy sensationalism), the story was later simply accepted on faith and recounted by other writers, including the distinguished ABC television personality Roger Caras, a noted wildlife writer. In a letter to this author shortly before his death, Caras explained the circumstances of how he had allowed himself to be taken in by a tale he had been suspicious of even at first hearing.

The entire account of how this wildlife legend came into existence and then, despite being pure fantasy, became accepted as fact by respected journalists, is related in a feature article, "Tigers of the Stream," a thoroughly researched in-depth study of the saltwater crocodile, written by David Finkelstein and published in the May 1984 edition of Audubon Magazine.

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.165.112 (talk) 20:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

image in taxobox

Saltwater crocodile

i am reverting the image in the taxobox in the article saltwater crocodile back to as the current image only shows the head in detail while the rest of the body is out of focus .the replacement image shown above shows the entire crocodile in detail.If you wih to contest this decision please visit my talk page at User talk:Jamaican college grad or contact an administrator.

Hi, I changed the image because of the following reasons:

1) There's over exposure of light, masking morphological detail. (There's no overexposure of light in the previous photo)

2) Combination of dry/muddy skin and overexposure of light prevents coloration to be visible. (Coloration of the species is easily perceived in the previous photo)

3) Two teeth on the upper jaw of this particular animal is deformed, possibly due to a aggression between two males. (In the previous picture the animal has teeth that is typical of the species)

4) The entire animal is photographed directly from the front, we can't see head/jaw morphology to differentiate the species. (in the previous photo, the head is viewed from the side, allows for easy identification)

5) In terms of the angle of shot regarding body is identical in both photos. The second photo does not provide any advantage compared to the first.

All these reasons result in the difficult identification of the species due to the pictured specimen in the new photo, even with the trained eye. The purpose of the initial photos in different/separate species pages is to underline the differences between distinct species (where in the case of crocodiles, the head and snout morphology plays the most important role), and not to show what a general crocodilian body looks like. That is the purpose of general crocodilian pages such as Crocodilia, Crocodylidae, Alligatoridae etc. However, I think this is a very cool picture and should remain on the page, but is rather "misplaced" due to function and purpose. Berkserker (talk) 01:47, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

"Double-crested"?

In some older sources, the saltie is called the "double-crested" crocodile. Does anyone know where that term came from? CFLeon (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Cultural References

I think its rather strange not to find any cultural references to this animal in the article. Does anyone object to such a section being in the article ? For instance there are rock paintings of this species in Kakadu national park. The species features on stamps and coins from nations such as Borneo and Indonesia. Several prominent films (ie Crocodile Dundee on the subject) and interaction with this animal pretty much made Steve Irwin famous.--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 10:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Prey

Is it really necessary for the article to exhaustively list every single critter a saltie will eat if doesn't move fast enough? IMO, it's distracting.--Froglich (talk) 06:25, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

revised emergence estimate based on communication with PhD/author of cite

I'm going to update the statement about the estimated age of the species based on the below:

>>Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 4:50 PM Re: hello - trying to verify a saltwater croc estimate . . . From: Jamie Oaks

Hi,

According to my estimates, Crocodylus porosus diverged from the ancestor of C. palustris and C. siamensis between approximately 12 to 6 mya (Node 8 in Table 1). Also, I think C. porosus first appears in the fossil record around 4.5 to 4 mya; check Molnar (1979) and Willis (1997) (references below).

The mention of 39 to 9 mya in my paper was in reference to results of Janke et al. (2005). However, that paper had very sparse sampling of crocodylian species.

I hope this helps! Let me know if you have any other questions.

All the best, Jamie

Willis, P. M. A., 1997. Review of fossil crocodilians from Australasia. Aust. J. Zool. 30:287–298.

Molnar, R. E., 1979. Crocodylus porosus from the Pliocene Allingham for- mation of North Queensland. Results of the Ray E. Lemley expeditions, part 5. Memoirs Of The Queensland Museum 19:357–365.

-- Jamie Oaks

Postdoctoral Fellow

University of Washington

Department of Biology

Department of Statistics

Box 351800

Seattle, WA 98195-1800

>>joaks1@gmail.com

. . . HammerFilmFan (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

With all due respects HammerFilmFan, unless it is a published work, it shouldn't be cited in the article. Perhaps you could convince Dr Oaks (or someone else) to publish an official addendum to his work ...--EvenGreenerFish (talk) 08:31, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The wildlife legend regarding the alleged saltwater crocodile attack on a Japanese battalion during the World War II Battle of Ramree Island, ostensibly resulting in the death of almost five hundred soldiers, has incontrovertibly been proved false. Either it should be eliminated from the relevant Wikipedia entries, or the fact of its having been unequivocally established as fiction should be noted:

Though Guinness World Records may have accepted this sensationalized wildlife legend as fact, research done at the British Ministry of Defence and the Imperial War Museum in London long ago proved it to be pure fiction masquerading as fact. The research was conducted in 1984 by Mary P. Wilkinson of the Imperial War Museum, who consulted two reliable sources of information concerning the battle in question, a U.S. record of the Burma Operations compiled at the end of the war from interrogations of high-ranking Japanese officers, and S. Woodburn Kirby's official history, "The War Against Japan." Both documents proved that the Japanese battalion said to have been decimated by the crocodiles in fact survived, and shortly thereafter was actually back in active service.

The myth that saltwater crocodiles contributed to a British victory (and Japanese defeat) at Ramree Island was first published in 1962, many years after the war, in a book entitled "Wildlife Sketches: Near and Far," by Englishman Bruce Wright, and was later simply accepted on faith and recounted by other writers, including the distinguished American (ABC) television personality Roger Caras, a noted wildlife writer.

The entire story of how this wildlife legend came into existence and then, despite being pure fantasy became accepted as fact by otherwise respectable and respected journalists, is related in a feature article, "Tigers of the Stream," an in-depth, thoroughly researched study of the saltwater crocodile, written by Manhattan-based writer David Finkelstein (author of the book Greater Nowheres: Wanderings Across the Outback) and published in the May, 1984 edition of the highly respected wildlife and environmental publication, Audubon Magazine.

Shortly after that article appeared, in a letter to its author complementing him on having finally laid that unfortunate wildlife myth to rest, the late Roger Caras explained how he had allowed himself to be taken in by a tale he had been suspicious of even at first hearing, the gist of it being that he had an (unwarrantedly) high regard for Bruce Wright, the writer initially responsible for disseminating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.191.207 (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Bite Force: Wrong numbers

Sorry for not correcting this myself, but I haven’t got the time to be an in-depth wikipedian. :-(

There seems to be a wrong source-reading/conversion going on. The study at http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0031781 clearly states that the strongest croc measured bit with a force of ” 16,414 N [3,689 lbs] ”.

This article seems to double the N in order to change lbs to kgs. Someone active here please check it out! :-)

Good catch, this was all due to someone using kgf rather than lbf. I've fixed it now. HCA (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed dubious and unsourced comment removed.

