Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

Taxonomy lists

Thanks for the online taxonomy, Pete! That's sure a help, although it contradicts Tudge. Hrm. It also doesn't give grade rankings. Well, it's still nicely useful. :) - UtherSRG 13:15, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that taxonomic list I added is the same one that Colin Groves gives in his book "Primate Taxonomy" published Smithsonian Institute Press, 2002. That book itself had its roots, I think, in the workshop "Primate taxonomy for the new millennium" (see Google). There is also this webpage - http://members.tripod.com/cacajao/taxonomy.html - that gives five more classifications dating from 1972 - 1999 to genus only. I don't have Tudge so don't know what format he uses. Cetaceans wasn't as hard as this! - that order has a dominant classification (Rice 1998) that I used and I mentioned the other classifications in passing in individual species articles where appropiate. Over to you.. way out of my depth away from whales! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 13:54, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

LOL! Yeah, the mess was why I picked up Primates in the first place. Tudge's book runs the entire tree of life gamut, but he admits that he is far from the one true source of taxonomic reference. His book I think was one of the few showing some of the benefits of cladistic classification for the entire tree of life. I picked it up a few years ago just for fun and started reading it in my spare time. (Yeah... I'm a geek... I read taxonomy books for fun. Whee!). I think Groves is going to be a better starting place for Primates, though. Just before writing this I'd found the cacjao link you list above. *grins* - UtherSRG 14:13, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I gave the Google a bit of a run out too :-). You changed the references to include Groves and had to include "presumably", because we aren't yet certain that the list we link to is Groves' list. Well if you change the .html to .txt in that link so that you get http://www.primate.wisc.edu/pin/amnattax.txt the page lists Groves as the source (though doesn't explictly mention the book).. so that reduces the uncertainty a little bit. I've written an email to the librarians that run that website to see if they can confirm for us. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 14:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Lemurs, Lemuridae, Lemur

Ok. I'm at a loss on how to deal with ths mess. Lemurs are all 4 families of critters, Lemuridae is one of those families, and Lemur is a genus of Lemuridae. Since Lemur only has one species, Lemur and Ringtailed Lemur will be one article anyway. Ah. I'm stating to solve my own problem. Lemur should talk about the critters in general, Lemuridae about the family, and Ring-Tailed Lemur about the genus and species. Ok. I'll shutup now. - UtherSRG 04:00, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Platyrrhini

I'm in another quandry. The taxonomy we have presented is old. As far back as 1977 primatologists have been moving away from the way we currently have the platyrrhines classified. [Tudge, 479-480]. Tudge presents Platyrrhini following a more modern cladistic approach (after Rosenberger, The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution (1992)).

Tudge and Rosenberger show Callimico as an ancestral speciation within Callitrichinae, and Alouatta as an ancestral split in Atelinae. Within the Pitheciinae, Aotus and Callicebus form a close relationship apart from the other three genera.

The Tree of Life Web Project [1] lists them similarly and attempts to reconcile three- and four-way splits, but moves the Aotus/Calicebus into what looks like the Cebidae as an ancestral split (no family or subfamily names listed in ToLWeb).

Because TolWeb doesn't yet provide ranking information, but does seem to be the direction things are moving, and because Tudge looks like a big step in that direction, I think we should adapt our listings as I've listed them above. I also think now is the time to do it because the current Callithrichidae and Cebidae pages are mostly just stubs and can easily be discarded in favor of the newer system.

