Talk:Primate/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from the current talk page for the period May 2003 - April 2008.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form. Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the current talk page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the current talk page page and then add your comments there.

Contents

Tarsiers

Where do Tarsiers fall in under the classification scheme? john 08:05 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hoolie Doolie, what a mess! And here was me thinking that bird taxonomy was a tangled and ever-changing thing. Regard my recent addition of the tarsiers as a temporary patch-up and subject to revision. I consulted three pretty decent sources just now and got about 5 different answers. Still, at least the tarsiers appear in the box now. Tannin 09:23 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Tarsiers are now in their own suborder. An expert source needs to be found first however. DarthVader 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Please notice the age of the post you are replying to, and note that the whole set of primate articles are now being managed by WP:PRIM, and we're using the most recent primate taxonomy published by Colin Groves. - UtherSRG 02:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tarsiers, being small and nocturnal, are classified with lorises and lemurs as Prosimians on the suborder level, while they are in the same infraorder (haplorhines) as old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and apes.

Incorrect. Prosimii is no longer an accepted suborder. Tarsiers are more closely related to the simians than they are to the rest of the prosimians. Because of this, the entire classification was changed a bit. Tarsiers were moved out of Prosimii and into the Anthropoidea, and the two were renamed Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Language

I just deleted the pronunciation detail. I don't think it is encyclopaedic. I also changed the reference to Primate (religion), because I'm unaware which is older. Both are in current use, and I don't know how relevant the age of each is. - Cafemusique 21:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Weight comparisions

Just thought I'd note that the weights given for the gorilla are inconsistent with those given on the gorilla page.


Eh, 52kg for a human female and 75kg for a male? That seems a little low for your average westerner, at least for women. -- Kimiko 16:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, perhaps it is a little low for average folks. Ah... I've found 62.5kg for women [1] and 78.4kg for men [2]. Thanks for the nudge. - UtherSRG 16:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great Apes

I looked it up, and humans are considered apes, but not great apes. Since gibbons(lesser apes) are also apes but not hominids, I changed "apes (including humans)" to "great apes and humans", since all apes (ie the gibbons) were already exclude.--Mishac 01:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! - UtherSRG 01:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does "great apes" include humans? I thought "ape" could include humans, but that "great apes" was specifically orangs, gorillas and chimps....--Mishac 19:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've always understood humans to be included in great apes. I wish the person who removes such a linkage would cite a source. - UtherSRG 19:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Great Apes share a common ancestor. The first to speciate from the common ancestor was the orangutan. Thus, gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and humans all share a common ancestor that orangutans do not share. Then the gorillas speciated, resulting in chimps, bonobos, and humans sharing a common ancestor that orangutans and gorillas do not share. Then humans speciated, resulting in the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos that humans, gorillas, and orangutans do not share. So, it is possible to group together chimps and bonobos without including humans, but once either gorillas or orangutans are also included in the group, humans must necessarily also be included. - Mcarling 10:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That assumes a cladistic understanding of taxonomy, doesn't it? By that standard, "reptiles" can't be considered a group without including birds, since crocodiles and birds diverged more recently than crocodiles and turtles. Mammals might have to be included as well. While understanding the order of speciation is certainly very important, I'm not sure why this should be assumed to trump the more standard way of classifying animals. john 00:12, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
'Apes' is not a taxonomic term. There's not a clade named "Apes". The clade that includes all apes and humans is Hominoidea. If you want to use cladistic rules, you should use clade names, but not common words. For common words like "ape" or "wasp", it is correct to say that humans are not apes or that ants aren't wasps. If you want to talk about the taxonomic group we share with all the apes (great or small), use Hominoidea. El PaleoFreak --213.60.30.221 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
That, John, is best understood as a comment about the problems with the current classification of birds & reptiles. The fact that there is an exception to the usual rule (which will presumably be corrected sooner or later) doesn't mean we have to throw the whole baby out the window along with the bathwater. Tannin 00:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I suppose, but the whole phylogenetic system doesn't actually work very well with the Linnaean classification scheme. Classification schemes based on monophyletic trees invariably have many, many, many, many more groupings than the other way of doing things - generally such that there aren't even widely agreed upon names for what classification level each division is actually at. Perhaps that means that that whole current classification scheme needs to be abandoned, but as long as its around, isn't it rather unlikely that crocodiles, lizards, and turtles will all be split off into separate classes? At any rate, here we are discussing a common name, "Great Apes". I see even less reason why such a term should be monophyletic than that ordinary taxonomic groups be. john 03:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
There is an argument (on the reptile/bird model) for not including humans among the apes or among the great apes - if you suppose we are so different that we no longer share key characteristics that the (other) apes share. But there can be no argument for excluding us from the great apes but including us among the apes, since if we are apes, we are clearly descended from the same stock as the great apes after they split off from the gibbons. And it seems to me that the first argument was lost at the point where the Pongidae were renamed as the Hominidae. I agree that there is a need for a name for the group consisting of the orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzees: I don't think at present we have anything less clumsy than "the non-human great apes" or "the great apes (excluding humans)". In nontechnical speech, it should be reasonable to refer to them just as "the great apes", just as we often talk about "animals" rather than "non-human animals" when we mean to exclude humans; the trouble is that there are people around who, for nonbiological reasons, don't want to recognise that humans are among the great apes, and this usage gives them hostages. seglea 10:26, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
What are the biological reasons for including humans among the apes, avoiding the use of the correct taxonomic term for the group (Hominoidea)? There is none, as you can see at the Ape discussion. It is a trend, an opinion of several scientists, and a ruling opinion here at the Wikipedia. They have decided to synonimize the clade Hominoidea with the common term Apes. That's a matter of jargon, not a matter of science. Maybe it is a anti-anthropocentric reaction (turning it ape-centric), but it is not biology-based. (And no, I'm not a creationist. I'm an atheist, and an evolution lover). El PaleoFreak --213.60.30.221 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Body plan