I deleted the following comment: "In the large Aboriginal community of Arnhem Land, attacks frequently go unreported.". This comment was unsourced, and as a resident of this very region I can confirm anecdotally that this is utter nonsense. If needed I can provide sources to verify the number of recent fatalities in the Arnhem Land region, which from memory is perhaps 3 in the last 10 years. I also found the comment to have a racist element. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dalamani (talk • contribs) 11:13, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Saltie

The term is also used for a cryptid as-if observed in 1909 in the Baltic Sea, in Saltsjöbaden, so saltie is not necessarily a crocodile. There is not a word on this on Wikipedia, though. Some information on the cryptid called Saltie may be found in printed sources. For example, see https://books.google.pl/books?id=z9gMsCUtCZUC&pg=PA470&lpg=PA470&dq=Saltsj%C3%B6baden+monster&source=bl&ots=JUTsgskdZV&sig=Ne9eByuahBWDH6N0cgWM0yxU9VU&hl=pl&sa=X&ei=bvSbVfjvI4fgywPT1LTACg&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=Saltsj%C3%B6baden%20monster&f=false . More information on Saltie the cryptid can be found in Polish: http://www.kryptozoologia.pl/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=917&sid=bf900ced3e06cea3a9b515bdfb40b2ac

31.11.242.188 (talk) 15:57, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

"Examples of large crocodiles" section

Would someone take a look at this section that includes multiple sentence structure and other issues such as spelling? The content (before the list) is presented as one paragraph. The second sentence is too long and includes "...ancedotes or are projection from remaining skull lengths...". Anecdotes is misspelled (further down also with ...merely ancedotal.) and I am not sure what the words mean. Some sentences are just too long, with too many commas, and some may run a person out of breath like "..., large saltwater crocodiles are relatively long-bodied and tailed compared to other big crocodilians so the ratio of skull length to total length is more accurate at 1:9 (i.e. the overall length is 9 times the skull length) rather than 1:7,...".

The content "This section is dedicated to examples of the largest saltwater crocodiles recorded by any individual, amateur or professional, with the aim of satisfying the public interest without creating data pollution." does not belong (wrong on so many levels including policy) and if it did it should be at the beginning and not stuck in the middle of a paragraph. The entire section could stand a rewrite. Otr500 (talk) 11:47, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Does anyone else think that Gustave should be mentioned in the list of examples? He is one of the more infamous crocodiles, and even animals.2601:49:1:5316:9821:FEA1:FC1:A817 (talk) 09:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Saltwater crocodile. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.kingsnake.com/oz/crocs/porosus.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.newholland.com.au/products/docs/9781741108484.pdf
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/NATSCI/HERPETOLOGY/brittoncrocs/csp_cpor.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/cst_cpor_dh_map.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.australianstamp.com/coin-web/feature/history/abdream.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.news.com.au/welcome-to-my-nightmare/story-e6frer76-1225961861480
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.abc.net.au/backyard/stories/s1020946.htm
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/regions/11/09/11/lolong-claims-worlds-largest-croc-title

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—<sup>cyberbot II</sup><sub>Talk to my owner:Online</sub> 10:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

So much about the size.

The size section has grown considerably and there's no reason why 1,400 words are need to explain how big this crocodile is, please, stick to scientific publications, summarize: example, one study says males average this and another says they average a little different, just write that "males average this-that meters [1][2]" instead of separate sentences for each average, also we have to get rid of "averages" from zoo websites, they are almost always made up and true weight measurements from large individuals are rare in the literature, those zoo websites and similar unreliable pages are just making numbers up. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree, please see number twelve in the below title. Berkserker (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would like to clarify some points, as the character count didn't allow me to explain everything.

1) First of all it is obvious Reader's Digest isn't a scientific paper. However I researched and saw they published a wildlife book of 359 pages, full of research and professional photos by wildlife photographers. I didn't cite that source, it was cited by another editor, and unless we have a copy of the book, we can't judge the finding of the study, since it was noted as a scientific study by the editor. We need to take the word of the editor as correct, until another editor has a copy of the book, stating otherwise. Another option would be to obtain the primary source itself (the scientific study), and site it.

2) As for the tagged info, I added the tag, as the information needs citation. According to Wikipedia regulations it is first advised to tag a given information, if no reliable source can be cited by an editor, or if the info is obviously incorrect, it can be taken out. As editors we should refrain from taking out large chunks of information from an article, unless we have data proving otherwise, or if the info stated is too absurd in the first place.

3) Meyer (1984) states for all crocodiles, family Crocodylidae, this article is about C. porosus in particular. Berkserker (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

1) It's a pop book full of wildlife photographs, when has ever a work of that kind included an actual scientific study in its pages? I can find plenty of pop books that say that 6m anacondas are average and get up to 10m and call it an study, it doesn't make it so.

2) That chunk of text was referenced before, I found the reference, it didn't make that claim so I removed it and put something closer to what the publication actually said, later you removed that and the source entirely and brought back the old text and gave it a citation needed tag. The original text was wrong, someone adding their own spin and extrapolation to what the reference actually said (just mentioning the great body size range of saltwater crocodiles from hatchlings to adults).

3) Then Meyer (1984) should be removed, you can't keep it as reference to an original claim that is only tangentially related.

Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

1) That's what I'm saying, if the Wikipedia editor claimed it is a scientific study (as cited on the pop up book), then we need to debunk it. Therefore we should find the original resource/study.

2) I know, this is why I removed the source and put the citation tag

3) Agreed, we need to remove the source. Berkserker (talk) 17:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Deleted the source as agreed. Are you sure there is no reference particularly about saltwater crocodiles in the entire book? I don't have the book, so need to ask you to skim through. Berkserker (talk) 18:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It would be very hard to find that old Reader's Digest book, about #2, the sentence itself was an interpolation from something said in the source, why remove the source and leave the interpolation? #3 There are mentions of the saltwater crocodile in the book, it is mentioned 9 times, all brief sentences with references, about them living in a wide range of habitats, possible habitat shift of subadults away from adults, that is known to practice cannibalism, a mention of them reaching 20ft, another of their distance swimming records, that rate of injury increases with size in it, that their nests are close to each other in some areas, that parental attendance in them lasts days in some areas but lasts longer in others and something related to territoriality but nothing about them specifically being the largest terrestrial riparian predators in the world. Mike.BRZ (talk) 19:23, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, no need for such a long explanation, if you have the book, I'm gonna take your word for it. Whoever cited that source in the first place made a wrong source allocation. Berkserker (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

However there are some inconsistencies with your final edits. Please review the sources carefully before deleting any information from the article. Berkserker (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I hope you are aware that your reverts are starting to fit the description of vandalism. I had taken your word for some of the book references as you mentioned you had the printed edition, however some of your conflicting statements are starting to raise some red flags. Please first discuss here before removing chunks of information from the article. Berkserker (talk) 03:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if you get a notification, please read my response to your message in my talk page. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:39, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This is my assessment of two chunks of text that I previously removed but where brought back. I'd like some comments.

"For example, crocodiles at 4.8 m (15 ft 9 in) long usually range in weight from 422 to 950 kg (930 to 2,094 lb). On average, though, these 4.8-m individuals would weigh around 520 kg (1,150 lb), and at 5.5 to 5.8 m (18 ft 1 in–19 ft 0 in) would weigh about 1,000 kg (2,200 lb).[43]"

The source is Grigg et al. (1998), it mentions that they looked at 11 specimens estimated at 2.1m to 5.5m long and estimated at 32-1010kg, they provide the estimates in a table. Ignoring the fact that a sample size of 11 is way too small to throw around words like "usually range" and "on average", none of the measurements given above are mentioned in the source, there isn't a single 4.8m specimen and neither is there one that weighted 422kg or one that weighted 950kg, there weren't specimens over 5.5m either. That whole chunk of text above is a complete fabrication.