UtherSRG 18:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would agree with making this move now. I found many of the primate pages in a terrible mess and did some very quick sorting out from memory without going and doing major checking - being away from my books. I had already been wondering whether we should do a major restructuring. I'd vote for getting it over with. seglea 03:39, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Ok. I've made the updates. Boy is my head spinning. *grins* - UtherSRG 02:14, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I kind of consider Colin Groves to be the authority on this topic. In 2001, he released a revised taxonomy that can be found on Amazon or in an decent bookstore--"Primate Taxonomy". It's pretty exhaustive but there are discrepancies to be found with the thinking now: he lists four families of Neotropical primates whereas five are recognised, he doesn't elevate gibbon subgenera to the generic level, he only recognises four gorilla subspecies, etc. Then there have been discoveries since the book was published.
Anyway, in Groves' book Platyrrhines are covered quite a bit. Pretty much all that needs to be done to bring it up to date is the elevation of Callitrichinae to Callitrichidae. When we do go ahead with this, do we want to list tribes, subtribes, subgenera, and subspecies? Or should it strictly be family, subfamily, genus, and species? I have a pretty extensive list composed of Order Primates that's more or less accurate, if a bit confusing. That would be helpful either way.
After all this is over, would anyone be interested in working on a taxonomy of the extinct primata? Yeah, I know. Sounds like a blast, eh? -- Pajamacore 18:31, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Hrm... before we switched to the current platyrrhine schema, we used the Groves schema as shown here. That has only two platyrrhine families: Callitrichidae and Cebidae (which is quite different from the current Cebidae). How would you compare this Groves schema with the schema he published in 2001?
Generally, I like to give as much information as reasonably possible. I don't like giving authority info for each rank, only at the species level. I prefer using the classification trees to highlight the nature of the relationships, without getting bogged down in too many intermediate levels. If showing tribes and subtribes helps, then yes, let's use them. I'd prefer to keep subspecies listings out of the classification trees. (And I'll probably go back and pare down the new gibbon tree, perhaps making stubs for each species.)
I'll probably pick up a copy of Groves in the next week or so, either way.
- UtherSRG 19:09, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
His 2001 scheme recognises Cebidae, Nyctipithecidae, Pitheciidae, and Atelidae. Cebidae includes Hapalinae (marmosets and tamarins; it's a synonym for Callitrichinae), Cebinae (capuchins), and Chrysotrichinae (squirrel monkeys). Nyctipithecidae is just owl monkeys. Pitheciidae is broken down into Pitheciinae (sakis and uakaris) and Callicebinae (titis). Further, Atelidae is comprised of Mycetinae (howlers) and Atelinae (spiders, muriquis, and woollys).
I need to make a chart or spreadsheet or something of all this stuff. It's almost too much to keep straight. -- Pajamacore 21:53, 2004 May 11 (UTC)
Neat. I still haven't gotten a copy of Groves. I've re-editted Gibbon to hide the subspecies info in the Classification listing. Makes it a bit easier to read. The subspecies info can be put on the various species pages instead. - UtherSRG 15:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Groves

Ok... I've finally gotten a copy of Groves. You're right, it should be used as the basis. Here's what his classification looks like:

I'll be updating the pages, and then checking the ret of the Primates against Groves. - UtherSRG 20:54, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Whew! Ok, I've gotten all the articles aligned to Groves' classification. If anyone wants to double-check my work..... I don't envy them the work. *grins* - UtherSRG 02:12, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Prehensile tails

In several pages (eg, New World monkeys, Howler monkey, it seems to imply that ALL platyrrhines have prehensile tails. From what I've been able to find out, this is not the case. As far as I'm aware capuchins don't have prehensile tails, squirrel monkeys have them only in infancy, and only some howlers have them. What's the deal? :)--Mishac 18:15, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are mostly correct. Spider moneys have prehensile tails, as do howlers. Capuchins only have semi-prehensile. It seems the rest of the platyrrhines have non-prehensile and se them more for balance. - UtherSRG 18:46, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That's probably my fault. I put it in one article, realised I needed to check, and then forgot to take it out. Don't take it as authoritative. seglea 03:36, 24 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taxoboxes

The purpose of a taxobox is to provide context. Therefore if the article is about a family, it should provide information about the context and stop there. When this family has genera, they should be in the body of the text. Because THAT is where you inform about the taxon that is discussed.

NB this is standard practice on the NL wikipedia. GerardM 14:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite follow. Could you give an example of what is right and what is wrong? Thanks. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

He's talking about the change to Lemuridae he wants to make. (See the page history for Lemuridae. - UtherSRG 15:12, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh, thanks. I don't see any particular advantage of the NL way over the EN way - why does retricting the informational content of the taxobox improve anything? The only reason I can think of is if the box gets too big it might ugly, but we already cater for this. Naturally further detail goes in the article body. I think our policy is ok here. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 15:30, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
When you look at the taxonomy of the Lemuridae, you give all kinds of taxonominal information in the body of the text but you leave out the genus information. That does not help. When you are talking about a family, and the context is given in the box, ALL the other information needs to be in the body of the text. It does not add anything to have it in both places but not having the genera information in the body is weird. GerardM 16:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)
there has been loads of discussion about the issue of listing subtaxa in taxoboxes in other places (particularly under WikiProject Tree of Life). Consensus would be putting it too high, but the majority view has always been that the taxobox should include the direct descendants of the taxon in question, at the next major rank down, if at all possible (though we haven't usually listed subspecies etc of a species). This may be right or wrong (personally, I think it is right), but what is absolutely clear is that we shouldn't decide here to do something different for the primates. In any case, the difficult cases arise where the list is just too long and ugly, or the taxonomy is too uncertain (in either case the taxobox should include "see text" or a link to a separate page that contains the list). Neither of these situations is common with the primates. seglea 16:08, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are two issues Gerard is brining up, and we are all (including him I believe) not looking at them as separate. Taxoboxes should list the direct descendants, but when there is a classification table, I think I agree with Gerard that we do a disservice to leave out the genera rank and skip from family (or subfamily) directly to species. - UtherSRG 16:33, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Ok split the issue in two. That may get us results.
1 Can we agree that including the one level below in taxonomic list is a good idea?
2 The second issue would be only including up to the level of the subject of the article or including one lower level as well. It is stated that that can be discussed better at a different place. Where? For your info, for plants it is not a stellar idea as a species can have up to 4 lower levels that may occur or may not. This is differrent from zoology. GerardM 16:59, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates is a child of Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life. Much of what is done is done in accordance with that Project. Recently, much effort has been worked out on Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds as to these issues and elevated to the ToL level. This Project was created only very recently, but much of the decisions reached on those Projects work for this one. - UtherSRG 18:35, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

What are you saying? I do not understand what you mean.

