Talk:Lemur/Archive 1

Archive 1

Migration to Madagascar

I hope this clears up a few things below: It is generally agreed upon now that around 46-53 million years ago, a founding group of lemurs, most likely similar to those in the family Cheirogaleidae, made its way across the Mozambique Channel on a large raft of floating vegetation. There are in fact close relatives to lemurs on the mainland of Africa - take a close look at a picture of a mouse lemur next to a photo of a bushbaby and you will see the similarities. --Brownlemur 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the following statement:

They made their way across the ocean after the island [Madagascar] broke away from the continent of Africa.

My understanding is that the lemurs were "marooned" on Madagascar when it separated from the continent. The above seems wildly implausible. However, I don't have time to check either way, so I have just moved this bit over here till someone can clarify. seglea 15:45, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I believe you are correct. If they had not been marooned here by the continental separation (if they had gotten there some other way after separation) they would likely have descendant families on the mainland. - UtherSRG 17:08, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Wandering nobody wandering in to say that, implausible as it sounds, scientists have pegged the separation of Madagascar from what is now the African continent at about 160 million years ago, and lemurs do not appear in the fossil record for another hundred million years, contradicting (in the views of many scientists) the concept that they were geographically isolated by the division of Madagascar. I really have no idea how they got over there, if this is true, but it seems relatively widespread and well-supported.170.125.233.5 19:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

This is supported by [1] which states that they were outcompeted on the mainland by monkeys and apes. Cnoocy 22:01, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Execellent. Add something to the article! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it highly unlikely that the lemurs made their way after the continental setaration, considering the fact that lemurs are afraid of water and wouldn't even try to jump a 30 foot gap of water. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.92.177.45 (talk • contribs) .

You're assuming that the migration was intentional. a fierce storm coud have caused a family of an ancestral species to be stranded on a log. The log drifts to Madagascar from the mainland, and the beginings of speciation begins. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

food

What do they eat? - 80.200.140.63

I've added some dietary information. - UtherSRG 12:48, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Most eat plants, but the smaller nocturnal ones eat insects. Dora Nichov 02:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancient Species?

I had a first grader tell me that "Lemurs were alive during the late cretaceous period, the same era as the Tyranosaurus Rex." I found this: "The first lemur-like primates on the fossil record appeared roughly 60 million years ago and crossed over to Madagascar shortly thereafter." at wildmadagascar.org. Aside from the 'crossing over' part, which I agree is highly unlikely, does the timeline seem accurate? was 60 million years ago the Late Cretaceous Period? Were T-rexs roaming the land with Lemurs? Has the teacher once again been taught by the child? 71.56.212.52 18:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC) Laura

No. The Cretaceous Period lasted until about 65 MYA, ending at the Paleocene epoch. The first lemurs appear at about 50 MYA, in the early Eocene. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lemur Hunting

This is an intersting point that is hardly brought up about the devestation of lemurs. Lemurs are largely hunted because of fear. They are not hunted for fur or food for that matter. I read about this in clipped french articles and books written in Malgache. The more culturally modern Madagascar citizen recognizes and appreciates the relatively harmless and unique lemur. Can anyone can help me document this statement?

"In some remote areas of Madagascar, the cultural motivation behind posting lemur hunting traps are that of indigenous superstition that lemurs are omens and harbingers of bad fortune. This hindsight is commonly inspired by the lemur's unique features."

-ConradKilroy 16:21, 03 DEC 2005

Actually, many lemurs are indeed hunted for food. More common species such as brown lemurs are eaten on the east coast of the island, and large-bodied Indriids such as sifakas and indri are also eaten. For evidence of this see Mittermeier et al. (1994, 2006) and Golden (2005). Or go to the island and see for yourself!--Brownlemur 20:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Opposable Thumbs

As this isn't a homework question. I am genuinely curious, out of pure curiousity. Hopefully this time I will not sound like a fifth grader with a homework assignment. I aslo believe that it would be interesting if Lemurs do have thumbs, and even more so if they have an opposable thumb like appendage.

So, I wonder, and I ask: do lemurs have opposable thumbs, semi-opposable thumbs, thumb-pads, or any other feature which could conceivably be part of the evolutionary process win developing a thumb-like appendage.

Thanks,
Luke --71.192.117.127 00:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question. According to everything I could find, their thumbs are fully opposable. --PrePressChris 19:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Lemur cognition

In a quest to improve this article, I think a section on lemur cognition would be nice to have. I know a lot of research has come out of the Duke university Lemur center. Does anyone want to help me with a cognition section? This article could be a good starting point on where to look for studies because it gives an overview of various findings. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2004-05/du-ers051204.php Sifaka ^talk 04:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Photo