Can someone explain what is meant by "unspecialised body plan"? thanks :)--Mishac 10:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I unerstand it to mean "not adapted to special needs". Feline bodies are specialized catching prey: for running fast, including a tail for balance, and dentition designed to clamp onto the prey to kill it. Cetacean bodies are desgned to survive for full-time aquatic life, while other mammals have made similar adaptions to living some of the time in water. Different avian ody types adapted to the particular niches they occupy (long bills, short bills, long legs, webbed feet, etc.). Primates are generally unspecialized in these regards. The gripping hand for brachiation is the most specialized form common to primates. Obviously some primates are less specialized and others are more specialized, but in general the form is considered unspecialized. - UtherSRG 16:58, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism

Someone asked in an edit summary whether the link between sexual dimorphism and polygyny is secure. Yes, it is. It is predicted on the basis of parental investment theory (an important component of sociobiology), and it is documented in detail for the primates in papers by Clutton-Brock and Harvey, if I remember rightly (I don't have my books here). We should really put a fuller table in - the present one is haphazard, and the data are all there to quote from - we need references, too. The same rule of course holds in other taxa, though in birds the dimorphism is more obvious in terms of colour, etc than size; however females are typically bigger than males in polyandrous species, as you'd expect. seglea 18:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Originally, the article stated that pair-bonding was caused by lack of sexual dimorphism; now it says that lack of sexual dimorphism is caused by pair-bonding. Which is correct? Or is this a kind of feedback loop?
It's interesting to see that humans, who are the rare Old World species that mostly practices pair bonding, also have relatively low sexual dimorphism. Stormwriter 21:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
The human females breasts being enlarged even when not pregnant / producing milk in confusing to some. I believe thats unique among animals. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human

Please come help out on Human. Were facing a number of questions regarding a past poll and its results, the positioning of the taxobox and an image, the definition of "Human", if Homo Sapiens should split off into its own article, and even if the "article in need of attention" header is appropriate. I'd like as much expert involvement as possible, if you please. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal status

Marskell, could you discuss the legal status section here, please, rather than just changing it back and forth? You seem to have two objections: first, you keep changing "human primate" to "human being." The reason I wrote human primate versus non-human primate is because this is an article about primates, and we are primates too, which ties in with the point of the section, namely that some primates have their individual interests protected, and some don't.