You reaised some issues, mentioned that the discussion happens elsewhere, then asked where. I was trying to explain where some of those issues had aready been brought up, and summarized the timing of ho things are related. - UtherSRG 04:49, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
To summarize: This is the wrong tree to bark under. So I take this to the ToL level. I have painted some picures and explained again under taxobox. PS It took me some time to understand ToL. I know that LOL is used, I have not yet figured that one out.... GerardM 14:13, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Taxobox

Why are the links to things like Kingdom being removed from taxoboxes? (See Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates/family taxobox example)? Related projects such as the Wikipedia:WikiProject Cetaceans and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds links these terms. I think it would be a very bad idea if this project were to divert from that standard. Is there any reason not to have them? Angela. 07:55, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Most aspects of the taxobox are under active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Delinking these names has been proposed because they all redirect to the same place. I am not sure if a final consensus has been reached (haven't got that far along the watchlist yet!) Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 08:17, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Not all of them redirect to the same place. I think they're useful. I can't find anything on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life discussing this issue. Angela. 08:28, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)
It's probably in archive 3 then, there has been a lot of page churn there just recently. To be honest, I can't remember that particular bit of the discussion being definitely concluded, and the argument for removing definitely was that they linked to the same place... so if that is wrong, and as you point out, it is wrong, then the argument doesn't hold water. But I'm just being the messenger boy here - probably better to wait for Uther to make a comment as he's being doing a lot of work on this project. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:20, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Angela and Pete are both correct. Don't you just love situations like this? The discussion is someplace in the ToL discussion archives. From my recollection of the discussion and a few link checks: They don't all redirect to Scientific classification. However, most of the middle ranks do, or they link to a short article that says to go to Scientific classification for more information. Kingdom (biology), on the other hand, is a great article on the history of how the thoughts on that level have changed over the years, and Species is a super article as well. The decision was that Scientific classification was the better starting point for interest in the rank titles. Personally, I don't care one way or the other. I was simply trying to keep this Project's articles as up-to-date as possible. - UtherSRG 14:29, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Quick update: The discussion was disjointed between Archive 2 & 3. Only Tannin had a complaint, because he wanted to remove the line containing Scientific classification and put the conservation status information there. Once that was all settled, there were no complaints about removing the links. - UtherSRG 15:12, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Nearly all the taxoboxes I have seen have these links. Are you suggesting they are all to be removed? Angela. 19:24, Feb 27, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I'm not advocating a rigorous attack on them. We've changed some other parts of the standard as well. As folks edit pages with "oldstyle" taxoboxes or create new artices, they can make the changes or if they don't know about the new standard, folks who troll RC wo do know can make the changes. Personally, I've got most if not all of the Primate pages on my Watchlist. - UtherSRG 22:37, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

There are over 25,000 words in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and its archives! So, I won't claim to have read it all, but I've skimmed archive 3 and I agree that the links are best removed from here if the scientific classification link is included. I just wanted to make sure this was going to be consistent across all the related projects and not something done only for the primates one, but it seems that the Tree of Life will affect all of them, so I'm happy with that. :) Angela. 02:59, Feb 29, 2004 (UTC)

Neanderthal

There's a couple of paragraphs on this added by Kenneth Alan (check the page history) which I suspect are highly speculative, and should perhaps be removed - have already done so with a bit that was even worse myself, but I don't know enough of the subject to be 100% certain they're wrong (this user has a history of adding his nonsensical ideas to numerous pages; see the entries about him in Vandalism in progress). - MPF 13:38, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've taken a rough stab at undoing his garbage. - UtherSRG 14:32, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MW 1.3 taxobox templates

Well folks, the time has come to build taxobox templates. Is there a clue somewhere to teach us all the bells and whistles of MW 1.3 templates? - UtherSRG 20:23, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Hrm... meant to put this on Tree of Life. I'll move it there. :) - UtherSRG 20:55, 29 May 2004 (UTC)

Chimpanzee

Please check out the discussion and poll on Talk:Chimpanzee - UtherSRG 02:22, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Hominoid taxonomy

Several articles discuss changes in hominoid taxonomy, not all agreeing, so I wrote a section on it at Hominoidea#History of hominoid taxonomy to which the other articles can link for the full story. I haven't been able to find anything about the early history of hominoid taxonomy; it would also be nice to know who proposed each change, and roughly when (if) it became widely accepted. Gdr 21:35, 2004 Aug 31 (UTC)