Ooh! My photo taken with the Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS USM ($7,000) with a Canon 5D ($2750) was not good enough for the taxobox. Yet again, what is? Well, I guess I will settle for the gallery photo. 1DmkIIN 05:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I think your picture is wonderful. The resolution and posture is excellent. I think the reason why the current picture in the taxobox is being used is because it better illustrates the lemur's physiology, with the hands, feet, and tail visible. 71.226.56.79 21:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol it's fine. I guess I was being a little over protective of my photo. No, the one we have for the taxobox is fine. I can see now why the one for the taxobox is better. Mine is too artsy. 1DmkIIN 22:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.... this is a shot in the dark, but I'm wondering if a more artsy picture can help resolve the edit war that raged for months about the photo caption in yonder cow tipping article. It even made the "Lamest Edit Wars" list a while back (see WP:LAME#Pictures). Might you have a picture of someone actually attempting the feat? -Amatulic 23:13, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I infact don't. However, I do live in a rural suberb of San Diego. I could probally get my college buddies drunk and we could attempt it. We would probally get shot. How would I make it artsy though? Seems like a rather difficult photo to make artsy. 1DmkIIN 02:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if not artsy, then more relevant to the article than the current picture. All your buddies would need to do is strike a leaning pose against the cow as if they're attempting to tip it; "artsy" would be in the poses (for inspiration see Atlas straining to hold up the Earth, or raising the flag at Iwo Jima). I wouldn't advocate actually distressing the cow; in fact the owner will likely give permission just to pose with the cow. Anyway, I wasn't serious, and this is off topic to the Lemur article. I just pointed out cow tipping as one of the many articles that would benefit from someone actually going out and taking pictures. =Amatulic 17:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Pre mating 'stinkfighting' amongst males

Saw something about this on the zoo programme on tv. Should it be added?--TreeSmiler (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I need to make a template for this response.... If you have a verifiable and reliable source that you can cite, then yes, pleases add it. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:11, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

It was on a TV programme about Chester Zoo and the Head Keeper (of mammals?) said it. Is that a RS?--TreeSmiler (talk) 23:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

How about you read about reliable sources. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

All primates lemurs

Aren't all primates lemurs according to cladistics? 4.235.120.108 (talk) 17:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

No. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Age

I long does a lemur live in the wild? Does it depend on the species? --Midasminus (talk) 12:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it depends upon species. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Female Dominance Discussion

I'm not sure why the discussion of the lemur's female dominance requires an introductory paragraph discussing the theory of female dominance. Furthermore, isn't the line, "Therefore, male deference is a social construct and not a matter of size or strength" a violation of Wikipedia's policy of "No Original Research"? How would one even think to derive such a conclusion from "most lemurs do not exhibit sexual dimorphism"? If there were sexual dimorphism, with lemur males being larger but females were still dominant, then one might be tempted to say that dominance is not determined by size or strength. However, even in such a hypothetical case, it would still be a wild conclusion to say that it's a social construct--I would postulate that it's more likely be an instinct that's programmed into the genes of the lemurs.

I agree that the introduction for explaining female dominance seems misplaced. I hope to re-write this page sometime this year, and when I do, I promise to fix this. The problem is that the Wiki page for female dominance pertains only to sexual behavior in humans, not to the general biological phenomenon. What would help is if that page were moved and a disambiguation page were created for the term, allowing for the creation of a Female dominance (biology) page. However, the research of female dominance in biology often focuses on lemurs, so I don't see much of a problem of discussing this research on this page. We just need a more general (biology) page to refer to and some moderate re-wording on this page, IMO. Otherwise, I cleaned up the conclusion you had objections to. –Visionholder (talk) 17:21, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have moved some of the material discussed above to Dominance hierarchy#Evolution of female dominance and left a summary on this page. This was done in preparation for a major re-write that I hope to complete soon. –Visionholder (talk) 17:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The female dominance section contains the sentence: "Although several hypotheses have been proposed to explain the evolution of female dominance in the last 20 years..." The sentence is unclear. Has the female dominance evolved over the last 20 years, or have theories been proposed over that period? I think the former is the strictest interpretation, but the latter seems more likely. Could someone familiar with the subject edit the sentence to clarify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.192.43 (talk) 04:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Stuff to add

Here are some are some topics that should be added to improve the article. Sifaka ^talk 01:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
1. Social structure and group mechanics: we have female dominance but some of the other aspects could be elaborated on

• Diurnal lemurs typically live in groups, the size of which vary by species. It would be nice to have details on how social status within a group is determined or inherited. Typically the females stay while males emigrate.
• Nocturnal lemurs are typically solitary.

2. Behavior:

• Common vocalizations like the alarm call could use a mention.
• Territoriality, scent marking
• Social and grooming behavior
• Behaviors pertaining to rank within a group: i.e. who grooms who

3. Mating and Reproduction:

• Reproductive cycle
• Gestation

Average number of infants per birth (it varies by species.)

• Mate selection
• Any relevant behavior: I remember from somewhere that males may temporarily become dominant while the females are in estrus but I don't remember where I heard that detail of dubious providence.

4. Development and Lifespan

• Infants and Juveniles

How infants are cared for (typically carried around by the mother in the diurnal species, but daughters may also occasionally chip in)

Growth and development

• Mortality rate - it would be nice to have to have the mortality rate by age along with the major causes of mortality

5. Use in Research

Information from cognitive studies coming out of the Duke primate center are good sources

Biomechanics studies on lemurs

Thanks for adding this list. I was actually in the process of re-writing the article from the ground up, but had to put things on hold due to a move from the West Coast to the East Coast. Once I get unpacked, I will complete the re-write and definitely use your list as a set of guidelines. I hope to get the article to GA status in a short period of time. It's my top priority. –Visionholder (talk) 03:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Classification request

