Talk:Crab-eating Macaque

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.

FYI, there sure ain't much on this fella out there in internet land. All I can find is lots of neuroscience experiments, and this: [1].

[edit] Common Name

Someone recently made an article-wide change of the common name of M. fascicularis from "Crab-eating Macaque" to "Long-tailed Macaque". Both names are equally good; however, until the name of the article changes from "crab" to "long-tailed", we should keep the naming consistent. Arjuna 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I recently spoke with Webster-Merriam about the use of common names for M. fascicularis. Crab-eating macaque is the least commonly used of it names. Also, in all of the subspecies listed in the article, they are all named a form of long-tailed macaque, except the M. fascicularis fascularis which is label crab-eating. Why this inconsistency. I suggest using long-tailed macaque through the article and as the main heading, if that can be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs) .

It has been recently re-stated that long-tailed macaques are documented as a serious source of extinction pressure on other animals in non-native ranges. Please cite your references. I have read reports where studies have shown these macaques are not as great of an extinction pest as common sentiment usually suggests (see Sussman and Tattersall, 1986 for Mauritius). For example, before the wiki page said the l.t. macaque was responsible for the extinction of the dodo bird. An entirely erroneous unbacked statement. Humans destroyed the dodo bird, not macaques, and humans are destroying most of the other species people are now targeting l.t. macaques as a cause of. Another example, is the birds of paradise in Irian Jaya. It is now claimed by some conservationists that macaques are the major pressure to their extinction, although thousands of people in Indonesia have stuffed birds of paradise in their homes, trade them as pets, and are destroying habitat. Macaques may eat some of their eggs. What is the greater extinction threat, humans or macaques? It is possilby a compounded effect where humans have fragmented the endangered species to such an extent that now macaques have more of an impact. But humans brought the macaques there as pets and humans have compounded the problem with their own destructive practices. There are also reports that the Irian Jaya introduced macaques are anywhere between 70-70,000 in population number. A rather imprecise number, indicating a great lack of knowledge of what is really going on in some (and possibly many) of the areas where macaques have been introduced. We need scientific data before anyone can make these general claims about all non-native macaques. Each situation will more than likely be different. Would macaques have the impact they have if it weren't for the great habitat loss caused by people. We need to study this. Lots of negative things have been stated about this animal across fields, with little scientific data to back it. I am fine with that as long as the claims are cited and scientifically validated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs) .

Please sign your talk edits with 4 tildes (~~~~). "Crab-eating Macaque" is the common named preferred by Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., which claims to be an extention of previous work assigning an official common name to all mammals. None of the subspecies names are given in MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgumert, I'm sorry you seem to be rather mis-informed about the situation. There is now ample scientific documentation on the negative biodiversity impact of M. fascicularis where it is an introduced alien species, notably in Mauritius, Anggaur, and Papua. A simple Google search of "invasive macaques" yields several results linking to important papers; apparently you have not carried out this most mundane task, so you may wish to start with: http://www.issg.org/database/species/impact_info.asp?si=139&fr=1&sts= Arjuna 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title of the article to Long-tailed macaques. However, your point about which subspecies are CE versus LT is dubious, as Mirriam Webster is hardly an authoritative source on primate taxonomy. Latin names are definitive, common names are whatever people invent and use. Therefore, LT and CE macaques are common names that apply equally to any particular subspecies of M. fascicularis -- as complicated a primate taxon as they come -- and indeed is usually considered a "super-species". Arjuna 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my last comment before I read UtherSRG's message. If CE Macaque is what is used in the authoritative book he cites, then while LT is certainly not incorrect, I agree that the current use of CE macaque is better and the article title should remain unchanged. Arjuna 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

My comment on subspecies was about an inconsistency written in the wikipedia article. Why is it listed here that the main subspecies is a crab eating macaque and the rest long-tailed. All subspecies can be named long-tailed or crab-eating, why the inconsistency here. I did not cite Merriam Webster as a source of naming subspecies. I refered to Merriam Webster simply as a source of how frequently the common names are used throughout literature. Crab-eating macaque is the least commonly used common name. Please read my comments more carefully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs) .

Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. is not the end all be all of animal naming and furthermore it is not primary literature. I prefer to select my naming from the experts that study these animals in the wild, not large reviews of animals such as the work you refer to. A large amount of the primary literature written on research in the wild or on the natural history of this species uses the name long-tailed macaque. A very extensive review is by Fooden, 1995 in Fieldana:81 and this work does an good review on the sub-species. He used long-tailed macaque as the name for these animals. This is one example of many, but his work here is one of the best pieces of natural history work on this animal. Many of the people that have contributed to a large part of our understanding of these animals in the wild use the name long-tailed macaque. These include Bruce Wheatley, Antje Engelhardt, Augustin Fuentes, Fillipo Aureli, de Ruiter, Palombit, van Noordwijk, van Schaik, to name just a handful. My interest in standardizing the common name is simply to begin better standardizing how we refer to this animal and to do this why don't we select the common name from the several used that is the more accurate description of the organism. Long-tailed macaque is a better general referant, than crab-eater, which more refers to the cultural developments of the few populations that do eat crabs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs) .

MSW3 is the book we are using to update many of the mammal articles, and provides a single conssitent source of information. It is much preferred to use one set of consistent data, and explain the discrepancies from there, than it is to accumulate the various works and try to make something consistent and explain why it isn't. Plus, the "make something work" borders on original research, something to be avoided on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see the value of a standardized source like MSW3 in guiding the layout of information here, but I do think one benefit here at wikipedia is that we can pull from numerous sources to reach an educated decision about what is included in this wiki article. I don't think pointing out that long-tailed macaque is a more commonly used term than crab-eating throughout the literature (esp among field work) or making a case that it is a better description of the organism as a whole (when comparing these two terms) is anything close to original research. It is an encyplodedic issue, trying our best to document what has been conveyed in the literature. My concern with basing what we state here on one other encyplodic sourse is that now this becomes a third level source of information, and why add it if you just repeat what is in MSW3, someone could just go to that source. We can do better. I think we already have, as the article is more informative now than before we started discussion. Mgumert 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threats