Fantastic job, Gdr! - UtherSRG 21:24, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)
I've made some copyedits. - UtherSRG 21:32, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Prosimian vs Strepsirrhini

Please see my comments about splitting prosimian into two articles on talk:prosimian. - UtherSRG 15:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well that's done. So is the merger of ape and Hominoidea. - UtherSRG 21:31, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Homo habilis dates

My Anthropology class notes are showing that Homo habilis existed from 1.9 to 1.6 MYA, however this website shows H. habilis living between 2.4 and 1.75 MYA. Wikipedia states that they existed 2.5 to 2.0 MYA. What the heck is going on here? Dustin Asby 00:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually, Human_evolution doesn't even agree with itself, it lists "2.4 to 1.5" MYA and "2.5–2 MYA." It also says, "when it diverged from the Australopithecines." I think there is considerable evidence that Homo diverged at garhi. Dustin Asby 01:19, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yup. Ain't it fun. We do the best we can with the data we have. Look through the history and see when the dating on the H. Habilis article was added, and if anything was put in the edit notes about it. There's always disagreement in science about thing which are not easy to determine. There's been disagreement as to how many extinct Homo species have been discovered. Those differences yield different datings. - UtherSRG 02:20, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Status of Primates

When multiple sources disagree about the status of a species, what source should we assume is correct? -KalevTait 16:52, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

IUCN's http://www.redlist.org should be our primary source for conservation status, since that's where the conservation status article says we get our data from. - UtherSRG 03:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think we should use MSW 3rd edition (I have the Primates list). However, it's two years out of date, Groves said. The status of northern South American Aotus has been changed. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 05:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Families of New World monkeys

I believe the family-level classification of New World monkeys isn't a good one. In any case, Groves himself stated (in the Dec. 2002 issue of Neotropical Primates) that Nyctipithecidae, Hapalinae and Chrysotrichinae instead of Aotidae, Callithrichidae and Saimirinae should not be used. Furthermore, I think the best-accepted classification is currently that recognizing only two families: Cebidae with subfamilies Cebinae (Cebus and Saimiri) and Callithrichinae (Callithrix, Cebuella, Callibella, Mico, Leonticebus, Callimico and Saguinus); and Atelidae with subfamilies Pitheciinae (Chiropotes, Cacajao, Pithecia), Callicebinae (Callicebus), Aotinae (Aotus), Xenothrichinae (Paralouatta, Xenothrix, Antillothrix), Alouattinae (Alouatta) and Atelinae (Ateles, Brachyteles, Lagothrix, Oreonax). Ucucha 08:55, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm still using Groves' 2001 work. I figured he'd come out and say he was wrong in some regards... he's done it before. *grins* I'll see if I can dig up an electronic reference to his work in the 12/2002 Neotropical Primates. - UtherSRG 11:44, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
Search for "Neotropical Primates" in Google, it'll appear at the top of the page. Ucucha 14:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I found it here. I'll have to pour through the back issues for commentary on Groves' use of four families. For now, I'd like to keep things organized as they are. I've made adjustments for Nyctipithecidae -> Aotidae, Hapalinae -> Callithrichida, and Mycetinae -> Alouattine. I'm reserving judgement on Saimirinae since the argument (even by the authors' own description) is not as strong as the other three changes. - UtherSRG 15:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)
I've re-read the article and it's convinced me. I've gone ahead and done the Chrysotrichinae -> Saimirinae move as well now. I've searched through the articles and I can't find any that significantly point to flaws in Groves' family arrangement. The closest is Rylands in Vol 9, Num 3, where he compares his recent publication with Groves'. He doesn't distinguish which may be preferable, he simply points out the differences. *shrugs* Be bold and add text to the approprite articles pointing out how the given taxonomy is one accepted classification, and that others are (probably) equally as valid. - UtherSRG 01:58, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
I think we should follow the classification as in the new version of Mammal Species of the World (will appear later this year). It might be a good idea to contact Groves and ask him what he thinks of it. Ucucha 13:23, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Homo erectus

I left a note on the Homo erectus talk page regarding the use of fire. Would appreciate a response. I think a revision of the sentence in question might be in order. Thanks. WBardwin 04:03, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Tarsiers

Tarsiers are probably in their own suborder, but no expert sources seem to agree. I hope that one day this situation is clarified and agreed upon. DarthVader 05:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

WP:PRIM follows Groves, who puts Tarsiers in their own infrorder in Haplorrhini. - UtherSRG 02:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)
Fair enough. I can see the logic behind Groves' classification. DarthVader 09:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Type species

I've proposed a change in the way we handle type species; see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Type species. Since this mostly affects articles on primates, I'd appreciate it if you could comment there. Gdr 14:55:08, 2005-07-29 (UTC)

Hominid

After some discussion and revision I thought I'd suggest here that Hominid not simply be a re-direct to Hominidae but a disambiguation page stating:

  • That the term correctly refers to Humans and great apes in line with the Hominidae page.
  • That you may still see it in terms of old taxonomy as referring to humans and related species alone (ie., in dictionaries, which are notoriously conservative)
  • That it should not be confused with hominoid.