"This species has the greatest sexual dimorphism of any modern crocodilian, with the females being much smaller than males. An extremely large male may be roughly twice the length of his female mate and may scale from five to ten times as much as the female does.[44]"

The source is Webb and Messel (1978), sexual dimorphism was investigated and found in tail length, interocular width and width of the cranial platform, however none of the claims above appear here, even if we know that the latter is true, including it without a reference becomes WP:OR, once again text and reference given don't match. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:11, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree with removal, if the cited sources do not support the statements supposedly coming from them then this must go. As I said below find a few papers that give an average maximum length and its corresponding weight cite that ref(s), this is all that is needed. Although I have not looked considering how long they have worked on them I am sure Graheme Webb and Charlie Manolis have something in among their papers that can be used. If refs are available at most this can include size of males and size of females to show dimorphism, but it should be brief and an accurate reporting of what the paper says. It does not take multiple paragraphs and two massive sections of a talk page to say how big a croc is. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 00:08, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I share the sentiment, I too want it to eventually end up like you describe but other editors have informed that I shouldn't remove large amounts of text without explaining the removal properly, sometimes the summary is not enough or I didn't explain myself well enough and it leads to that content being added again, this way at least I can point to the talk page for a full explanation and hope that convinces them. Mike.BRZ (talk) 02:11, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The thing is the occasional, monster size individuals are rare and probably out-layers. As such the average maximum size is more meaningful and informative. I would not be opposed to this discussing dimorphism, that is an interesting fact, or even if there are known dwarf populations, which happens in some croc, and other reptile, species. But these 99th percentile individuals are irrelevant. If you are going to remove large sections when there are multiple editors on a page I suggest you say you are going to do it first on the talk page and explain, come to consensus and then do it. The more glaringly wrong a statement is the faster this should be possible. Another option write what you think the entire section should say, post it here for comments then put it into the article once its been discussed. As long as there is positive discussion and constant reverting is avoided everything should work out. I mostly write on turtles, but am familiar with crocs and who has published on them, I am happy to comment here when needed. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 03:25, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I totally agree, sadly it's proving hard to find averages for this animal, so far I've found one study and I don't have access to Webb and Manolis (1989) to verify the measurements attributed to it here in this article. Changing the subject slightly I want to propose the removal of mentions of the indian "7m" crocodile entirely, looking at the publications in which crocodile experts mention it (Whitaker and Whitaker 2008, Britton et al. 2012) they all dismissed for what it is, unreliable tall tale.

Also it seems like it there's a confusion in the article, it currently says that a 6.32m crocodile shot in Papua New Guinea in 1966 is the largest verified saltwater crocodile, the reference being Wood (1983), this is untrue, the actual largest verified one drowned in a fishing net in 1979 also from Papua New Guinea, it was described in Montague (1983), its dried skin plus skull were measured by scientists at 6.2m, and they estimated a full length of 6.3m due to shrinkage from drying the skin and a missing tail tip, this information is found in Whitaker and Whitaker (2008) and Britton et al. (2012), of course it wasn't weighted and no estimated was given either. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I too think that the whole notable specimens section should go, notable for what? being big? even worse is that most of the specimens are just more examples of hunter's tall tales with no supporting evidence. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Webb and Manolis (1989) would be their croc book right? if so I have that at work but its night here now, MZUSP, pretty much anything over 6 metres is either extremely rare, unreliable, or more than likely full of it. To me I would say 5.5 - 6.0 metres would cover almost any fully grown adult male and at that size they would be around 1000kg or so. There have certainly been reliable records around the 6m mark but not much over it. I would agree there is no need to carry on about individuals, guiness records or anything. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 06:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Everyone, thank you all for joining the discussion. The more people get in these discussion, the healthier. I want to summarise as much as I can in this post, regarding all the confusions listed above and elsewhere. First off I want to start off by telling about myself in a few sentences. I have been studying crocodilians for over 20 years, therefore here in the talk page, I will share my expertise/experiences with everyone, in order to reach common ground, however personal knowledge/experiences don't mean anything when it comes to putting it in the actual article, in which, all of us, no matter of profession, age, or expertise, should cite publications to back up claims.

To summarise C. porosus size confusion, I need to start off with growth patterns in crocodiles. The first few years in a crocodile's life (and genetics of course), usually determine how big it will get in the future. Habitat, food sources, temperature, level of stress (captivity/interactions with humans), even incubation period and size/age of the egg laying female are some of the main determinants in this "first few years" effect. After the first two decades, growth slows down greatly, however continues throughout life. After age 40-50 it almost stops (very very slow). Large crocodilians live up to 70 years or more, some individuals surpassing 100 years of age in captivity. However more scientific study is needed to determine max age for wild crocs. One more detail, large specimens continue rapid growth up to age 25 or more, smaller specimens (genetics) slow down growth earlier in life. According to all the above, you can understand that the older the crocodile doesn't necessarily mean the bigger it is. However any given individual is bigger compared to the previous year. Reproductive system development takes place between 12-16 years of age on average for C. porosus (2-3.5 meters), after which the animal is categorised as an adult. This is why averages are difficult to estimate/calculate in crocodilians. It is a matter of debate from what age to include in the sample size to calculate average size. As an analogy, we can say then humans are considered adults between 9-14 years of age. Even with humans, who reach a max size (height) after a certain age, (like other mammals), if we include children between age 9-14 into adult height/weight averages it would pose a problem. This is why scientists usually refrain from publishing averages for crocodilians, since if calculated, usually the specimens who develop sexually are immediately taken into these calculations. This is why there is a debate between different schools of thought whether to include them or not. In mammals for instance these age groups are not taken into consideration (including humans, carnivora, etc.). If you ask my opinion, for large crocodilians, I would propose to average ages 25-30+, and for average maximum size, to average sizes at deaths above average longevity. Of course it is near impossible to determine the age of wild crocodiles at location in the field. All these questions keep scientists from publishing averages most of the time. This is why it is difficult to find them in scientific papers. Instead the average maximum size is the preferred figure to talk about crocodilian sizes. You would see these figures in most credible sources.

Another issue is most large crocodilians are killed of by humans, before they can complete their lifecycle. Therefore most populations around the world consist mostly of small specimens. This is why experts try to take historic credible records to study crocodilian sizes, preferably before first interactions with humans (which is almost impossible to track back), given the very slow growth rates and the long time that is needed for crocodilians to reach their respective maximum sizes. Also recovering populations, such as the one described by Webb and Manolis (1989), suffer from representing species size accurately (In that specific case, individuals reaching considerable lengths are still young animals, thus lacking the bulk, as well as other smaller specimens, which would normally be nomadic (searching for new territory), finding stable/permanent home ranges easily due to the low density of the population).

In light of the above explanations, I propose to stick with methods preferred by experts, and not present any averages unless a comparison between several studies are available (for lower and higher ends of the averages). This is why average maximum size and max recorded sizes would be more accurate. Making citations from renowned experts such as Dr. Adam Britton would be accurate to present these ranges. I will make some research in the following days, also trying to find new sources, and present my version of article. After that we can discuss further on the given text. Berkserker (talk) 07:21, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, here are my findings. I had some time this afternoon to do some research. After reviewing Wood (1983), Britton et al. (2012), and Madras Crocodile Bank Trust article (where Romulus and Nikhil Whitaker work at the moment), I came up with the following data.