SOMEONE PLEASE ADD SOME CLASSIFICATION FACTS ON HERE, I NEED THEM REALLY BAD, GO TO EDIT THIS PAGE ON TOP AND ADD SOME!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.71.68.154 (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there is some basic classification information already available. However, I am going to try again to completely re-write this page over the next 3-4 days (starting July 5, 2009), so look for some changes then. –Visionholder (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

reference and resource list

To find a paper online try plugging the title into google or google scholar. Anyone can and is encouraged to add to this list. Sifaka ^talk 02:59, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• [2] Current Topics in Primatology; Conservation of Malagasy Primates: 1997-1999. A large list of papers on various lemur topics. Probably useful if you are looking for something specific.
• [3] Reference papers nominally related to the bamboo lemur but the listings appear to be more general. It has lots of social related papers including grooming and parenting topics. I'll look at some of the specific ones listed and provide feedback.
• [4] very very nice set of fact sheets by lemur species. Note the references tab in the box below the title which will link out to sources to mine.
• [5] Links to very brief descriptions of lemurs by species
• [6] List of various projects being conducted on captive lemurs at the DULC (note it's a word document download. I tried it and no nasty malware appeared.)
• [7] (Paywall warning) An Introduction to Mating, Birthing and Rearing Systems of Nocturnal Prosimians
• [8] News article on infanticide in Lemurs. Not a technical paper.
• Lemurs By Lisa Gould, Michelle L. Sauther. I saw it via google books here. Seems to be good, so it might be worthwhile to see if it lives a library somewhere. [9]
• [10] sound clips of lemur vocalizations. May not have suitable licensing. Perhaps someone should check?
• [11] Lemur Conservation Foundation, gives a general overview of issues facing lemur conservation. Also has species specific info.
• Primate Anatomy an Introduction By Friderun Ankel-Simons. I'm pretty sure I read this one at one point and if I remember was pretty accessible. Has lemur specific information. google preview

Primate Behavioral Ecology by Karen B. Strier. While not specific to lemurs (it does have some lemur specific information) it is an extremely accessible and easy to read book which introduces important topics regarding primates, like their behaviors, social groups, reproductive strategies, etc. Basically it will give a very good outline of the kinds of topics that should be on the lemur page.

Images which which may be safe to use since they are old 1920's era plates, but I'm not sure. May require asking at one of the desks:

• Skeleton of Propithecus verreauxi
• Comparison of right femur of lemur sp. with other primates
• Comparison of modern lemur pelvis with extinct Notharctus

Re-write coming soon!

Just to give everyone a heads-up, a complete re-write of this article is in the works, and I hope to complete it within a couple of weeks... hopefully no later than the end of August in a worst-case scenario. With what I've completed (offline) so far, the page will be very detailed and large. It may even need to be broken up, but I will try to avoid that. If you have questions, concerns, or suggested sources, please post to this talk page. Admittedly, I have been working 6 to 7 days a week lately, plus I have 1 article up for FAC, 1 list up for FLC, and 1 article up for GAC, so progress may be a little slow. However, I will complete this ASAP! This article has needed a re-write for far too long. –Visionholder (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to apologize for the delays, in case anyone is watching this page in anticipation of a major re-write. Aside from my very busy work/volunteer schedule, the re-write has been delayed by the sheer volume of material I am accumulating and processing. What I had thought would simply be a lengthy article on lemurs may end up being a major topic, a series of lengthy articles discussing lemur evolution, lemur research, lemur conservation, lemur ecology, and possibly more. If this happens, the article Lemur will become a summary of these other large articles... just as List of lemur species is considered the main article for the "Classification" section (although the summaries will be much, much better). With all of this said, please expect the re-write to take over a month. I sincerely hope to publish it before I leave for Madagascar in October, but if I miss even that worst-case scenario, I promise to do everything I can to finish the work and publish it after I return in January. Please be patient—the wait will be worth it! –Visionholder (talk) 06:50, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The re-write is still coming, although publication before my 3-month Madagascar trip is looking dimmer and dimmer, despite that I took 3 days off of work and volunteering to work on it this week. The good news is that I'm done combing through tens of thousands of pages of lemur research and books, most of my 50 to 100 references are written up, and I hope to have all of my notes organized either tonight or within a few weeks. At that point, the writing can begin, and it is likely to result in not only a new and improved Lemur article, but possibly entirely new, high-quality articles on Subfossil lemurs, Lemur ecology, Lemur anatomy, and more. In other words, I have an entire feature-quality topic in production. So, again, please be patient and you will see the end result in the not-to-distant future. –Visionholder (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The new Lemur article is still a work-in-progress, and I will be leaving in 3 days to do some volunteer work in Madagascar for the next 3 months. Sorry for the delays, but I promise to resume the work (stored offline) upon my return. For further updates on this and other lemur article re-writes, visit my user page. Again, look for the re-write to be published here in January or February 2010. –Visionholder (talk) 12:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay... I'm back from Madagascar. It will probably take me a day or two to sort through my notes and get settled back in, but the re-write work will resume immediately. Although I cannot make any promises, I tentatively hope to publish the re-write for this page, as well as the 7 other related articles, around the end of January or early February. If anyone has any questions or concerns, please post them here or on my talk page. As always, the latest on the updates can be found here. –Visionholder (talk) 01:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As always, I apologize, but the publication date for the re-write of this article (soon to be a featured topic) has been pushed back again, this time to late March, largely due to a 2-week detour that led me to write the new and highly important article Illegal logging in Madagascar (originally intended to be part of the Lemur conservation summary page. The 7 summary pages involve a lot of writing, and so far I am averaging about 1 summary page per 1–2 weeks. (It also doesn't help that I'm quitting my restaurant job and need to go job hunting...) Therefore, late March is still an optimistic deadline. The good news is that the new page is not being delayed due to lack of work. Instead, it's being delayed due to extensive work... which, of course, translates into an even higher-quality article in the end. As always, if you want to track the progress of this re-write, please visit my user page. Thanks for your patience! – VisionHolder « talk » 15:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-write complete