Please if you think further disambiguation is necessary, suggest it. Marskell 14:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually, as things stand now, the redirect is the otherway around; Hominidae redirects to hominid. This is in keeping with the general rule of thumb that articles be named by the most common name, with redirects from the more techinical name. (Rules of thumb, however, are easy to overrule.) For now, I think it would be better to put some disambiguation information into the exiting family-level article. I tend to prefer disambig pages when the majority of the "goto" links are articles and not simply different possible (or historic) definitions. Also, "hominine" is the word that properly refers to the 2nd notion of "hominid" above; the members of Hominini. There is a great deal of good information on these distinctions throughout ape already. Perhaps (as Gdr suggested elsewhere) the historical section of ape could be elevated to its own article, with all of the hominoid articles pointing to it somehow. This new article could then also give the history of the change in meanings of "hominid" and "hominine" and "hominoid", etc. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:40, August 24, 2005 (UTC)
The reason I like hominid coming up as a disambig first is that it (along with Homo) are the most obvious searches candidates I'd imagine a curious user trying out. If they get the caveats first they'll understand better what they read subsequently and if History of Hominoid Taxonomy is its own article (which is a good idea) it can be offered and people can go in that direction. Further, the first page of google search offers three hits (along with Wiki) that treat hominids in the human ancestor-only sense[[2]] [[3]] [[4]]. Thus, someone who reads around for an hour will think "3 say this, wiki says that, who knows." Now, if we clever wikipedians nip such thinking in the bud with a straight forward disambig we are doing the citizens of the world, the children of the citizens of the world, and indeed all of eternity an enormous service. Of course, I don't know what re-labelling and so on will do to Google primacy...
Finally, somewhere we have to mention the fact that the old taxonomy was based on morphology and is still often conventially used that way. "What is a hominid?" I think a good % of people would say "a bipedal animal" even if genetics tells us differently now. Marskell 16:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I think your reasoning is compelling. I've made some edits to hominid (and ape) that I think will set us on the right track to moving hominid to Hominidae and get us back to having a disambig in place of the redirect. I'm hesitant about moving the history subsection out of ape. I know there are a few articles that link directly to it and I'd want to trace them all down... - UtherSRG (talk) 11:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)
OK, see if this works for you User:Marskell/Hominidredirect and edit as you please. A couple of other general things:
  • Should Hominidae mention Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.
  • Do you think the category Early Hominid should just be named Hominid or even split into two: Hominids prior to the human-chimp divergence and hominids after?
I've tweaked your disambig a bit. See also an older discussion at talk:homininae. Hrm.... Mikko shows P. catalaunicus as being sister to Hominidae. Perhaps a mention in the article and a listing at Hominoidea?. Perhaps split it as "early hominoids" and "early hominids" and leave it at that. Or else make it all "early hominoids" and let the articles themselves be explanation. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:33, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hominid cont'd

There hasn't been Talk generated on the topic, but are we agreed that User:Marskell/Hominidredirect can be become the Hominid page and that Hominid as it stands is moved to Hominidae? I think an admin should do this so that Talk follows properly etc (a non-admin needs to go to requested moves or else make a redirect move which loses history and talk); plz if you're agreed, do so. I was definitely hasty earlier in not considering what goes where. Marskell 21:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm an admin. *grins* I often don't Wiki on weekends. I'm back and I'll make the move and put things in place properly. Thanks for the good team work! - UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, good work! The Hominid as disambig is a respectable eighth on Google and Hominidae sixth. I think Wiki is broadly ahead of the curve in describing this now. Marskell 15:52, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Ape genocide

Also...

I have placed a merger notice on Ape genocide (to Ape extinction) but am considering simply merging what needs to be merged and placing the former on VfD. I'd like to 'take a stand' and have the genocide article be subject to debate and hopefully be 'stricken from the record.' It's absolutely a created rather than described topic and is, upon consideration, very off-putting. The person or persons who created the page appear to have gone to great trouble to make incidental references to genocide re: chimps etc. in various primate related articles so that internal wiki links would make it seem acceptable. I found this zinger on Green Politics: (supporters see) "Great Ape personhood (as an attempt) to end ape genocide, which they see as akin to genocide of primitive human populations, e.g. Stone Age Amazon tribes." So "killing a hunter-gatherer tribe? That's as bad as killing chimps!" It's a horrific analogy. Anyhow, I'd like to see if people would vote delete on VfD before nominating. Marskell 22:01, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Hrm. I find I have little to say on the matter. Are the non-human great apes just other species on this planet, or are they somehow more special than others because they are so closely related to us? Should special measures be taken for conservation above and beyond what would be taken purely because of their endangered status?
Regardless of the answers to these questions, I find it hard to justify having both ape extinction and ape genocide, so I support your desire to merge the one into the other. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:03, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Pierolapithecus catalaunicus

From above: Should Hominidae mention Pierolapithecus catalaunicus.
Do you think the category Early Hominid should just be named Hominid or even split into two: Hominids prior to the human-chimp divergence and hominids after?