Crocodiles over 4 meters no longer fit the standard 1-7 DCL/TL ratio, this ratio for crocodiles over 4 meters would not apply Webb and Messel (1978). Also measured specimens over 4 meters ranged between 1 to 7.9-9 DCL/TL ratio

-Lolong DCL 700 mm, 6.17m TL, 8.8 DCL/TL ratio, Britton (2012)

-Paris Museum skull DCL 760 mm, applying 1-9 DCL/TL ratio TL at 6.84 m TL, Britton (2012)

-Kanika skull DCL 730 mm, applying 1-9 DCL/TL ratio TL at 6.6m TL, Britton (2012)

-Fly River skull DCL 720 mm, applying 1-8.8 DCL/TL ratio at 6.30m TL, which is the largest confirmed specimen, Britton (2012) - explanation below

The DCL of this crocodile was 720 mm (28.3 in), which at 6.2 m TL would indicate a DCL:TL ratio of 1:8.6, or 1:8.8 considering the likely 6.3 m TL. While not a complete or living specimen, this is still con-sidered the largest C. porosus ever measured and documented. Britton (2012)

The truth is unlikely to be far from these figures and there is a strong sense that 7 m (23 ft) is likely the maximum possible length for C. porosus Britton (2012)

By the way these calculations do not take into consideration the possible shrinkage of dried bone/skulls up to 4%

Some other specimens over 4 meters:

-Madras Bank specimen Jaws III, DCL/TL ratio 1-9, TL 4.8 meters, 38 years old.

-Dhamra River 2005 specimen, DCL 660 mm, DCL/TL ratio 1-7.9, TL 5.2 meters

As for records and averages, at the moment these are the most credible:

- Largest reliably measured: 6.30 meters Britton (2012)

- Average size: 4.3-4.9 meters, 408-522 kg Wood (1983)

- Maximum size for most of the global population: 6 meters, 1000-1200 kg (ADW), up to at least 1000 kg (Arkive-citing Britton), well over 1000 kg (Britton website). Also please note that ADW and Arkive are some of the most reliable secondary sources online, both providing in text citations and a bibliography at the end. Both websites only quote the most renowned experts and their publications.

Therefore it is safe to say "up to at least 6.30m" (as scientific papers list largest confirmed specimens as "at least"), and possibly up to 7m. (Britton statement (2012), on his website since the 90s, as well as the accepted max size for the species in literature for several decades - discussion/reasoning explained with the above data)

As for my take on the rest of the discussion, regarding other details, I will comment when I have more time. Cheers! Berkserker (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

I have time now to implement the above findings. I will also include a discussion for the accuracy of Bhitarkanika observations and the uncertainty of size estimations in the wild (Bayliss, 1987), in order to inform the reader of the possible high margin of error, and why the estimates can not be confirmed until capture. Berkserker (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

As for the unverified anecdotal records of crocodiles over 7 meters, I strongly believe they should not be mentioned in the main article. They can only be discussed in the "Relationship with humans" section in a cultural theme. Berkserker (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Could you make the discussion on the Bhitarkanika observations as brief as possible? though I'm wondering if it's really necessary to specifically mention them, it could easily be thrown with all the other "it was larger than the boat" stories pertaining with how big this crocodile gets and I'm also scratching my head about all the info it has pertaining on how large crcodiles in that area are and how if conservation efforts pay off there'll be more, first of all, all those numbers of crocodiles at those size ranges are too based on observations from boats, counting Bayliss we have at least 4 scientific publications denouncing how common and widespread is the exaggeration of the size of this animal and how anything short of an actual tape measurement is not reliable. I'm still not happy with the overall look of that section, it's still enormous, over 900 words, if you check the articles of non-predator animals they use a less than 100 words to describe their dimensions, those of "B-list" predators use 100-150 words and even possibly problematic "A-list" predators like the lion and the polar bear only use 230 and 280 words respectively, only very problematic animal articles use as many words as this one. I'm wondering too if its necessary to include an average maximum size, wouldn't that be covered by the 6.3m verified record?

Also like I said before I think we should remove the "Examples of large unconfirmed saltwater crocodiles" subsection, the vast majority of animal articles don't have one and you could make one for plenty of them if you included all the hunting claims you can find on Wood (1983).

One last thing, I just found out that the actual source for the "males with stable home territories" was removed, Webb et al. (1991) only measured individuals up to 1.2m long, the actual source is Campbell et al. (2013), they provided average length for adult males (combined or separated into nomads and dominant males) and females. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not happy with the incredibly long size section either, but as you just stated this is one of the most problematic articles when it comes to size. Therefore my aim was, in the first step, not to remove huge chunks of text from the article, while adjusting the information as much as possible to make it accurate. In the long run, the details on the Bhitarkanika population can be moved to the Bhitarkanika article, however removing it completely will cause further vandalism in the short run. Normally one or two sentences on that population would be enough, to signify its stance in the global population. As for the credibility of the observations, I tried to make the discussion as objective and transparent as possible stating both the difficulty of making such estimations on the field, while also stating the observations were made by park officials, and constantly being monitored (not a one off observation). From the totally preserved skeleton you can understand how frequently the park is being monitored, not letting the carcass to be scavenged. Both quality and quantity wise these observations are different from the ones made by the random untrained eye, or the trophy oriented hunter aiming to fabricate the facts. This is why Dr. Britton had to state this difference in his publication. Also as Dr. Britton and Bayliss stated even the most trained eye can not make estimations with certainty, this is why I included that argument as well. In short the special situation in Bhitarkanika had to be mentioned, at the same time staying in scientific methodology. Therefore it is just an estimate of crocodiles over 16 feet by park officials, with a degree of error. However, of course it is possible to move it to Bhitarkanika article in the future.

As for the unverified reports (which were actually combined with the verified reports), I tried to cut it down as much as possible as a first step and move it to the cultural/interactions with humans section. There has been a huge change in the article already therefore removal of it completely would cause further vandalism. Plus it has an educational purpose as well, to inform the reader not to believe in every report they see.

Also you mentioned if the single specimen at 6.3 meters wouldn't be enough to cover maximum size for most of the population. It wouldn't, since first 6.3 meters is exceptionally large, therefore wouldn't explain most large crocodiles staying under the 6 meter limit (5.5-6 meters), also again it is a single specimen, providing a maximum range for the entire species would be more accurate.

I removed that source Campbell et al. (2013) from this section, because the aim of that study was to observe movement of crocodiles of different sizes, rather than being a population study (it is a behavioral study). Only 8 crocodiles were tagged (some representing the larger "permanent resident" group, some representing the smaller "nomadic" group). Neither the aim of the study is to determine the average population size in that river system, nor the sample size is enough. However that is an exceptionally insightful study to include in the distribution and habitat section of the article.

About the Webb et al (1991) thank you for warning, I will take a look as soon as possible. Berkserker (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree its too long, this is not a piece of information that requires in depth explanations cutting it down to the information required it should really be something like "they grow to an average maximum size of x.x to y.y metres (ref) occasional individuals have been found up to z.z metres (ref)" as I said before splitting that between males and females is fine, the big individual sizes do not need to be named, just a mention and a ref. You could use two of your big, confirmed, individuals to give a range of these rare individuals with refs, ie 6.17 - 6.30 and cite Briton, while saying 4.3 - 4.9 and cite Wood for average maximum. The rest can be cut out, get it down to under 100 words on size, there are far more interesting things about crocs than who found the biggest animal. I have no issue with an approximate length being calculated from skull length, as a paleontologist I have to do that all the time. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 18:14, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we can do that. In fact if it was up to me, I wouldn't allocate that much space for it at all, but like I said, I tried to make it vandalism proof as much as possible. If we take it all out, then it will be very prone to vandalism, and it will be filled with all kinds of fabrications. It is just the nature of such articles (like other prolific record breakers, such as great white shark, bengal tiger, kodiak bear etc.) that editors never get satisfied and keep making sloppy or intentional edits that harm the articles. In a supply and demand point of view, I tried to keep as much of the original, while making it as accurate as possible. Berkserker (talk) 01:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Every time I see that extremely long male size section, it bothers me.. I will move some of it to Bhitarkanika Park article, to reduce it at least a bit. Berkserker (talk) 03:39, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding size for both Nile crocodile and saltwater crocodile articles.