The much-needed and long-awaited re-write has been finished. It still needs a good copy-edit and general review, but otherwise it offers a significant improvement over what came before. For anyone anticipating this re-write, I apologize for the delay. I sincerely hope the nearly 8-month wait was worth it. As for the summary pages I promised, one will be published in a day or two, and the others will be written over the coming months. To break up the monotony, I plan to intersperse them between several other lemur page re-writes. As always, watch my user page for details and updates. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Nice job visionholder. Massive improvement. It looks lovely. 152.16.15.144 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lemur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Ucucha 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have claimed this review, although I perhaps won't have much time to devote to it over the next few days. I think the article probably already technically meets the GA criteria, but I imagine you wouldn't mind a more thorough review. Something to start with:

• Existing high-level taxon FAs like antbird and bird start differently; I think a lead sentence like "Lemurs (pron. ...) are an infraorder of strepsirrhine primates endemic to the island of Madagascar." might work better.

Ucucha 11:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I will look into fixing the lead sentence. And don't feel rushed. I do want a thorough review, but please limit comments regarding section lengths and quantity of material included unless it pertains to the GA requirements. Once I publish Lemur evolution and diversification in a couple of days, you may go between the two articles and help me sort out where the material in that section should go. The other summary pages will take longer, and consequently, I will not submit this article for FA until they have all been published (so that we know how to divide the information). Anyway, thanks for jumping on this so quickly! – VisionHolder « talk » 11:51, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Good. GA criterion 3b does say that articles should not go into unnecessary detail, which would be the thing I'm concerned about, but I understand that it's better to first get the other articles done before considering that. Ucucha 11:56, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Lead

I just looked at the lead sentence, and I don't see why it would need to change. Its structure mostly matches of that the lead sentence of Primate, and it enables me to mention both prosimian and strepsirrhine, the two most common terms used to describe them. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It now reads "A lemur ... is endemic to the island of Madagascar", which seems ungrammatical. Also, I think it is best to avoid the vague word "type", which does not add any meaning, and I doubt whether it's good to immediately burden the reader with the two technical terms "prosimian" and "strepsirrhine"—besides, "prosimian" is basically obsolete. Ucucha 15:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• "instead, they merely share"—unclear what the "they" refers to
• "Lemurs share many basic primate traits,"—do you mean "basal"?
• dormancy—perhaps good to explain this, as to many people "exhibit dormancy" may just sound like a fancy way to say "sleep"
• You could add the "Diversity" parameter to the taxobox, with a link to List of lemur species.

Changes have been made to the lead. Also, I'm not sure if it's fair to say that the term prosimian is obsolete. There are quite a few primatologists that still use the term, and I know that it's used more than "strepsirrhine" at the Duke Lemur Center. It depends on what traits you're looking at and what makes the most sense in terms of grouping. Personally, I'm holding out for the day when a 3-way classification system is used instead. But anyway, let me know if I've messed anything up. I'm sleepy and need to do any further work in the morning. – VisionHolder « talk » 01:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good now, thanks. No rush.

"Prosimian" is obsolete as a formal taxonomic term, I think—it clearly refers to a paraphyletic group. However, it will probably persist as an informal term. Ucucha 01:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

• The text on the origin of the term "lemures" is interesting, but is it relevant to this article?
• "Carl Linnaeus, the founder of modern binomial nomenclature, is credited with giving lemurs their name in 1758 in the 10th edition of Systema Naturae,"—you can't really cite MSW 3 for this; it only says that the genus name Lemur was given by Linnaeus in 1758, not that the term "lemur" was first applied to lemurs by him.
• So "lemur" was first applied to lorises, not lemurs? Could that be expanded on a little?

Just a few quick things on this one, and then I have to get some sleep. Is the "lemures" stuff relevant to the article? I've debated this one. The reason why I originally included it is because occasionally the idea that lemurs gained their name from Remus will pop up in the lemur literature. The material probably best belong on the Lemuria (festival) article, but I would have to work things in the section such that Lemuria (festival) is linked so that people have a reasonable chance of noticing that information. As for the third point, another editor and I tried to see if Linnaeus mentioned explicitly why he gave lemurs their name in the 1758 (10th) edition, but the 1754 edition was the only one available on Google Books. All the lemur sources only mention the 1758 edition, yet we were surprised to see that the 1754 edition had a lemur genus. I stopped there because it was reaching that blurry line of OR. The short answer is "I don't know" and maybe that part of the sentence should just be swept under the rug (deleted). I might try writing to Groves and see if he can explain it. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay... correction. We found "Lemur" in an older edition than the 10th, but also Tattersall's book stated the following: "The genus name ("Lemur") goes back at least to 1754, when in his catalog of the Museum of King Adolf Frederick he published an account of Lemur tardigradus". I believe the "he" was Linnaeus. That's all I have, and I no longer have access to the book. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The reason is of course that zoological nomenclature only goes back to 1758, so people are usually not too much interested in what came before that. There is a booklet by Groves about the history of primatology: perhaps that can help? You might also want to mention that the colugo was originally Lemur volans. Ucucha 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If you have sources for this and can help me flesh this section out, post the details on my talk page. I have work all day today, but should have time to work on all of this tonight and tomorrow morning. Again, thanks a million for all your help and beautiful copy-editing! – VisionHolder « talk » 12:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The 1758 edition is online here. I'll try to find some more sources. Ucucha 12:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The timeline is most likely:

• 1754: Linnaeus uses Lemur tardigradus for the slender loris
• 1758: Linnaeus uses Lemur as a genus in Syst. Nat. 10, with as species Lemur catta, Lemur tardigradus, and Lemur volans (colugo).
• Post-1758: Lemur gets restricted to Malagasy species.