I made a mention of Pi Cat on the Ape page; plz someone check if it follows layout conventions being established. The Early Hominid category should be re-named or split I think. Insofar as the category included only humans and human ancestors it made sense but doesn't now that hominid extends back 13 million years i.e., homo erectus really isn't an "early" homind anymore. Marskell 13:28, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

OK, the new species apparently doesn't deserve a mention on Hominoidae tho you suggested it Uther. It is a Hominoid, yes? Marskell 10:23, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
A mention is different than putting it in the taxobox without everything else of a similar nature, or even a nature inbetween P. catalaunicus and the existing entries. By mention, I meant in the article text itself. I haven't had time, although I hope to this week, to split the early hominids category into two. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

category re-work

Ok, So I'm starting to look at the early hominids category, to try to clean it up. I'm going to use this space as scratch space or thinking out loud space. Feel free to chime in or edit at will. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Paranthropus

I went to the Paranthropus article specifically to see why Wikipedia members chose to title it P rather than A. I got to this:

"Opinions differ as to whether the species P. aethiopicus, P. boisei and P. robustus should be included within the genus Australopithecus. The current consensus in the scientific community is that they should be placed in a distinct genus, Paranthropus, which is believed to have developed from the ancestral Australopithecus line. Up until the last half decade the majority, however, included all the species of both Australopithecus and Paranthropus in a single genus."

It never mentions why. Why and how are far more important than who, what, and where. Any web user can find the latter three, a good reference then will elaborate. This is of course all just opinion though. Please share yours.--Dustin Asby 07:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Defining Characteristics

The three species now grouped in the genus Paranthropus share some unique characteristics not found in the various species of Australopithicus:

1. The canines are "extremely reduced", much more than any Australopithicus.

2. The sub-nasal prognathism is also reduced in comparison to Australopithicus, meaning it's face is much flatter (does not project forward as much).

3. Paranthropus species posess a sagittal crest (a ridge along the top of the skull), which provides an anchor for larger chewing muscles (the temporalis, specifically).

4. Much larger premolars and molars.

5. Anterior teeth (canines, incisors) are in a straight row.

--Kactuswren 20:08, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Brown lemur

This entry is incorrect in stating "brown lemur" represents all Eulemur species. It only refers to one species (Eulemur fulvus) or perhaps three (E. fulvus, E. albocollaris and E. collaris - if the latter two are considered distinct species). "True lemurs" is the common name for the entire genus. Also, "sexual dichromatism" is the preferred term for sexual dimorphism in color patterns. Eulemur species occupy dry forests as well as rain forests. No true lemur or brown lemur weighs more than around 2.5 kg (the accurate range is approximately 1.5-2.5 kg). Finally, Eulemur social systems include single-male/single-female groups, so group size is 2-15 (although the figures cited are correct for brown lemurs).

Incorrect, as there are two genera of "true lemurs", with the Ring-tailed Lemur, in genus Lemur. You should pick up a copy of Groves' Primate Taxonomy where he gives common names for each Primate genera, and "brown lemurs" is what he gives to Eulemur. Unfortunately, Mammal Species of the World (3rd ed, 2005) doesn't seem to list the common names of the genera. I've modified the article otherwise. Please consider making edits yourself and perhaps registering to make an account. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:22, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
seems like this could all be cleared up if we would use the Mittermeier source and go with Mittermeier's common term for the Eulemur: "True Lemurs". the full reference is: Russell Mittermeier et al., Lemurs of Madagascar, Conservation International (1994)Anlace 22:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Stubs

I was dissapointed to see that there is no stub type for primates nor anthropology. Does anyone else on here think that these would be useful?--Dustin Asby 20:27, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

You mean stub tag? Go for it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Proposing stubs seems to be more involved than I assumed. I don't really have time to go through and find every primate related stub.--Dustin Asby 19:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
I counted about 75 or so that are tagged as mammal stubs, and put in a request. Just keep an eye on it and then go ahead and make the new template when you are ready. I'll help out re-tagging. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Identification of monkey

Dear WikiProjects Primate-Experts. I took a picture of monkey once, the image is now on the Commons. I have trouble putting it into the correct primate category though, could anyone please take a look and help me out?