Size of megafauna has always been a hot topic for Wikipedia editors. However lately I see that many users have been actively editing size sections (and intro) of different species articles and it is creating a paradox within stated claims. This topic has been open to debate for a long time now, a consensus is long overdue. This is why I wanted to list the below guidelines after seeing User:WelcometoJurassicPark very determined to revert some edits despite the explanations I tried to provide. The list below is part guideline, part my answers to User:WelcometoJurassicPark regarding specific issues and data.

1) In zoology stating an accurately recorded weight of an animal using the term "up to at least" would be correct, because even a 1 kg change of would make it heavier, thus consistent with the phrasing.

2) If you would like to state that exact figure, you need to state that it was the highest scientifically recorded/weighed individual, still it wouldn't make that specimen the heaviest possible the species can get, even a couple of minutes within a day can change that specimens weight in 1kg, when you are talking about a 1300 kg animal. This is why the terms such as "at least", "between" and "about" are used in zoology, as biology doesn't have strict rules, and a level of ambiguity should be maintained. In the case of weight, the same specimen can vary in weight between meals, taking a drink, bowel movement, or hour of the day, and many other simple reasons.

3) The article clearly states the max recorded individual, the average size, and the possible max size accepted by herpetology, having sources respectively, so all is clear, what is an estimate, what isn't.

4) If a single kg mattered so much, then the weight of dinosaurs could never be estimated without a single specimen to make a comparison.

5) Those estimates he was referring to (1800 and 2000 kg) are not based on an educated guess, (and more concrete to dinosaur estimations, where there are no specimens to compare, just fossils. In most cases fossils aren't even complete). When you scientifically graph all given lengths vs weights, which is called a regression analysis, the graph gives you the average weight corresponding to any given length. Of course in practice the weight changes +- some percentage, such that a 7.1 crocodile in that case would be between 1800 to 2300 kg in weight, taking 2000 kg as the median weight. The animals health, whether it has eaten lately, or even daily routines will affect that weight. The nature of a regression analysis doesn't only make these estimates possible, but also probable.

6) So here the important thing is determining which general opinion is accepted by the scientific community at the given point in time. As years go by, these opinions change, and the status quo changes with it. In terms of weight in this case, it can increase or decrease over time. The 7.1m, 2000 kg crocodile has been an estimate since 2006, with its regression analysis available since that date as well. However for the first time in the recent years, those figures have gained some credibility, after long years of observations by park officials and these figures being used in a scientific paper for the first time. This is why for the first time in 10 years those figures could enter a Wikipedia article. Until now the term "up to" was used for the 1360kg specimen, because no other scientifically accepted figure was recorded. When the new paper was published, I didn't remove the largest specimen shot and scientifically weighed, instead used both the 1360 kg and the 2000 kg new figure. After these new figures, using "up to" for the 1360 kg specimen destroys the logic/consistency within the article, and creates a paradox, because an animal can not be up to 1360 kg and 2000 kg at the same time. Therefore the term "at least" is used as an animal that size has been recorded with 100% certainty (and to state that the animal can also be 1360+1 kg and possibly up to 2000 kg.)

7) Plus if there was an intention to exaggerate the figure "1360" by editors, no editor would wait for the 2000 kg to be accepted by the scientific community up to some extent, they would have changed it years prior. Even if they did wait, then they would delete the "1360" figure completely only keeping the 2000 kg figure.

8) After all the 7m possible max size was the status quo accepted by most serious scientific sources for decades. Even if it was accepted scientifically, as Wikipedia editors we needed to be cautious in putting that figure, and wait for a more concrete evidence instead. With the flow of new data from Odisha in the last 10 years, that scientific estimate has now found firm ground to some extent, thus safe to be published on Wiki with an explanatory and cautious phrasing, such as "possibly". In fact that 7 meter possible max length could have been used for decades in this article, even decades before Wikipedia existed, but the corresponding weight couldn't be published due to lack of data for weight. This prevented the 7m. scientifically accepted possible max length to be published since correlating the heaviest specimen on record (1360 kg) would be deceiving as an animal of this length wouldn't match this weight. This brings us to the Nile crocodile article.

9) As for the Nile crocodile article, i see you want to link the 6.45m crocodile with 1090 kg max weight, while regression analysis shows crocodiles that size would weigh closer to 1400kg, therefore it is deceiving for the reader. I'm not saying that animal didn't weigh exactly 1090 kg, but it could have been a starved animal that didn't represent its size in weight, lost blood after being shot, or simply it could have been measured incorrectly, but may have been closer to 6.1 m. It is a Guinness record after all, Guinness isn't the authority on this subject matter. If it was, then the 7.1 meter 2000 kg specimen would have been accepted and published on Wikipedia since 2006 when Guinness first accepted that record. Plus insisting 6.45m for C. niloticus and 6.30 m for C. porosus makes the Nile crocodile the largest extant reptile ever recorded. (Unless we use the "up to at least" form for the sentence in the C. porosus article.) These are very sensitive details that need to be addressed properly.

10) At the end of the day, after all this discussion, the only fact that matters is this. Any single animal weighed and its proportion to its length does not determine a general definition for a species. In statistics you can't correlate any two measurements unless there are at least 40 more benchmarks of the same figure (6.45m for instance, to determine weight at that size). Therefore that recorded individual can only be written in the article stating it was a single individual weighed at any point in its lifecycle. Thus those correlations can't be used as generalisations in an introduction paragraph. This is why zoologists and credible sources prefer using ranges like 6-7 meters instead of giving a specific figure.

11) As for zoo sites, they use these calculated ranges determined by zoologists and other credible sources/articles. They do not create those estimations themselves. Most of these sites give sources for the data they present. Some may not be supervised by biologists, therefore making them unreliable, but definitely more reliable compared to a general fact and records book like Guinness, who have no expertise in any specific topic.

12) I agree with the above title, so much info on the size takes too much space in the article, but if we do not present enough evidence, then editors regularly attempt goodwill edits that in fact harm the article. Therefore at least for a couple of years, and until more concrete evidence shows up, we should keep this discussion in the size section of the article. Berkserker (talk) 17:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

In the topic of the reliability of zoo websites, national geographic and similar websites, they generally use factoids and have no bibliographies, I don't remember seeing a website like that referencing a scientific publication, at best they reference encyclopedias or even other websites of the same ilk. I don't see why they are better than Guinness or why they should be referenced at all when we have actual scientific publications at our disposal. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Reading the male size senction in this article, there is some clear original research, saying that the 7m guesses from India are getting increasingly commonly accepted from the scientific community? really? This is what Britton et al. (2012) said about that "record".

There are several unverified reports of even larger wild crocodiles, the most popular being a 7 m plus (over 23 ft) C. porosus sighted within the Bhirtarkanika Wildlife Sanctuary in Orissa, India, in 2006 (Whitaker and Whitaker 2008). However, this was not a measurement but a size estimate taken from a boat and regardless of the skill of the observers it cannot be compared to a verified tape measurement, especially considering the uncertainty inherent in visual size estimation in the wild (Bayliss 1987).