The second thing you object to is the Great Ape Project paragraph. Could you say why? Great apes are primates, and this project, which is taken very seriously and isn't just a crank thing, aims to extend the protection of individual interests to non-human primates through this campaign. I don't see that it matters that they're focusing on only one group of primates: the point here is that they seek to cross the line between human and non-human primates legally. It's a revolutionary idea and very much worth mentioning, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I'll take a quick stab at this befor eI run off to a meeting.
  1. Humans are mammals and only some mammals have legal rights. Shouldn't we put this on the mammal page? How about animal? How about eukarayote?
  2. The Great Ape Project is about great apes. A small mention as a link is appropriate here, and a reasonable section is appropriate on Hominidae.
- UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The reason it's more pertinent with primates is because the idea that primates (not just great apes) need some protection for their individual interests is one that is gaining currency and becoming more mainstream, that is, it's no longer a tiny-minority opinion. Of course, we could add it to lots of Wikipedia pages e.g. we could add to Murder that "the killing of primates doesn't count as murder because they have no rights in law," and so on, but it would be stretching the point. My argument here is that I don't feel a point is being stretched on a page that specifically deals with primates. For example, it would have been odd to write a story about African-Americans while there was still slavery, without mentioning that they had no, or few, legal rights, or a story about Jews during the Holocaust that didn't talk about their treatment in Nazi Germany. Similarly, it would strike me as odd, in an article about primates, not to mention how they are very often treated, and to say something about the reasons for that treatment, given that there is such widespread, and increasingly mainstream, concern about it: even George Bush has said something about it. I thought it was you, Stacey, who originally moved this section higher, which I took to mean you liked it. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else, or some other page.
As for your point about the Great Ape Project, I'll go back into the article and reduce that paragraph, and perhaps that will be a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
It may well have been me who put it up higher earlier, but we have more sections in the article now. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First Slim, my edit summary was very clear: it belongs on the ape page not here. You say "not just apes" but can you clarify that the Great Ape Project extends to non-ape primates? I know it's not a crank but is anyone seriously arguing that lemurs should be considered person? If no, then not here. Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs are of course the best known non-human primates but they are three species (three genera, actually - UtherSRG) out of many dozens. I will abreviate this as it was before and move it the ape page. That is, not suppressing info but moving it to the appropriate spot. Marskell 23:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I've reduced it as discussed earlier. I'd appreciate it if you would stop simply reinserting your edits, Marskell. This is a properly sourced relevant section, which has been here for months. The article is about all primates, and I have offered information about the legal status of them, including information about people who are trying to change that legal status, and yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs. It strikes me that you're personally dismissive of the idea and therefore feel it has no place here, but that's your POV. This is not a tiny-minority opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
This edit summary of yours is indicative of your POV: "placing legal status at bottom and removing great ape project ref. should lemurs be considered persons under law? a) no b) i don't care. save it for the ape page." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
You asked for talk consideration and I have given it: it makes sense on the ape page, not here. The paragraph has now been inserted on ape (which I'd guess actually gets more read-throughs, so in no way is the info being suppressed). I'm not going to revert but edit to avoid duplication with ape as it now stands. K?
"And yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs." Source? Marskell 23:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
If you've inserted it wholesale into Ape, you'd better adjust the figures in it to cover only apes. As for finding a source for you, you can find one yourself in five minutes, probably from the same places you'll find the figures you need to correct the Ape edit. I only look for sources for material I've inserted into articles. Please do not adjust this section any further. You got what you wanted: it's now right at the bottom of the page as though it's the least important issue, and the Great Ape Project paragraph has been reduced to one sentence. I would appreciate it if you would agree to that compromise and leave the rest of it alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"As for finding a source for you, you can find one yourself in five minutes." Wow. Conversation over. Marskell 23:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, Marskell, the conversation isn't over. It never began, because you're determined to do whatever you want regardless. If you don't correct the figures in the Ape article, I will remove the section entirely. You're now engaged in WP:POINT, deliberately inserting false material elsewhere so that you can claim it's duplicated and therefore remove it from here. That is a violation of policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
I was out of order accusing Marskell of WP:POINT. He did no such thing, of course, and I'm sorry for being so sharp and short-tempered about this issue. It was because of things happening elsewhere. I'll have calmed down by tomorrow, no doubt, and I'm sorry for taking it out on people here. I'll leave the sections in Ape and here alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
I hope this isn't a permanent withdrawal from primate work, and is simply a chance to have some breathing room. I'd like to reorganize the ape article, as its sections are a bit disjoint. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You probably don't need to hear this, BUT, coming in new and reading "Legal Status," the sentences pertaining to humans sound dissonant. Humans are editing Wikipedia. We are very nearly in every article either literally or from a human point of view. Why not say that humans are covered elsewhere and let it go at that. Not even sure that should be there. Just doesn't sound encyclopedic and detached.Student7 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

rewriting

I've decided to rewrite the first few sections of the article. I finally got annoyed at the size difference table, rewrote that entire section, merged it with the general description section, and expanded the lead ection to include a bit of division and habitation information. Feel free to comment, undo, or continue this work. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Diet