The image was taken in Rajasthan, close to Jaipur, these monkeys with long tails and black faces were very common in the area. Thanks alot. Gryffindor 21:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, for starters, take a look in Old World monkey. You can rule out the typically African groups (the Cercopithecinae monkeys besides the macaques, and the African Colobinae monkeys) leaving the macaques and the Asian Colobinae monkeys. It doesn't look like a macaque to me (although I could be wrong) and I don't think I see anything odd with its nose (but the pic is dark), so I'm going to hazard a guess at it being in one of these three genera: Semnopithecus, Trachypithecus, or Presbytis. If you've got some better pics, I might be able to help you narrow down the possibilities. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Even better... Presbytis is not endemic to India. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Corbet and Hill (1992; Mamm of Indomalayan Region) only list Semnopithecus entellus as being from this part of India (as well as Rhesus, but I'm with UtherSRG in saying it's a langur of some sort). I think it's a good match. Note that they use entellus to describe all species listed on the Semnopithecus page. I think that narrows it down to genus. Duff and Lawson (2005) list ranges for S. ajax, S. entellus, and S. hector that may overlap this range. Both S. ajax and S. hector are described as in the Himalayas or Himalayan foothills, so I suspect this animal is probably S. entellus (s.s). --Aranae 06:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

H. erectus soloensis

Would anyone have a reference for, or be able to venture an opinion on, the claim in the Homo erectus soloensis article that specimens of this subsp. have been found in Australia? AFAIK soloensis (aka "Ngandong") is only attested to in finds made in Indonesia, and furthermore, no erectus finds of any designation have been made in Australia (indeed, only sapiens remains have been securely identified from the Australian continent, including Sahul). Does anyone know of any claims to H. erectus finds east or south of the Wallace Line?

Also, I gather that the taxonomy (erectus vs. sapiens) for soloensis is still the subject of some debate, as indeed are the ages of these specimens (anywhere from 250kya to as recent as 27kya), however the present article makes it sound like a done deal. Perhaps the taxobox entry should be marked with a "?"--cjllw | TALK 07:15, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You raise plenty of good points. Be bold and start editting! *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 19:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No problem, I'm happy enough to make the necessary adjustments to the article based on materials to hand. I was curious however to see if anyone knew of references which supported the alternate view put forward in the article, which I might easily have missed, not having done an exhaustive search on the subject. Thanks anyway, and cheers--cjllw | TALK 22:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

EB 1911

I was working through some 1911 articles and came across the Pluto Monkey, which EB says was Cercopithecus leucampyx - I have a feeling it may just be a C. moma, but have been unable to fins it on a list of synonyms, so I though someone here might have a better idea.--nixie 03:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

MSW2 lists as a synonym of C. mitis --Aranae 08:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
As does MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalization

There has been some discussion regarding changing the recommendations for common-name capitalization to better match what some users feel is the style found in the scientific literature and other sources. You may wish to view the discussion or participate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna). — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:57, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. However, WP:PRIM will continue to capitalize. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:20, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Naming of populations

Should the article name of a population be the species name with the population name in parenthese, for example Horse (American population), or should they get their own unique name, for example American horse? KimvdLinde 08:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Guyanan Red Howler

While trying to find information about this howler in order to create a stub for it I discoverd that its existence as a seperate species seems controversial. The best overview [5] of the howler controversy I can find doesn't even mention A. Macconnelli KalevTait 03:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

That ref is dated 1999. Groves separated macconelli from seniculus in 2001 (Primate Taxonomy, pags 178-184 for the genus). Also, insulanus is a synonym for macconelli. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Greater Bamboo Lemur

I've added a stub for it, but it still needs a binomial_authority, a picture and a wikispecies link, none of which I'm sure how to go about. KalevTait 17:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, Groves split it off from Hapalemur to be monotypic in Prolemur. I've updated the taxobox accordingly, adding the authorities. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Ack! Maybe I should get myself a copy of the book :p KalevTait 20:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthal at WP:AID

I have nominated the Neanderthal article at WP:AID, and invite everyone of you, to improve this article (not just vote for it). It would be a great feature article. I would like to make it clear, due to some controversies at WP:AID that I believe that there is nothing wrong in advertising this nomination here, being this the WikiProject Primates, it seems the best place to solicite help and not just votes. Thank you. --Francisco Valverde 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

References

It seems like a natural standard reference to add is this definitive work on lemurs: Russell Mittermeier et al., Lemurs of Madagascar, Conservation International (1994) Anlace 23:01, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure, as long as you note that it is over ten years old and don't use it as a taxonomic reference. Lots of changes since then. Mammal Species of the World 3rd ed (2005) is the most recent taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Phylogeny images

If people need images of a phylogeny based on articles that they have found, but can not copy due to copyright issues, I can make them on request. Kim van der Linde at venus 04:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you give an example? - UtherSRG (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Sure, Image:Cockatoos.jpg or Image:Psittacula.jpg. I could also use all kind of different forms. Kim van der Linde at venus 09:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


Taxonomical splitting

Awful lot of former subspecies was split. How it is substaniated? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.152.84.114 (talk • contribs) .