Tape measure or nothing, tall tales about crocodile size are dime a dozen, being accepted by Guinness doesn't carry much weight specially went they take even words as definitive proof as in the case of that claim. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:28, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Guinness doesn't carry much weight, I agree, as stated above in my initial explanation. As for zoo sites, some have bibliographies and some others are monitored by biologists/zoologists who double check data/information from professional publications such as articles and papers (or have consultants for the related topics, such as herpetology). Some others still fall short of having a reliable source of any kind. Berkserker (talk) 05:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment I'd like to add my support to the above considerations. There is really no benefit to adding k's of different size and weight estimates over and above a few authoritative ones; it only serves to confuse the reader. The one-upmanship in top predator articles where people try to push their favourite 'monster' estimate (recently seen at Siberian tiger and brown bear) is really non-constructive.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 11:23, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment Agreed, this needs to be no more than an average weight, for max size based on good references. Nothing more. Its purpose is to give the reader a rough idea of the weight and length of the species, trying to show which species is bigger is not only uninformative but immature.Stick to the literature and give a max size and weight. That is all that is needed. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 13:37, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, the same issue has been a problem with this article as well. It has also been vandalized by other 'favourite monster fans', this may be why editors may have chosen multiple references from different studies, to avoid their reverts in the past years. Some years back for instance, I had gathered the all the alleged/unconfirmed records of large crocodiles and moved to them "Interaction with Humans" section to separate scientific fact from folklore. It had worked to prevent the hunter tales to be pushed into the article and stop the edit wars. Berkserker (talk) 02:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

---

WelcometoJurassicPark, you are straying well into edit warring behaviour now. Would you please stop your childish behaviour and come here to argue your case? At the moment you are being disruptive and violating consensus.--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, now I understand that we can't keep the 1,360 kg figure, because we don't have a reliable source yet, but the 6.32 m figure is still valid. User:WelcometoJurassicPark (talk) 11:20, 01 June 2016 (UTC)

Even if your argument was correct, you are reverting the entire article.. Please stop this behaviour and cite your findings instead. There are two crocodiles shot in the 6.30 m. range in the past, one is credited in most scholarly articles, the other is not. You need find a scientific source for the second specimen if you want it published. Berkserker (talk) 11:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@WelcometoJurassicPark and Berkserker: - I agree this is becoming an edit war, @WelcometoJurassicPark: you have reverted on at least 3 occasions(see 3RR) now and may not have done this in a 24 hour period, however you are very borderline. Stating you do not agree with something and then doing it does not count for discussion or making your case - HERE on the talk page. This discussion has been carried out and is reaching consensus between several editors. I myself have not and do not intend to edit this page. However I am a scientist and am attempting to keep it focused on what is good quality information and what is not. Although I do not work on crocodiles directly I am familiar with them see my user page for my background. Please consider this a warning, I am trying to work with all of the editors, including you, but if the reverting continues I will take it further. My suggestion to you is to actually join in the discussion here and make your case. You have been asked to do the later already. You need to appreciate what constitutes quality information, also a general rule of thumb in science, the more 'outlaying the information claimed is the more support you need for it. This issue has become contentious, and as such must be discussed here, not by edit warring. No one will hold anything against you for adding or pleading your case on the talk page, but constantly changing the actual page cannot occur.

@Berkserker:be careful, the 3RR rule applies to both editors in an edit war, I recommend that no more edits occur until consensus is made, or in all liklihood the decision will go to 3rd party. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 11:56, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: Thanks for the hearty warning, I am well aware of the consequences, this is why I always refrain from continuous reverting even if it is a case of vandalism. I made a last act of goodwill before taking it further. Berkserker (talk) 12:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@WelcometoJurassicPark: please stop your disruptive editing. After all that discussion, I don't understand why you insist on that version for the unverified crocodiles.. Please revert your own edits before this thing gets out of hand.. Berkserker (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

ok @Berkserker, Mike.BRZ, and Elmidae: I think this has gone on long enough, I have reported this for edit warring, Here. I have placed a warning on the user page of @WelcometoJurassicPark:. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 15:43, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Now I'm free, it seems like @WelcometoJurassicPark: kept reverting parts of the article to older versions without coming here to discuss those changes, what do we do? Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It is currently under a case for 3RR violations, I suggest waiting for the result of that. I asked for page protection but it was declined because there had not been an edit in 24 hours. Hoever, they did say to resubmit if anything further happens. I suggest we wait for now. I am not actually convinced WelcometoJurassicPark reads his own talk page and does not appear to have any interest in following consensus here. Hence is effectively a vandal. It is the second time he has been reported, he is also apparently doing non-consensus edits to other pages. All up is not currently an asset to WP. He could be if he chose to be so, but current behavior says not. Once the admins have dealt with the case my suggestion is to revert to the version by AnomieBot then continue to work from there. But let things take their course first. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 16:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, so we wait then, and cheers too!. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok the user has been formally warned and the 3RR case closed. I have reverted the page to the last version before the case we can continue from there. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I see we finally have an official warning, nice to see a resolution. I also asked @Dcirovic: to revisit the page as his ADW edits had to be reverted as well since they were made in the middle of these intermediary edits. Meanwhile WelcometoJP has been interested in the Kodiak bear. Berkserker (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Glade you contacted Dcirovic their edits were fair enough but caught up in the mess in the end I took it back to the bot that went through after your last edit @Berkserker: which was also a reasonable edit. I considered trying to tease the edits apart and salvage the recent good edit but it would have taken time. So now I would feel that you and @Mike.BRZ: should I hope be able to get a good discussion and cut this down to good content without the unnecessary and unprofessional stuff that was in it. This is an encyclopedia not some wing of Guinness Book of Records or a tabloid paper. Cheers Faendalimas <sup>talk</sup> 23:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Faendalimas: Sure, it would have taken a lot of time. This is why I preferred to address @Dcirovic: instead. And thank you for your time and involvement. Wish Wikipedia had more people like you, humbly taking the time and effort no matter who they are. Best regards. Berkserker (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll like to express my gratitude for your involvement too, I'll start working on the article as soon as I'm free. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Bite force

User WelcometoJurassicPark, Yes, I've seen the table but Erickson et al. (2012) never called that measurement a record, calling it so when the reference doesn't is original research and adding the original reference to that "old record" to support the statement makes it a case of WP:SYN, because not only Erickson et al. (2003) doesn't acknowledge Erickson et al. (2012) (duh) it doesn't even claim that 9,452N is a record and even if they did, it wasn't the record previous to 2012 because Erickson et al. (2004) measured an American alligator biting at 13,172N. Also why did you feel the need to bring back that unreferenced text about them crushing bovid skulls? or the estimated biteforce for an individual of hypothetical dimensions?. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

In jamaica

There are no salt water crocodiles in jamaica and there are only a few alligators in zoo's that is, the only wild reptile are crocodile. V.cross (talk) 01:41, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Exponential growth

It is infeasible for animal mass to be related to length exponentially, despite the source's claim. The alligator's volume will be roughly cubic, with a multiplier thrown in for bulking up (but that will still be a cubic). If the mass were truly exponential, then the density of the animal would need to similarly increase exponentially, which it patently does not do, as muscle and fat have a roughly constant density regardless of an animal's size (there's just more of it!)

I've put in some of the male's estimated lengths and corresponding masses into an Excel model, and an exponential best fit would estimate a 6m crocodile to weigh 3.7 tonnes (considerably more than the 1 tonne given). On the other hand, a cubic best fit gives a very close estimate with no significant residuals. I have this data in Excel, but I am a newbie, so I'm not sure how to display these graphs here for others' perusal. If some one could quickly help me, I'll gladly share these.MrHugs (talk) 12:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It's just sloppy wording - people will say "exponential" for both Y=X^A and Y=A^X, but in this case it's the former. I dug up a reference; crocs are pretty much isometric, so mass is roughly proportional to length cubed. Another source of confusion is that their growth is truly exponential, but in the form of length = a * (1 - e^(b*t)), so that they grow more slowly as they get older. I've fixed the sentence and used a better reference. HCA (talk) 16:27, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Size again...