Could somebody put in something about diet here? Maybe this is too broad a page for that topic, but can something sensible be said about the general range of diets in (non-human) primates? Some are very highly specialized, some not, and I think it would be interesting to have a very brief overview and perhaps some references (and a bit more on some species specific pages). Abu Amaal 23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Some are herbivores, some are more specifically foliovores and fugivores. Some are omnivores. I'm not sure if any are strictly carnivores. I'll add your comment to the ongoing peer review for this article and work on adding some information. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Primitive. Helpful?

"Generally speaking, the Primates are divided into three main groupings. The prosimians are the group of primates that represent the more primitive evolutionary line. "

Is there a different way to phrase that - our last common ancestor wasa long time ago, so unless they are like Coelocanths, which doesn't seem to be brought out and would be notable in itself, have they not done as much evolving since as the rest of us? Midgley 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Prosimians are considered more "primitive" because their adaptiations have not moved them far from our common ancester with them. They are tree dwelling, generalist insectivores. Yet I see your point about the word "primitive". I'll see what I can do. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. One should be polite about distant cousins<grin> Midgley 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism

The TAXOBOX has been vandalized —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.51.13.11 (talk • contribs) .

Oh? How so? I don't see any vandalism to the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move

This page should be moved to Non-human primate.

Exploding Boy 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

  1. Exploding Boy 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

  1. No it shouldn't. This article is about the whole order. Ucucha 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
  2. Absolutely not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
  3. No. --Vjam 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Legal Status which was complete mess

Legal status of primates is regulated by several international conventions in animal trade. I personally feel that it is superfluous in this short intro, but maybe some user with technical info feels it is necessary.

Short information about endangered primates & extiction risk, on the other hand, is needed.~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.152.84.114 (talk • contribs) .

So add information abut those conventions. And add information about endangered species. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a pointer to "Endangered Species," which already exists and an expansion of that topic to include primates (other than the aye-aye, which is already there)?Student7 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Brachiation

The physical description section correctly states that primates have opposable thumbs, fingernails and long inward-closing fingers, but wrongly implies this to be a result of a common brachiating ancestor. Only the apes can brachiate (swing through the trees), and this is reflected in their anatomy, notably in the shape of the shoulder, hip and wrist joints, and the relative strength of the arms. The other primates move along the branches of trees, rather than swing between them. I suggest deleting the part about brachiation, without losing any of the information on the hands themselves. Perhaps the brachiating part could be replaced by the more general point that primates hands developed because they can grip branches, but I don't have any sources for that. I wanted to check though before changing. --Robbie251 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i was wrong in saying only apes can brachiate (the spider monkey can too, at least), but the point remains that it is not a feature common to all primates. --Robbie251 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you. I believe I have updated the text in an appropriate manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Laughter

This laughter section is a little detailed for a taxonomy page. It ought to be referenced and then the article conducted in another page, either a new one about laughter in primates or as a section in a laughing article.LH 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support either of those splits. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The laughter section is more about laughter than about primates. I say.....take it to laughter. AHHHAaaaHHAHAAAA --Shalljsa 16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?

I am very disturbed by the sections "Legal Status" and "Laughter in Primates". Both are topic the refer more specifically to the great apes, and should be removed that article, if those issue are to be discussed in Wikipedia at all (or rather discussed in a taxonomy page). Both seem to be propaganda intended to make the case that we should be treating primates as people, a view that is at best controversial and in any case which fails the test of NPOV. The part in "Legal Status" about their use in experimentation I see as a seperate topic, but another editor does not wish to separate it from "Legal Status", making that text very POV. Finally there is the picture of the monkeys in a crate. Once again, I see a strong POV there, and I do not like that.