Unfortunately, it's hard to find a source for that. Ucucha 22:38, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is as far as we can go. With your copyedit, is it safe to say this is done? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I think the current section is inaccurate in some respects. I found Linnaeus 1754 here, where he refers to a loris from Ceylon. He also gives an etymology: "Lemures dixi hos, quod noctu imprimis obambulant, hominibus quodammodo similes, & lento passu vagantur." ("I call these Lemurs, because they wander around mainly by night, similar in a way to humans, and they wander with a flexible gait."—but don't trust my Latin too much) So Linnaeus originally didn't assign the name to lemurs, but to lorises. I'm not entirely sure what is the best way to handle this without going off into OR, though. Ucucha 23:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Evolutionary history

• Couldn't the subarticle just be called "Lemur evolutionary history"? I think diversification is part of evolutionary history.
• Is there a reason you have miles first in the width of the Mozambique Channel? (I took out the longest width, because it's the minimum width that's most relevant for the rafting.)
• Does Darwinius really need to be mentioned? It's not a lemur, and its mention does not really advance our understanding of lemur evolution.
• "their diversity has helped define them"—can't really see what this means
• "particularly in the rainforests of the east coast"—does this mean the relationship between floral diversity and precipitation on the one hand and lemur diversity on the other hand is particularly strong on the east coast?
• Not quite happy with the "Subfossil lemurs" paragraph, particularly the second sentence—I'll come back to this
• "From a taxonomic standpoint, the term "lemur" refers only to the genus Lemur, which contains only the Ring-tailed Lemur."—I highly doubt that anyone would use "lemur" to mean only Lemur (which is a different term).
• "However, many anthropologists have refused to accept that the Malagasy cheirogaleids are more closely related to lemurs than to the Afro-Asian lorisiforms, based solely on a morphological hypothesis that lacks genetic support."—doesn't sound neutral
• "According to the leading taxonomic authorities,"—do you have a citation for this?
• Might want to mention somewhere that the classification of subfossil lemurs is now also based on genetic data.
• There have been supposed lemurs described from outside Madagascar, such as Bugtilemur (doi:10.1126/science.1065257); should probably be mentioned. Ucucha 12:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I've attempted to address most of the issues above. Those that haven't been will be addressed here. The mention of Darwinius illustrates the common misunderstanding discussed previously in that same paragraph. You're right—it's not a lemur. However, the media portrayed it as a "missing link" between lemurs and humans. For that reason, I feel it deserves a brief mention to help bring the lesser-informed (who may not know anything else about primate evolution) up to speed for the rest of the section. Additionally, both your 8th and last points are linked. I've abbreviated the non-neutral statement to a general statement without details. This avoids giving undue weight to a minority view, which is explored in more detail in the summary article, Lemur evolutionary history. And, yes, Karanisia and Bugtilemur are mentioned there. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I can see your point with regard to Darwinius, but I think that clarification is already adequately achieved by the first few sentences of the paragraph. The mention of Darwinius, in my view, gives undue weight to a recent event. I would argue the opposite way with regard to Bugtilemur and co. There have been many fossils from outside Madagascar classified as lemurs, and a paper pushing that was published in Science as recently as 2001, so I don't think completely glossing over that in this summary article is justified. Perhaps you could add a sentence (appropriately cited) like "Several Paleogene fossil primates from outside Madagascar, such as Bugtilemur, have been classified as lemurs, but the current scientific consensus does not accept these assignments." Ucucha 15:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Consider getting rid of the sub-subheaders; they are unnecessary as the sections are relatively short and look organizationally odd. Ucucha 15:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sub-subheaders deleted, statement about Darwinius removed, and Asian lemur controversy addressed. I previously added the note about subfossil lemurs and the genetic studies. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anatomy and physiology

• I would avoid using a list like this that breaks up the article text.
• Also, lots of unexplained technical terms (vomeronasal organ, orbits, symphysis
• "Lemurs are the most diverse group of primates"—this is meaningless without a precise definition of "diverse"
• "The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur (Allocebus trichotis) reportedly has a very long tongue,"—why "reportedly"?
• "The Aye-aye has evolved some of the most unique traits in primates, making it the most unusual lemur—and possibly one of the strangest mammals."—the string of superlatives here seems a bit unencyclopedic. Also, "most unique" is impossible.
• I would try to make the dental formula tables a bit smaller.
• Subsection "Morphology" seems misnamed, since the other pieces of the description are also morphology.