@BhagyaMani and Manwë986: - Seems like the size issues have been argued into the ground multiple times already (see Talk:Saltwater_crocodile#So_much_about_the_size. and following, above), and I hope we don't need to roll up the entire issue again. Having said that, which of the sources currently used in the size section does make any clear statement about "largest crocodilian" or "largest reptile"? The most detailed source [4] is actually rather equivocative on the issue, basically concluding that we can't tell. I do agree that we do not need or want random fourth-hand pop science aggregators inserted into the lede to make any related points - summarize material from the body, or leave it out.

Manwë986, before you get to bluster about "admin involvement", you actually have to keep to the rules. If your previous raps on the knuckles have not taught you to, I'd suggest you get acquainted with WP:BRD right quick. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Elmidae. I do certainly not intend to roll this issue up again. But only want to make sure that a reliable source is referenced, and not as you so nicely put it, a 'random fourth-hand pop science aggregator'. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:59, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Are you saying that we ignore the open paragraph, just because the size section already contain the largest crocodilian or largest reptile? What's wrong with adding that in the open paragraph? If you think it's wrong, then why don't you do the same thing to the pages of the largest species, like ostriches? --Manwë986 (talk) 14:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

We can absolutely put it into the lede if it is stated and referenced in the body; and it is stated in the body. However, as noted, I can't see which of the sources cited there actually makes that statement. We have Although it is the largest overall living crocodilian and reptile,[...], but the reference for that sentence is the one I linked above, and does NOT say so. So from which of the multiply fought-over sources in that section does that assertion come from? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I only added in largest reptile, as well as reference from oceana, in the open paragraph. --Manwë986 (talk) 14:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Manwë986, how is it that time after time you completely miss the point? You were pointed to WP:RS and WP:BRD (which really means stop fighting and take it to the talk page, since others don't agree with you), but this kind of obsessive reverting, and the addition of crap sources (yes), makes me wonder about WP:CIR. Personally I don't care about "largest" or "one of the largest", I care about good sources and about editors keeping to the rules. You are not making friends by acting this way. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Who are you may I ask? An admin? I join Wikipedia not to make friends, but to provide truths and facts. And I do not know them face-to-face. And there are pages of largest species don't have reference of reliable sources in the open paragraph to prove that they are the largest species, like tiger. And the edits I added for saltwater crocodile are facts. Seriously, is this Wikipedia too demanding? I'm beginning to wonder if other people were right about saying that the Wikipedia is untrustworthy? --Manwë986 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

This is deplorable that you missed the point again!! ALL we WANT is that you REFer to RELIABLE SOURCES and STOP adding 2nd to 4th hand statements from websites. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:25, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Manwë986, that's about enough now. If you add information, YOU have to provide the reliable source to back it up; YOU, and no one else. If you want that in more explicit form, read the policy at WP:BURDEN. Provide a source, or stay away. Or add it anyway and get yourself reported for disruptive editing. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:52, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

I already did provide sources the last time, but what happened in the end. If you are so smart, search the reliable sources by yourself, you are good at that. I am inexperienced in that area. And don't threaten me with that "YOU, and no one else". You are not an admin, are you? The list of largest reptiles page also stated so, as well as size section of saltwater crocodile page. Look at them. The opening paragraph of tiger's page doesn't have reliable sources to state that it's the largest cat. Search that too. Always about reliable sources. Are there anything else better than these, seriously? Here, these are the following sources: https://projectorangutan.com/salt-water-crocodile/, https://marinebio.org/species/saltwater-crocodiles/crocodylus-porosus/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-heaviest-living-reptiles-in-the-world.html. See if they are reliable or not.--Manwë986 (talk) 02:10, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Good grief, all that flailing and complaining - just go and find a good source (and no I don't have to be an admin to tell you to abide by our policies). You know what, if it will put a bung into this barrel of fun, I'll just do the work for you. - Here, use this: Britton, A. R.; Whitaker, R.; Whitaker, N. (2012). "Here be a dragon: exceptional size in a saltwater crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) from the Philippines" (PDF). Herpetological Review. 43 (4): 541–546. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

...which is even already used as a source in the article, so just use <ref name="Britton et al. 2012"/>. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Whitaker & Whitaker 2008 list an Orinoco crocodile of 6.78 m. So imo, saltwater crocodile is 'among the largest crocodiles' is correct. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, there is a distinction between largest by mass and largest by length. Britton 2012 does attest the top position of C. porosus for the former. So it may have to be "heaviest" instead of largest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:34, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

OK dragged here from RS, as I see it at least one RS says it is the largest. Are there any other reptiles that contest the record (in fact what does Guinness say)?Slatersteven (talk) 16:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

As noted, "largest" can mean either heaviest or longest. The former seems fine and readily referenced, the latter not so much (even leaving aside various constrictors, there are other crocodilians that can be longer). Thus, would need to be qualified. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Why? I can think of plenty of examples on "unqualified" largest. Again, what of living reptile is classed as largest? For us to need a qualification here there has to be RS that contest the idea this creature is not the largest, wither by saying "it is not the largest" or by claiming another living reptile is the largest.Slatersteven (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, FFS. I am somewhat over this obsession with which predator is the largest, longest, most apex, or whatever. Feel free to hash it out with Manwë986; as long as there's a RS behind the statement, I don't really care. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:59, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Ok now, here's the link: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html. The admin Drmies and the Wikipedia talk: Reliable sources confirmed that it is reliable source which supports that the saltwater crocodile is the largest living reptile. --Manwë986 (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I revised it so to also reflect that there is some doubt. Your ref is a newspaper, and the journalist did certainly NOT measure any crocs himself to prove his claim. BTW: the info about saltwater crocs using ocean currents is already part of this page, but ref'ed by the original peer-reviewed article. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Well, here's other three sources that contain the length and weight: https://projectorangutan.com/salt-water-crocodile/, https://marinebio.org/species/saltwater-crocodiles/crocodylus-porosus/, https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/australiaandthepacific/7806139/Crocodiles-surf-ocean-currents.html, https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/the-heaviest-living-reptiles-in-the-world.html.

See which one of them is reliable source.--Manwë986 (talk) 09:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

After all this lengthy discussion about this issue, I strongly recommend to rely on sources written by people who have been working with crocs and published in peer-reviewed journals. No website blogger or newspaper journalist meets these criteria as well as Whitaker & Whitaker (2008), who either personally measured croc skulls or requested their colleagues in natural history museums worldwide to do so. See the table in this publication, clearly listing 3 museums that hold skulls of false gharial and gharial that are larger than of saltwater crocodile, indicating that these specimens were larger than saltwater crocodiles in international collections. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

So what if they are larger skulls? The largest organisms are decided by total length and weight, not by certain body parts. --Manwë986 (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Skull size is an indicator for estimating total size. Do you know anybody else who measured as many crocs as the Whitakers did and published results that were reviewed by peers? If so, then list this article here. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 07:00, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Distribution section is NOT CORRECT