This article needs to be about primates in general. It should not be promoting legal rights and pushing for a stop to primate experimentation. (However, I do approve of the text on experimentation. I have a hard time arguing that it is not relevant and encyclopedic. Also, my complaint about the push for legal status for the great apes is that this article is about primates and not the grat apes in particular.) --EMS | Talk 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

This article would be POV without the legal status section. Can you imagine an artice on Palestinians that didn't mention their situation in the West Bank, or an article about African Americans that didn't mention they'd ended up in America because of the slave trade? It would be POV to have an article on primates that didn't mention how one set of them (human beings) have legal rights, while others are allowed to be experimented on, with no legal rights, simply because they resemble the human beings so much.
Why do you say it's POV to have legal status and testing combined? One is a direct effect of the other.
As for the image, you have images of primates looking free and happy, so there's nothing wrong with having one image of them in a cage, which is where large numbers of primates find themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
You have not dealt with my concern that the first half of "legal status" and the "laughter" section do not apply to the whole order Primates, but instead to a specific subset of it. I also am having serious difficulty with the analogy between the Palestinians and the primates. In fact, I very, very bothered by the undercurrent in those two sections that reads "these beings are like us and should be treated the same as us". That is a very pro-animal-rights position, and IMO belongs in an article on anumal rights and not here.
I find four points being made here:
  • Non-human primates lack rights of their own. (This is trivial)
  • A movement exists to give the great apes rights. (This belongs in the great apes article.)
  • Primates are used in experimentation for our benefit. (This is an important point, whose presense I applaud BTW.)
  • Great apes can laugh. (I love this item, but once again it belongs in the great apes article.)
All that I can tell you is that the last part of this article hits me like a slap in the face, and when I ask myself whether that slap belongs there I came up with a flat "No" on that. This stuff reads to me like input from an animal rights advocate and not from an interested but unbiased editor. Even splitting the "Legal Rights" section like I did tones down the whole business and IMO makes this into a much milder and neutral article, as it should IMO be. --EMS | Talk 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of the legal rights section, you see it as propaganda because you don't agree with it, in my view. It's written in a very dry, factual tone. It gives details of how many primates are in captivity, says that some groups want to extend the concept of legal personhood to them. It's also very short, as is consistent with summary style. It's your POV that "non-human primates lack rights" is trivial. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
You response is confirming something that I have been very suspiscious of since you reverted my changes, namely that animal rights and the treatement of primates is a hot-button issue for you. Let's just say that editing on a topic that is emotional for one's self is generally not a good idea.
It's something I'm interested in; not sure about "hot button." Similarly, it's clear to me that you oppose animal rights. That's fine. That's how NPOV works. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
On the legal rightsd section, I agree that it is written in a properly factual tone. What ruins it is that you start out talking about the possibility of the great apes being given rights, and then proceed into a discussion of how primates of all types are experimented on. This creates an implied message of "these beings, which ought to have rights, and being treated as guinea pigs".
Well, it's obvious that if their rights were protected, they wouldn't be sitting in laboratories having toxicology tests run on them. I don't think that's any kind of leap of logic, or strange association of facts. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
In other words, the ordering as association of facts is an important as the words that you use in each sentense. In fact, I have less quibble with the content than with its placement and ordering. That is why I split the legal rights section, for instance. No content was lost, but that odd juxtaposition of rights and experimentation as being a singualr issue was removed, as I intended.
Perhaps we could have it as a sub-head then, though it seems odd to split such a small section into multiple sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The picture is also an issue. Combined with your words, the effect is very POV. Without the words, the result is a much drier and more neutral article. It really is the whole that matters here, and as a Wikipedia editor I find the current whole unacceptable.
The picture is important because we have two very positive images of primates in captivity, but that isn't the only situation for them. It's important to show the other side. I deliberately didn't pick an image that was very disturbing. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Beyond that, do be advised that this is not a page that I care to fight over, and you are a respected editor with whom I would rather not fight. Even so, I will press my case in the talk page for time being, in the hope that we can reach an understanding here that benefits this page and therefore Wikipedia itself. --EMS | Talk 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I just saw your comment on Talk:Non-human primate experiments#State of the article. Given those comments, I am wondering what the issue is with my concerns here. --EMS | Talk 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Not sure what that refers to. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The subheading works. I'd still rather not have a picture in the animal testing section and definitely think that the part on laughter has to be removed to the "great apes" article. However, the first issue is not worth pushing on without others participating (so that the decision can be based on a consensus instead of being your view or mine); and for the laughter business the "great apes" article needs a rewrite in order to be able to accept it. (BTW - The great apes have more than laughter in common with us, and that should be documented somewhere.)
As for your Talk:Non-human primate experiments comments: I found them to be "right on", making this argument all the wierder to me. --EMS | Talk 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes

1) I would change the first part of the first paragraph in this way

A primate (L. nominative singular primas, "one of the first, excellent, noble"; plural primates) is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans.[1]

It's more simple, more correct from the linguistic point of view and more understandable than the current text.

2) I would add immediately:

The order Primates was established by Linnaeus in 1758, in the tenth edition of his book Sistema naturae. In the first edition (1735), he used the taxon Anthropomorpha for apes, monkeys and sloths. In following editions, he also suggested that Non-Primate Mammals should be called Secundates and that Non-Mammal Animals Tertiates, which was not accepted.

3) I would change this paragraph

The status of non-human primates has generated much debate, particularly through the Great Ape Project[6] which argues for their personhood.

in this way

The status of non-human primates has generated much debate, particularly through the Great Ape Project[6] which argues for the personhood of Non-Human Hominidae. In 1995 Ignaas Spruit, director of the Leiden (Netherlands) based Pro-Primates organization, went farther, as he proposed that some rights should be recognized to all Non-Human Primates [SPRUIT, Ignaas, 1995: "On Declaring Non-human Primate Rights: An Approach to Primate Protection" in CORBEY, Raymond and THEUNISSEN, Bert, 1995: Ape, Man, Apeman: Changing Views since 1600, Department of Prehistory, Leiden University, pp. 377-383]

4) I agree that all Primate clades be merged into this article.

User: Vasconicus (23rd May 2007).

I've adapted these suggestions into the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me have a look at the 1735 version of Systema Naturae to verify something about sloths. I'll let you know my information tomorrow.

Vasconicus. 24 May 2007.

Ok. Also, please register an account. It's much nicer talking to a registered user than an IP. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorpha 1735: Homo, Simia, Bradypus Primates 1758: Homo, Simia, Lemur, Vespertilio Therefore, sloths were included within Anthopomorpha and bats within Primates. I have already corrected the text. Sorry for the mistake. I have introduced some minor changes too. In the section about Primate hybrids I don't know whether anything should be said about the experiments to mix chimpanzees and humans, as, contrary to what most people think, the genetic difference between Homo and Pan is lesser than between Pan and Gorilla <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuman> and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilya_Ivanovich_Ivanov_%28biologist%29>. It's up to you

Vasconicus 25 May 2007.

We're well aware that Pan is more closely related to Homo than to Gorilla. Look to "Hominoidea" and "Homininae" for such evidence. I don't know that any info about attempts an humanzees needs to be added, as none ever were and Pan and Homo do not hybridize. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree. You've done an excellent work, UtherSRG Thank you. 213.97.3.81 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Vasconicus213.97.3.81 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the reference for Euprimates, which was lacking, and the genera for the Linnean Anthropomorpha and Primates. Vasconicus 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest to split the header sentence into 2 sentences, the first defining the subject, and the second listing its members, to make a clear and concise definition of that specific taxonomic order, which is now is not immediately apparent. It would read along these lines:
"A primate is any member of the biological order that is destinguished by presense of five fingers with one finger opposing and fingernails rather than claws, generalized dental pattern, eye orbit postorbital bar, and a unspecialized body plan, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders. The Primate group contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the last category including humans...." Thanks, Barefact 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating Primate

Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! This page did not show up on our list, but I realize that it should. I just changed 26 links from [[primate]] to [[primate (religion)]], such as Diocese of Canterbury.

After this change, there are 358 links to the holy man sense, and 1457 to the chimp sense. Numbers aren't everything, but 20% is a significant percentage, and this is not a frivolous pop culture topic.

The obvious solution is to rename this article to primate (mammal), and make primate a disambiguation page. I understand this will leave 1457 links that need fixing. Well, fixing links is what we do at WP:DPL, and I promise that we will fix them. (When I say "we" I probably mean "I".)