Again, most points have been addressed to the best of my ability. The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur tongue statement says "reportedly" because that's more-or-less what the source says. In the case of this species, they are so incredibly rare that most dedicated researchers never see them. Consequently, the species has not been studied much and is poorly understood. Maybe there's something new about it in the recent literature... As for the "Morphology" subsection, I'm up for naming suggestions. I've considered "Sexual dimorphism and cryptic species" as well as just merging it back under the general discussion for "Anatomy and physiology". – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The subsection basically unites two unrelated subjects and so I think you should follow your second suggestion. Why does dentition get its own subsection, while other aspects of morphology, such as skull morphology or fur coloration, do not? Ucucha 16:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sections merged. I gave dentition its own section because there is so much more information about it in regards to evolution, ecology, and development. As for the reduced dentition table, I like the attempt, but I'm not happy with how the template generates a white background. (Also, #FFDEAD is not yellow, it's technically Navajo white. But then again, the page lists it as a shade of yellow. Hmmm... I hate describing colors with words.) – VisionHolder « talk » 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:COLOR, it's probably better to avoid the colors altogether. I've placed the essential information in the text; I don't think we really need to indicate the difference so emphatically in the tables. Ucucha 17:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Behavior

• "Coquerel's Giant Mouse Lemur (Mirza coquereli) is mostly frugivorous, but will consume insect secretions during the dry season."—cite
• "A common assumption in mammalogy is that small mammals must have a high-calorie, high-protein diet consisting entirely of insects (insectivory)."—is this really a common assumption? There are many exclusively herbivorous small rodents.
• In the paragraph about eating inflorescences, it is not clear what the species numbers refer to.
• "Latrine behavior can represent territorial marking and aid in interspecies signaling."—not intraspecies?
• "These dyads could have evolved to include assemblages to mother-daughter dyads capable of defending more distributed resources in a wide home range."—can't understand this sentence
• "However, since the circadian rhythm is rooted in genetics, cathemerality may be a masked form of a nocturnal rhythm."—can't see the causal relationship here
• "Sometimes these locomotor types are lumped together into two main groups of lemurs"—where do the monkey lemurs go in that case?
• "Despite a lack of synchronized mating and birth seasons across lemur species, all lemur species synchronize their weaning period to match the time of highest food availability."—can't make much sense of this. The first sentence of the previous paragraph implies that the mating season is influenced by resource availability.
• " Infant survival has been shown to be directly impacted by environmental conditions as well as the rank, age, and health of the mother in some species, such as Milne-Edwards' Sifaka."—does the "in some species" refer to the entire sentence or only to the "rank, age, and health of the mother".
• "Smaller, nocturnal lemurs (such as mouse lemurs, giant mouse lemurs, and dwarf lemurs) usually give birth to more than one infant, although there are exceptions, such as fork-marked lemurs, sportive lemurs, and the Aye-aye."—sounds like there are almost as many exceptions as non-exceptions.
• Any data on lifespan in the wild?
• "and had a brain the size of some large monkeys"—rather vague. Baboons are large monkeys.
• (Caption) "The Ring-tailed Lemur will occasionally give birth to twins, particularly in captivity."—the captivity bit is not in the text and should be cited
• Latrine behavior shouldn't be under "Diet". Ucucha 17:12, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

In regards to the second issue (and I'm not contesting your point), here is the quote that I was working off of from the primate anatomy text: "It is generally believed that small bodied mammals cannot absorb sufficient amounts of calories from eating only leaves and green things, even though it has been shown that Microcebus rufus eat predominantly fruit, a finding that clearly contradicts the hypothesis that tiny primates must eat animals protein to survive." Whether or not it correctly applies to all small mammals, it has affected our understanding of small prosimian primates.

The claim in the article is much stronger: it says the common assumption is that small mammals must eat insects only, the source that they cannot eat plants only. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

As for the third issue, I don't understand how the sentence is not clear. It says, "At least 24 native species from 17 plant families are targeted." So basically, 24 native species of plant are consumed by lemurs, and these 24 species come from 17 plant families. I could change the first part to be "24 native floral species", but then it would seem redundant. Feel free to adjust as you see fit.

Is this about the nectar, pollen, inflorescences or flowers? A few sentences before you have that inflorescences from 60 families are eaten. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For the fourth issue, I'm going off the source: "It can be expected that this activity has several advantageous functions: territorial marking, improving soil quality, interspecies signaling, seed dispersal, and more, depending on habitat and species-specific behavioral variation." If we can infer that meaning from this, then I have no problem with it. Otherwise, this is my only source that discusses latrine behavior in lemurs.

OK.

The sixth issue involves a sentence that will require a much more detailed explanation, and is hard to clarify briefly. It will be addressed in the "Lemur behavior" article, but I don't know how to address it here without expanding on it considerably. Basically, if you look at a graph of the activity cycle for nocturnal species, you notice that a shift would create the cathemeral cycle in some species. Again, not easy to explain without extra detail to back it up.

If it's not possible to explain it in enough detail here for it to make sense, the piece probably shouldn't be here. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

For the eighth issue, again, I don't see the problem with the wording. (But that may be due to a lack of sleep and subsequent inability to think much beyond my own line of thinking.) Breeding seasons are determined by resource availability, but rather than giving birth at the most productive times (to help the female during lactation), lemurs instead wean during the most productive times so the offspring have the highest chance of survival. Since lemur families take different amounts of time to reproduce and mature, they mate at different times but tend to wean at the same time. How else should I word that?