The distribution section was recently changed to have a large amount of incorrect information. First and foremost, there is no "small reintroduced" saltwater crocodile population in Vietnam. The CSG article stating this is incorrect. I have spoken with the author of this article and he has confirmed that the information is incorrect. The saltwater crocodile is EXTINCT in the wild in Vietnam. There are a small number IN CAPTIVITY in an enclosure in the Can Gio Biosphere and two individuals at the Siagon Zoo, there are no wild saltwater crocodiles left in Vietnam. In Thailand the saltwater crocodile was once present in coastal areas throughout the country, not just in Phang Nga. The species is likely extinct in Thailand, although it is possible there are very small numbers in Ranong or in Narathiwat near the borders with Myanmar and Malaysia, respectively. The mention of saltwater crocodiles currently being currently present in the Subarnarekha and Budhabalanga Rivers of Orissa is also incorrect- in Orissa the saltwater crocodile is currently restricted to Bhitarkanika National Park...there are NO populations outside of this general area, and definitely not as far north as the Subarnarekha River. They were once present throughout the entire eastern coast of India, but were eliminated from most areas by World War II. The ONLY saltwater crocodile populations currently present on mainland India are found in Bhitarkanika National Park in Orissa and the Sundarbans in West Bengal. Period. For East Nusa Tenggara there is another factual error- thus far there is no information to suggest that the saltwater crocodile is still present on Alor Island (beyond the occasional itinerant). They ARE present throughout much of the remainder of East Nusa Tenggara, but there is no information available from Alor. There really needs to be some fact checking before these edits are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cporosus1 (talk • contribs) 08:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2020

The following changes need to be made to the Distribution section-

1.) The saltwater crocodile is extinct in Vietnam, there is no "small, reintroduced population". 
2.) The saltwater crocodile is extinct in the Subarnarekha and Budhabalanga Rivers. The only saltwater crocodile population remaining in Orissa is found in Bhitarkanika National Park and the immediate surrounding waterways. In fact, the only other saltwater crocodile population in all of mainland India is found in the Sundarbans of West Bengal.
3.) There is currently no known population of saltwater crocodiles on Alor Island in East Nusa Tenggara. An itinerant crocodile was captured there in the last decade and populations are found on some neighboring islands, but there is no information to suggest the species isn't extinct on Alor.

Source: http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/cst_cpor_dh_map.htm Cporosus1 (talk) 08:44, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

I checked cited sources in text and revised accordingly. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

Could you link the one appearance of Hystrix indica? 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:91CE:B2E3:3191:9DE0 (talk) 12:44, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Link added – Thjarkur (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

The biggest crocodile Krys

The biggest so far crocodile was shot by the famous Polish professional crocodile hunter Krystyna Pawlowska in 1957. He was killed in Norman River in Queensland, Australia. It is 8.63 m long and the animal ended up in the Guinness Book of Records. The crocodile was nicknamed Krys after Krystyna Pawlowska’s name. The sculpture - exactly the same size as Krys, was made in Townsville and transported to the town Normanton by truck. It was unveiled in 1996 in the presence of Krystyna Pawlowska and her husband Ron. Krys - The Savannah King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.192.40.55 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Scientific names

@BhagyaMani: Regarding your revert: The inclusion of scientific names is inconsistent within the article itself and not consistent with the practice at other predators, e.g. Tiger#Hunting and diet, Lion#Hunting and diet, and American black bear#Dietary habits. It is distracting (Do you really think it's necessary to identify humans as Homo sapiens?) and makes the section more difficult to read. Rublov (talk) 12:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with @Rublov: I saw their recent edit removing the scientific names, and I liked it. I was disappointed to see that @BhagyaMani: reverted it. All those scientific names are unnecessary and just make the article bloated. If a reader really wanted to know them, links are provided for all of the species. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Saltwater crocodiles have never ranged as far as Fiji.

RE: "individual saltwater crocodiles appeared occasionally in areas far away from their general range, up to Fiji.[89]" While you may have found a reference to back-up this claim, it is wrong. The reference you cite [89] contains no research or evidence but merely cites a further reference. Reference 89 is titled "Estuarine crocodiles ride surface currents to facilitate long‐distance travel" (2010) by Campbell, Watts, Sullivan, Read, Choukroun, Irwin, & Franklin. (Irwin being the late famous Steve Irwin) The only mention of Fiji in this reference was sourced from "Webb & Manolis 1989" which was basically a glossy coffee-table book titled "Crocodiles of Australia" published by Reed Books, Sydney, AustraliaENSOsurfer (talk) 15:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

See the ref I just added with locations + dates. – BhagyaMani (talk) 15:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2022

hahahaha i got in 2001:8003:34C5:F300:F8FC:B156:EA48:9E21 (talk) 06:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EnIRtpf09b<sup>chat with me</sup> 06:26, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022

The most common spelling of behaviour in this article is behaviour, however, the heading is spelt "behavior" and there is one other occurrence. As the animal is not present in the US, the spelling behavior is also more inappropriate for that reason. 125.237.43.40 (talk) 08:46, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Quite right. I have fixed the incorrect spellings. HiLo48 (talk) 09:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Hunting and Diet:

In the Hunting and Diet section, (3rd paragraph, 2nd sentence onwards) the article reads:

Large crocodiles, even the oldest males, do not ignore small species, especially those without developed escape abilities, when the opportunity arises. On the other hand, sub-adult saltwater crocodiles weighing only 8.7 to 15.8 kg (19+1⁄4 to 34+3⁄4 lb) (and measuring 1.36 to 1.79 m (4 ft 6 in to 5 ft 10 in)) have been recorded killing and eating goats weighing 50 to 92% of their own body mass in Orissa, India, and so are capable of attacking large prey from an early age. It was found that the diet of specimens in juvenile to subadult range, since they feed on any animals up to their own size practically no matter how small, was more diverse than that of adults, which often ignored all prey below a certain size limit.

This needs an edit. Amongst other things, the first and last lines contradict each other. Do Large Crocodiles ignore small species or not? I don't know the answer to this question but wanted to highlight it. The section also just generally doesn't read very smoothly, it keeps jumping between talking about very small and very large prey. E.g. what is: "since they feed on any animals up to their own size practically no matter how small" meant to mean? Is the word "small" referring to the size of the crocodile or the prey? Either way it could do with a re-write. 131.215.220.164 (talk) 17:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 October 2023

This phrase sounds wrong:

In northern Australia, Western Australia, and Queensland, the saltwater crocodile is thriving

Australia's northern regions include northern WA, northern QLD, and the Top End of the Northern Territory, but if you didn't know better, you might read this sentence as meaning "northern Australia, and not-as-northern areas of WA and QLD". Please change it to:

In northern Australia, the saltwater crocodile is thriving

Thank you. 123.51.107.94 (talk) 00:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done That seems pretty spot-on - the northern parts of WA, QLD, and NT are meant. Simplified as suggested. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 08:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

The distribution map is terribly outdated and inaccurate

For one, saltwater crocodiles are extinct in Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam. Secondly, this map would not even be correct from a historic standpoint, since it does not include coastal southern China. Cporosus1 (talk) 20:45, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"However, Wells and Wellington's assertion that the Australian saltwater crocodiles may be distinctive enough from northern Asian saltwater crocodiles..."

"Northern Asian saltwater crocodiles..." Drsruli (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Inaccurate prey items

The last sentence of the introduction says that saltwater crocodiles eat "hippopotamuses and humans". This is completely wrong, as humans absolutely shouldn't be considered a normal prey item for them, and hippopotamuses live half a world away.

Nile crocodiles (also occasional man-eaters) do live in the same place as hippos, but do not predate on them. This kind of error strikes me as indicative of the use of text generation software (commonly incorrectly labeled "AI"). If "AI" has been used to write any part of this article, then none of the information in the article can be safely considered true. 2601:47:4880:4B50:B7E8:6EC2:F7BA:8911 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Agree, that shouldn't be there, and I have removed it. I'm too lazy to dredge through the article history to check when it was added, but I doubt it was anything but a drive-by addition at some point. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:53, 31 August 2024 (UTC)