I'll give everyone who watches this page a couple days to toss in their 2¢ worth, but I think the only thing to debate is what to call the page. I already gave my choice (primate (mammal)); there's an unused redirect at primate (biology). I don't care too much about the name. The change has to be done. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia to call the Archbishop of Canterbury the gorilla of all England. — Randall Bart (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with moving this page. There is a disambiguating link at the top of the article. That is sufficient. Fix the 358 links and leave the 1457 alone. K.I.S.S - UtherSRG (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
From Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation, I disagree -- the current primate article topic appears to be the primary meaning, and should remain at the base name. -- JHunterJ 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are cases where the primary meaning sufficiently overshadows secondary meanings that it can stay at the base name. A subject of this import with 358 links is way bigger than that. I just fixed 26 links that I could easily find, because the word "bishop" or "church" or "diocese" was in the article title. There are sure to be at least a dozen more. The way we currently have for keeping up with this is to have a Disambiguator look at each article. It is important that every time someone links [[primate]], either that person or someone else looks critically at the link. Do you want to offer another way to handle this?

The number 1457 looks like a lot of links, but I fixed half this many for [[Goth]] (Alaric I was leading a band of overage adolescents with bad fashion sense, and I didn't like it). If I end up doing this alone it may take me a week, but the links will be fixed, and after that the Disambiguation faeries will keep on top of it. — Randall Bart (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

If you can that easily disambiguate [[primate]] to [[primate (mammal)]], then you can more easily do the smaller [[primate]] to [[primate (religion)]]. sorry, but your argument of simplicity works against you. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
You misunderstand the disambiguation process. I am saying the 1457 need to be looked at (however see below). The changing is a minor part of the process, it's the looking that's expensive. The changing is to mark that it need not be looked at again. — Randall Bart (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the remaining ones that needed it (Arthur Rose, Paul Kwong, List of Royal Military College of Canada people, Hovnan Derderian, Panteleimon Sklavos, Metropolitan John (Stinka), Metropolitan Michael Khoroshy, Joseph René Vilatte, Metropolitan Ioann (Vasiliy Bodnarchuk), Metropolitan Iziaslav (Brutskiy), Alfred Barry, Jędrzej Kitowicz, 30564 Olomouc, Karekin I, Prince primate, History of the Anglican Communion, Peter Kwong, Consecration, Jan Łaski, Robin Eames, Belfast Royal Academy, Ted Scott, Constitution of May 3, 1791, Stefan Nemanja, and Adam Marsh). Those are the ones that linked to primate and also included the string "bishop" somewhere in the article. That might do it for now. -- JHunterJ 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I need to know what tools you are using, because I can't do that from my browser. I assume you include "archbishop", but what about embedded forms? I can imagine something like "the Archbishopric of Foo, home to the primate of Bar". If you can catch that, I call this good enough. You'll need to run that from time to time to keep up with it. I sadly confess that if you run it once every three months is as good as the service you will get from the disambiguation gnomes, but I would prefer you did it more often.
Between the two of us we've fixed 52. That many wrong links (not ambiguous, but wrong) on a religious topic is a serious problem. However with your scan (assuming you caught "archbishopric") should bring it down to one or two bizarre cases, which is good enough.
I remind you that most cladistic terms come from other fields. In this case the lead bishop sense was well established long before Linnaeus was born. To someone studying religion, your use of "primate" is merely pop culture with a century of maturity. If you polled the editors, I'll bet more than 80% of the time when they use the word "mouse" they mean a computer input device. How long before mouse is moved to mouse (rodent)?
I believe the truest form of WP:NPOV is to include all common uses on a disambiguation page. There are cases where one meaning overshadows all the others, but this is not one. It's not even close. — Randall Bart (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I used AWB. It included the string "bishop", so anything that had those letters in that order (case insensitively), such as Archbishopric or obishopping (buying for Japanese belts?) would be included. You're welcome for the current effort, but I won't be running it from time to time to keep up with it. Subsequent Wiki editors can do so, of course, and if any get overlooked, the Wiki editor who notices can just fix that one instance. The normal method of improving Wikipedia works here too. You're right, primary topic-ness can change with time. If the time comes to move Mouse to Mouse (rodent), I'm sure it will be. In this case, Primate and Primate (religion) are currently the correct nomenclature for their Wikipedia articles, since one use is the primary one. In addition to the disparity of intraWiki links for the topic, Googling "primate bishop" gets just under a tenth of the hits of "primate monkey", for example. If you disagree, you can propose the move using the WP:RM process, and see what the editorial consensus is. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Wow! This is a lesson in search engine differences. You need to subtract Wikipedia, and you'll find different numbers. Google gives me 1,750,000 for "primate monkey" and 580,000 for "primate bishop", which is 3 to 1. AltaVista gets 994,000 for "primate monkey", and 410,000 for "primate bishop", which is only 2.5 to 1. Yahoo gives 996,000 for "primate monkey" and 783,000 for "primate bishop", about 1.2 to 1!
Based on the meaningless numbers above, and the Wikipedia numbers which are now 1434 and 380 (under 4 to 1), I disagree with your POV. I am not taking this to WP:RM now, because there is no problem now. If WikiProject Primates keeps this clean, then you can keep it. If WikiProject Disambiguation needs to keep this clean, then this needs to be a disambiguation page. I'll come back some day to see how you are doing. — Randall Bart (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you'd like to engage me to do some tasks for you to "come back some day to see how [I am] doing", please contact me about my contracting rates. In the mean time, we can keep this as it is. Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation does not need to keep this clean, any more than it needs to keep all other links to primary topics clean. That's up to the Wikipedia editorship as a whole, since any editor can introduce an incorrect link to any article. And part of the tools at our disposal is the WP:RM process. The only part of this that is my POV is the assumption that a Request Move of Primate to Primate (biology) would not meet with consensus. -- JHunterJ 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes

I have added two more quotes (Milner's and Hooton's). Vasconicus 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Primates

Dear Proteuontologists (this funny word would be the purist Greek word for our discipline if we wanted to avoid the Latin-Greek hybrid "primatologists"), I suggest we try to create an article with the tittle "Fossil Primates", where the classification of the direct ancestors of all current Primate families appear. It is impossible to be up to date with new findings, published in too many revues. We could use this discussion page to keep each other informed about the advances of Primatology/Proteuontology. We have been able to do so with living species. It might be time to do the same with extinct ones. Thank you for your help in advance. Vasconicus (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This is not the place for such discussion. You want Wikipedia:WikiProject Primates. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor change I would make to the physical description:

In the fifth sentence of the physical description section I would suggest changing a single word to make the sentence a bit more clear.

I would change the part where it says "short fingernails" to "flat fingernails". I just think it's a bit more clear in the way it differentiates their nails from claws.

Anyone opposed to this change? DDRaver (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but my fingernails aren't flat. They are curved. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blainville

I have corrected some wrong information about Ducrotay de Blainville in the second paragraph and I have added some important references. Vasconicus (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you perhaps also add something about the contents of Gravigrada and Pachyderma, as both taxa appear to be quite a bit out of date? Ucucha 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's relevant here. Perhaps on an article about the history of the Linnaean classification system? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps it might be an idea to create a list of outdated higher taxa, so that we can have a place where things like Linnaeus' Bestiae are defined (which are important for taxonomic history), but without having articles about them, which would mostly be quite short. Ucucha 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That would be nifty! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for encouraging me. It took me ages to find the article by Blainville. By the way, does anybody know why "Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville" appears in red? It should be appear in blue as there is an internal link for it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Marie_Ducrotay_de_Blainville).

The article I've got is only an outline of his main work, Ostéographie ou description iconographique comparée du squelette et du système dentaire des mammifères récents et fossiles (1839-64), where further information about Gravigrada and Pachyderma must be given. I agree with you that we should study in depth the history of the Linnaean classification system, including stones (Lapides), fungi (Regnum Chaoticum) and diseases (Morbi), which are not known at all. Thank you again. Vasconicus (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

It is red because your link has a hyphen and the article doesn't. I've made your link a redirect to the article. In the meantime, let's start a list of defunct taxa. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've competed the title of the revue where Blainville's article was published, which is Annales Françaises et Etrangères d’Anatomie et de Physiologie Appliquées à la Médicine et à l’Histoire Naturelle"88.2.148.216 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC). Sorry for the inconvenience.

Pachydermata

In English is Pachydermata, not Pachyderma (sorry, I was translating from French). Please, correct it in all articles. Vasconicus (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)