Arjuna, thank you for your concern of my mis-information. I have read alot on the subject but I admit I can always learn more. I ran your search and opened the first hit. http:// www.indopacific.org/macaca.asp. Here they discuss a report on New Guinea. They have identified that there are 6 troops of macaaques in New Guinea. That is a small population. Some conservationists have tried to argue to me that there are 70,000 macaques on the island, and I just very much dislike such overemphasis and alarm on these issues and simply seek to stop those kind of statements from happening. It is why I want fair explanations in places like this wikipedia blog. Many people overescalate the problem and it is largely because people look at reports like this and don't pass on the information the data really shows. Rather they just blankedly state fascicularis is a serious extinction threat in non-native habitats. If there are only six troops on new guinea, it is not a serious extinction threat. Additionally, the problem is compounded by the fact humans have isolated these forest areas, and this is probably what really makes the macaque become damaging. Furthermore, they have no baseline data before the macaques were there, which is a confound in their results. Aside from that, the report says the likelihood of them getting out of their isolated forest "islands" is small, although over the long-term they maybe could start to colonize other areas. Therefore, this particular case is not a big threat. Keep the problem contained, remove the monkeys, the threat of this problem is removed Mgumert 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgmert, if people tried to convince you there were that many macaques on the island then they were mis-informed and would have benefited from reading the IPCA report to establish the facts. The reality of the threat from alien invasive M. fascicularis to native fauna is serious enough to not require exaggeration. I think if you read the report carefully yourself, however, the picture that is presented is not nearly as optimistic as you seem to think. First of all, your use of the term "extinction threat" is not used in the scientific community as it is a bit melodramatic and imprecise; "biodiversity threat" is more commonly used and gets the point across. Extinction is not a term usually bandied about until a particular species is truly nearing such a threshold, by which time it is often too late. So using the term "extinction threat" is a strawman argument. No, the IPCA report does not say that because that term is not a useful tool in understanding the role of the species in New Guinea. If you have read the report in its entirety, the report makes a very clear and scientifically sound documentation of the threat to native species by macaques. The facilitation of this threat by human agency (creating new potential habitat by degrading adjacent forest areas) is important, but you are missing the point: those forests and the species within them have the capacity to recover as long as no additional pressures (viz. macaques) are introduced, and secondary forest creates a new vector for further macaque colonization of new areas. This is precisely why the New Guinea macaques ARE a very serious biodiversity threat. As to whether the lack of baseline (pre-macaque arrival) data compromises results, the answer is no. Obviously it would be ideal in any situation to have a strong baseline, but for most areas of the world outside of Europe and the U.S. it does usually not exist --this is particularly so in New Guinea. Fortunately, then, it is not scientifically required since a hypothesis can be tested with alternative methods. The report authors carried out "double-blind" survey tests of four forest habitat plots, with and without macaques, in both secondary and primary (a proxy for pre-macaque baseline data) forests. Their results were robust (i.e. statistically significant) that macaques negataively impact the native fauna. Case closed. Hope this helps. Arjuna 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna, a biodiversity threat means loss of biodiversity and is thus an extinction threat in either a local or broad sense. The use of terms here to convey our points is trivial, other than for the melodramatic tone you mention. Which is exactly my point against your position. You accuse my terminology as being overemphasized by using extinction threat. Well, saying 6 macaque groups is a very serious biodiversity threat is overemphasizing their true impact on New Guinea. This is a quote from the IPCA report "Populations of introduced Macaca fascicularis in Papua are currently limited to a relatively small area in the immediate Jayapura/Kotaraja area in far the northwestern part of the province. There are approximately 60 individual macaques, in six different troops, all more or less in the same general vicinity south of Jayapura city" It is from the impact of this report that the one conservationist I mentioned stated there are 70,000 macaques and that macaques are taking over papua. So this paper has had a negative impact on others in important conservation roles .I agree he should have read the report more thoroughly, but that fact is so many won't be reading it, they don't have time, and they take the basic message and exxagerate it greatly as they get it from secondary sources. Therefore, my point is people in your role, who mediate the information that comes from primary to layment sources, needs to be aware of this affect when you state as a major point on a small info page, that they are a "very serious" biodiversity threat. You are loading the statement from your perspective. You need to say, some groups have provided evidence, or it is possible they are a threat. In the report they fairly lay out alternative arguments, yet you choose not to investigate those sides more. All scientific data is based in the principle of falsifiability and thus no sceintific work proves anything in the philosophical sense. Anyway and more important, one macaque group lives in a range of appox 0.3-1.9km2. If there are six groups, this covers at most 12 km2. How can that be a major threat currently to papua new guinea biodiversity in general. How, just think about, even if they could destroy every animal in their home range they have only altered this small area. Yes, it is a problem, I am not aguing that they have no influence on biodiversity loss and I also think they should be