Will have a go at this myself. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Otherwise, everything else has been addressed to the best of my ability. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:31, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I added something else a few hours ago. Ucucha 18:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the one you said that you'd take a stab at, all of these issues should be resolved... again, to the best of my ability. Please review at your convenience. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:34, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

We're done here, except for my query about lifespan in the wild that I can't find an answer to. Ucucha 22:21, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

What I tell people on the tours I give at the Duke Lemur Center is that in the wild, the larger lemurs live about 10 to 15 years, while the smaller lemurs usually live about 3 to 5. In captivity (for species that can be successfully maintained), those ranges go up to 25 to 40 and 10 to 15 respectively. It falls in line with the tendency to double (or more) the life expectancy in a healthy captive environment. But as you pointed out, finding a reference could be a problem. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Really? I'd expect things like that to be listed in secondary sources. It's not absolutely necessary; I just think it's more important to list how long they live in their own environment than in a man-made environment. Ucucha 22:51, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I might be able to find a source for the general statement about life expectancy in captivity, but I'm not sure if I'll find anything about how it pertains to lemurs. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:56, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what you're referring to here. Ucucha 22:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it's well documented that many animals live 2 to 3 times longer in captivity (namely zoos) than they do in the wild. However, I don't think I can find anything about captive lemur life expectancy in zoos. Sorry for not being clear. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess it was me being unclear, since I'd prefer the article to focus on life expectancy in the wild, not in zoos. Ucucha 23:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Ecology

• The second paragraph mostly repeats information presented elsewhere in the article.

I noticed this while writing the section, and that's why I made it very brief. The problem is that the sections overlap too much, and omitting the information because it's previously discussed leaves the Ecology section a little bare. (Fortunately, it won't be a problem for the "Lemur ecology" page I have planned.) Should I delete the paragraph? If so, I worry that people might follow the link at the top of the page, expecting to find information about feeding behavior, etc. and not find it. Your thoughts? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You could add something like (see Diet) instead. Ucucha 19:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. I saved a couple of sentences and used them to introduce other paragraphs in the section. Let me know if you approve. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:55, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking good. Ucucha 22:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Research

• "Following the 1947–1949 Malagasy insurrection"—any particular reason to mention this here?

It's gone. The histories that I was reading made mention of it, and I thought I might go into more detail about the political climate and how it has affected research. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:38, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Conservation status

• Can't you use more recent Red List data?
• "and their conservation status has yet to be assessed, though many are likely threatened since their distributions appear to be confined to small regions."—you can't cite something about species discovered in 2005–2010 to a 2003 publication.
• "Although not as significant as deforestation and hunting, some lemurs, such as Crowned Lemurs and other species that have successfully been kept in captivity, are occasionally kept as exotic pets by Malagasy people."—they wouldn't be exotic for the Malagasy, would they?

Using more recent Red List data would require looking up every species and tallying the results... which hints to me of OR. Personally, I prefer to update the status when Mittermeier either a new book (coming in a month or two) or a major journal article covering taxonomic updates. Within those publications there is usually a summary of Red List data that I use. Furthermore, the majority of the lemur Red List data is only updated when Mittermeier et al. submit the information, which usually corresponds with the release of a new lemur list. In other words, let's wait a month or two, please. I'll fix the citation tomorrow. As for exotic pets, they include any animal not normally kept as a pet. Here in North America, the Raccoon is considered to be an exotic pet, even though it is common across the continent and people do keep them as pets. Likewise, lemurs are exotic pets in Madagascar, while dogs and cats are typical, domestic pets. I'm also going off of my source. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:44, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and attempted to fix the second point. It may just look like I've shuffled a few words around and broken up a sentence, but the point made by the older reference is still very applicable to the newer discoveries. All new species that have been discovered in the past 5 years (or past 20 years) have had very restricted ranges. The same idea applies. (They're basically breaking off small populations from more widespread, known species and defining them as their own species.) However, unless the upcoming Mittermeier book (Lemurs of Madagascar, 3rd edition) summarizes this, I would have to reference dozens of individual papers that announce the discovery of new species. If you're still not happy with it, maybe there's another way to word it? – VisionHolder « talk » 04:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, consider this resolved. Ucucha 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Cultural references

• Last few sentences also need citations.

Looking ahead to this one, I may need help here. To be honest, the different standards for reliable sources in the entertainment-centered hub of Wikipedia makes for a very alien world to me. What would be a reliable source? I didn't think I needed a source to talk about the success of the first "Madagascar", mostly because they wouldn't have made another if the first hadn't be successful. (It logically follows from the first rule of capitalism: "Money, money, money, money, f*** everything else, MONEY!!!") The Wiki pages for most of these TV shows/films lacks citations to help me out. Pointing to official web pages seems moot given how fast things like that can disappear. (The "Lemur Kingdom/Street" website is already history, for instance.) If you can suggest where to start looking, I'll try to track something down tomorrow afternoon when I try to finish all of this. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I know as little as you about sources in that piece of Wikipedia. Perhaps you can find something through Google Books or News. Ucucha 19:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid the new references here seem of doubtful reliability, at best. Ucucha 22:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure what else to reference. There's not much out there. Do you know anyone who likes to edit entertainment stuff and nominates a lot for FAC? Maybe I could ask them for help? – VisionHolder « talk » 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Pyrrhus16, Hunter Kahn? I think Casliber also likes to put things like this in his articles, so perhaps he can help. I might also be wrong in my assessment of their reliability, of course. Ucucha 22:47, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

References

• Perhaps drop the Student's Britannica ref, which is a tertiary source and redundant with Garbutt.
• Is WildMadagascar.org a reliable source, let alone a high-quality reliable source? I would in general try to minimize references to sites like this as well as news sites in favor of actual peer-reviewed literature.
• You are inconsistent in using title or sentence case in the titles of citations.