By various different processes and authors and scientists over many years. See Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M., eds. (2005). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 978-0-8018-8221-0. OCLC 62265494.. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:33, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

List of apes

As mentioned in the above project talk page, currently the list only appears to include great apes. IMHO either it needs to be expanded or at least the opening paragraph re-worked (I appreciate there may not be many famous lesser apes but we should at least mention that it is intended to include all apes so people trying to add to it don't get confused). Or alternatively, we should rename it. Nil Einne 21:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I would say that there should be a very brief explanation that gibbons don't tend to get famous. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I recently expanded the article on Sam (orangutan) who was in the film Dunston Checks In. He and his mate and son now live in a wonderful non-proft habitat. Perhaps other members could generate an article on the non-proft? ThanksLiPollis 06:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal for another wikiproject

I was thinking of starting a wikiproject for anthropology. Is anyone interested? Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 11:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I just made a proposal on the "list of proposed wikiprojects" page. If you're interested, you can sign up at our entry and on the temporary project page. Thanks. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Descendant wikiproject: human evolution

I floated the idea of another wikiproject over at the Evolutionary Biology project, but there has been no response. Here might be a better fit as I recognize more of the names. I have been working on creating some consistency in the early hominid category, mainly between articles about fossils and articles about species. As you can imagine with several species only known by 1 fossil it can be quite confused. Rhodesian man is a prime example. Do you guys think we need another wikiproject or could I work it out in the structure of this project? Nowimnthing 21:59, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

I see no reason you couldn't do it under these auspices. Good for you! - UtherSRG (talk) 10:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorting work for Human evolution articles

Lucy

Picture of Lucy Remains, Museo Nacional de Antropología, Mexico City
Catalog number: AL 288-1
Species: Australopithecus afarensis
Age: 3.2 mya
Place discovered: Ethiopia
Date discovered: 1974
Discovered by: Donald Johanson

Pages not on Human evolution template

Some of these may need to be added to the template, others either need to be merged/cleaned up to indicate their status as controversial or deprecated.

All of these already have the Cat on them. H. cepranensis is on the template. Tc. uxoris and Te. capensis should be merged to H. erectus and either H. ergaster or H. erectus respectively. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

to do list

  1. add [[Category:Early hominids]] to any pages dealing with species or fossils of species. Looks to be done already...
  2. rename all (early hominid) species pages to binomial or trinomial where needed
  3. seperate fossil finds from species pages where appropriate
  4. add notable fossils section to link to fossil pages for each species
  5. rename all fossil pages to catalog number
  6. seperate fossil finds from locations where appropriate

individual items

  • possible infobox template for fossil pages:

finished?

please strike off any tasks that are finished Nowimnthing 16:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Homo floresiensis

Homo floresiensis is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 21:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Individual primates

Are articles about individual primates, e.g. Koko (gorilla), within the scope of this project? Elliskev 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. Why? - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Just curious if adding the Wikiproject template to those talk pages would be appropriate... Elliskev 16:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok. What do you hope to accomplish by using that tag? Improved visibility from this WikiProject? I ask not to say no, but to help suss out what the problem is and how it might be best addressed. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically. If it's within the project's scope, adding the tag would increase visibility both ways: to the article and to the project. I'm not involved with the project, so I wanted to get some feedback from those who are before making a presumptive edit. Either way is fine by me. Elliskev 19:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:52, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wildlife Barnstar

There is currently a barnstar proposal at Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals/New Proposals#Wildlife Barnstar for a barnstar which would be available for use for this project. Please feel free to visit the page and make any comments you see fit. Badbilltucker 15:33, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSEDROCKER★ 03:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

Taxo-boxes and/or harmonizing Hominid date ranges in the intro of articles

Forgive me if someone has already raised this issue. I noticed that the Homo neanderthalensis article has detailed date ranges for its origins and extinctions in the first paragraph of the article, but the Homo erectus article doesn't begin to give that information until much later in the text. I realize the chronology a complex and evolving issue, but it would be great to give a simple date range in Homo erectus in the first paragraph. I think there is some Wiki-guideline about presenting summarical info in the first paragraph.

Additionally, perhaps the taxo-box for Hominids and other extinct primates could contain dates ranges. It would be good for giving the reader a quick idea of the chronological place of extinct primates and Hominids. Mumun 20:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Veterinary medicine project

There is now a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Veterinary Medicine to deal with matters of veterinary medicine, a subject which currently has disproportionately low content in wikipedia. Any wikipedia editors who have an interest in working on content related to the subject are encouraged to indicate as much there. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Primates/Archive_1&oldid=1137368208"