removed in non-native ranges where they do lower diversity. But, I am speaking about the level to witch we claim they are changing biodiversity in general. The Papua macaque problem is comparative to a spill. I am confident with the attention to this issue, we will clean up the spill, but we don't need to overemphasize the overall threat to achieve this end. When a macaque becomes a brown-tree snake and it is truly documented as the primary cause of the extinction of any animal, only then will I agree they belong on the top 100 list of invasives. This will have to be something I take up elsewhere and in other circles though. Not in wikipedia, but I do appreciate your conversation on the subject. This issue is far from closed.Mgumert 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgmert, well, we see the issue differently. First of all, however, I already made my point about terminology, so that is a dead letter as far as I'm concerned, and hopefully on that we can agree. Second, we need to put another issue to rest: if someone has glanced at the IPCA report and come away with the notion that there are 70,000 macaques "taking over Papua", then they are not credible and should be either advised appropriately or discounted. That they have chosen to remain ill-informed is unfortunate but doesn't change the fact that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk. Why you have trouble acknowledging what the report indicates is quite baffling; because they are not immediately causing extinction in isolation from other factors such as deforestation, etc. simply makes no sense whatsoever. The threat that the IPCA report documents is not simply that regarding their immediate presence in the Jayapura area, but the fact that they are highly ecologically adaptable and thus have the potential to colonize adjacent forests at any time, at which point their impact becomes far greater and the problem un-manageable. By any definition, this is a "very serious" risk, as is acknowledged by the report's statement that "Given the probable consequences of the [Jayapura] macaques becoming invasive, immediate implementation of...a program to mitigate the above mentioned threats is therefore of the highest priority." (p. 7) How this can be read in any way other than that the report concludes that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk is completely inexplicable. The only such examples I know of similar mis-readings of the conclusions in a scientific report are those found in the Bush White House regarding climate change. You're certainly welcome to provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise, I wish you good luck in convincing credible scientists that macaques are something other than a very serious biodiversity risk in areas where they are non-native species. Arjuna 21:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna: On the very first page of the report it states the main conclusion of the study. "Macaca fascicularis as an alien and potentially invasive species in New Guinea". So yes, they are documented as a potentially invasive species, we should stop them in areas where they are a potential and we have the capability to do something, like new guinea. We agree on this issue. But, more work needs to be done especially on the historical claims they make in the report (they reinvent history in some cases, and I am less convinced by those arguments). I also think they are a bit guilty of overemphasizing things and failing to emphasize others in some instances, which is common in conservation groups' literature b/c they have an agenda. For our purposes, using terms like "very serious" have no place in an encyplodia. Readers make those decisions on their own. The Bush White house is also notorious for making big ordeals from small potentials, although I don't think discussions of Bush really fit into our topic of discussion here, nor am I ignoring fascicularis's danger as an alien, like Bush does with climate. All in all, I think the article reads better now, but can improve. It doesn't have the loaded terms. I have also added this issue to the spot where it is most appropriate, in the conservation section. I don't know if we need to dedicate a whole paragraph do this isue though in the general summary, and restate it again in the diet, as it makes the article read that this is all the animal is, an invasive. 95+% of them are not. Lets introduce it in the beginning in a sentence, and discuss it mainly in the conservation section. There is alot more to this animal than its role as an invasive and that's why I put up this big argument against it. I think it is overemphasized. If makes us overlook so many other aspects of this organism, which are also important to an encyclopedia reader. Can we work to incorporate some more positives of this animal in the article. For example, we give no real info on significant contributions the animal has made to research knowledge, in medical and other fields. We only state they are used. Also - nothing on the social life, cognition, or behavior. Also interesting. Mgumert 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgumert, that sounds generally reasonable. I agree that the invasive discussion could (mostly) go into another section (some mention, as with its role in research etc. should go in the intro however), since it is quite reasonable -- even necessary -- as you point out, to discuss the species in its other contexts. In terms of the invasive discussion, we still disagree on how to characterize the degree of threat, but for now let's go back and forth on how to improve the article more generally. On an unrelated note, please remember to "sign" your name by adding four "~"s at the end of your talk contribution. Cheers. Arjuna 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna. Sorry, I always forget to sign my name. It seems we are moving in the right direction. Oh and I have wanted to ask basd on your name - Apakah anda orang Indonesia, gak? I think the issue on invasiveness is a pretty hot debate in those interested in fascicularis and conservation in Indonesia and SE asia. So I think our debate represents that well. best. Mgumert 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgumert, agreed -- I think I understand where you're coming from better now. Nggak, aku orang bule tapi udah lama di Indonesia, dan suka ceritera Mahabarata aja. Cheers, Arjuna 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)