Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/Archive Nov 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Taxonomy lists 2 Lemurs, Lemuridae, Lemur 3 Platyrrhini 3.1 Groves 4 Prehensile tails 5 Taxoboxes 6 Taxobox 7 Neanderthal 8 MW 1.3 taxobox templates 9 Chimpanzee 10 Hominoid taxonomy 11 Prosimian vs Strepsirrhini

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)).

• Superfamily Platyrrhini
  • Family Cebidae:
    • Subfamily Callitrichinae:
      • Genus Callithrix
      • Genus Cebuella
      • Genus Leontopithecus
      • Genus Saguinus
      • Genus Callimico
    • Subfamily Cebinae:
      • Genus Cebus
      • Genus Saimiri
  • Family Atelidae:
    • Subfamily Atelinae:
      • Genus Ateles
      • Genus Brachyteles
      • Genus Lagothrix
      • Genus Alouatta
    • Subfamily Pithecinae:
      • Genus Pithecia
      • Genus Chiropetes
      • Genus Cacajoa
      • Genus Aotus
      • Genus Callicebus

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:

• Superfamily Platyrrhini
  • Family Cebidae:
    • Subfamily Hapalinae: (was Callitrichinae)
      • Genus Callithrix
        • Subgenus Callithrix
        • Subgenus Mico
        • Subgenus Cebuella (was a Genus)
      • Genus Leontopithecus
      • Genus Saguinus
      • Genus Callimico
    • Subfamily Cebinae:
      • Genus Cebus
    • Subfamily Chrysotrichinae: (syn Saimirinae)
      • Genus Saimiri
  • Family Nyctipithecidae: (syn Aotidae)
    • Genus Aotus
  • Family Pitheciidae:
    • Subfamily Pithecinae:
      • Genus Pithecia
      • Genus Chiropotes
      • Genus Cacajao
    • Subfamily Callicebinae:
      • Genus Callicebus
  • Family Atelidae:
    • Subfamily Mycetinae: (syn Alouatinae)
      • Genus Alouatta
    • Subfamily Atelinae:
      • Genus Ateles
      • Genus Brachyteles
      • Genus Lagothrix
      • Genus Oreonax

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)