I'm working on replacing the WildMadagascar.org ref with a peer-reviewed journal article. However, finding that small bit of info may prove to be like finding a needle in a haystack. I've emailed several key researchers that might be able to help, though. As for the mingling of title and sentence case, that's mostly due to me copying the title straight from the article's PDF file. I'll try to fix it either late tonight or tomorrow afternoon. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the journal and web article names to sentence case, but left the book and journal names in title case. The other refs are now gone and replaced as needed with reliable sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:21, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Good. Ucucha 11:33, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, I just made the change with {{R}} and that decreased loading time from 23–37 to 4–5 seconds. Worth a little more text in the editing field, I think. Ucucha 13:19, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

On review, this doesn't seem to be true. Apparently, the latest revision of a page loads much faster; the difference between [12] and [13] is insignificant now that the latter is no longer the current version. Ucucha 17:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean I should revert back to use using the R-template? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I did, because it's what you prefer, and there's no good reason not to use it. Ucucha 01:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Other

• I do think the page takes too long to load. To improve this, perhaps get rid of some templates, such as the {{convert}}s and {{r}}s, which can be converted into text. There is also some repetition within the article which you could cut on (I removed some and noted some other cases above).
• You could perhaps combine the "Research", "Conservation status", and "Cultural references" section into "Human interactions".
• Why don't you use <ref group="Notes"> or something like that for the footnotes?
• Images: File:Lepilemur ruficaudatus.jpg should probably get its tag updated. Licensing otherwise OK. I checked for taxonomic balance and got the following:
  • 9 Lemuridae (6 Lemur, 1 Varecia, 2 Eulemur)
  • 1 Palaeopropithecidae (1 Babakotia)
  • 2 Lepilemuridae (2 Lepilemur)
  • 1 Daubentoniidae (1 Daubentonia)
  • 1 Cheirogaleidae (1 Microcebus)
  • 1 Indriidae (1 Propithecus)
• You've got a lot of images of lemurids, particularly Ring-taileds. That represents the availability of pictures and most of the lemurid images illustrate the adjacent text well, but you could perhaps balance a bit more by using a different species in the taxobox and inserting an indri or so in the "Cultural references" section.

That's it for now. Ucucha 23:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I've already removed the convert templates, and I may try reverting the R templates back as well... though I would prefer not to since they help make the text much easier to read. I oppose the merging of the "Research", "Conservation status", and "Cultural references". Although there is some overlap, I don't feel that they belong under one heading. Anyway, "Conservation status" will soon have a summary page: "Lemur conservation", which would make it awkward to link to if the heading was gone. As for <ref group="Notes">, is there a reason to use that over what I'm currently using? I just use what I've used successfully in the past, and what I have seems to work. Lastly, I have tried to balance out the images. I strongly prefer to have a Ring-tailed Lemur in the taxobox since it is the most widely recognized of the lemurs. The grooming photo has no quality substitute that I can find on Commons. All other subfossil lemur images are in need of some serious work per Dr. Godfrey, and both artist and Dr. Godfrey have been too busy lately to fix them up. (Plus, those images will be used heavily on the upcoming "Subfossil lemur" page.) I've added the Indri pic, and I've added one of the only good dwarf lemur photos, as well as a woolly lemur with an infant. The image File:Lepilemur ruficaudatus.jpg may be a copyright violation, but I have written to the copyright holder (in English... even though he's French) and have crossed my fingers in hope for a response. If he has released the files to the public domain as the tag suggests, then I will forward it on to OTRS and adjust the tag. If not, we may lose that photo, as well as several other key lemur photos. Anyway, not counting anatomy close-ups (which shouldn't count since there are only two and they don't show the whole species), there is still a bias towards Lemuridae, but given the lack of high-quality, informative lemur pictures, I think it's about as good as we're going to get. – VisionHolder « talk » 04:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll perhaps have a try to compare a version with the {{R}}s gone. Using ref group="Notes" rids you of some templates, makes it no longer necessary to move things around in two places to keep the order of the footnotes correct, and in general works neater.

What I'm suggesting is that the three become subsections of a larger "Human interactions" section. That would make for fewer main sections and therefore a better organized articles.

The new photos are good, but File:Eulemur rubriventer 001.jpg still has an OTRS pending tag after nearly half a year. Ucucha 11:41, 4 April 2010 (UTC) (Sorry for not looking closely. Ucucha 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC))

I just uploaded that file last night. You're probably looking at the date it was taken, unless I wasn't awake last night (or now). Anyway, the OTRS for that one should clear within a month. If you speak French, maybe you could email the author of the other image and ask for a release. I'll forward my message along so you know what images are at stake. As for ref group="Notes", you're welcome to try it, otherwise, I will look up the details and implement it this afternoon to see what it's like. You're also welcome to try it without the R templates, but unless it results in significantly improved loading times, I'd rather keep it as it is. Honestly, I have only noticed slow loading times on List of lemur species, which uses the convert template a ton of times—something I plan to fix. Everything else if variable. Sometimes it even takes a while for Wiki to respond to my requests for tiny stub articles with no templates. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:14, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

• Something else: have lemurs ever been vectors of zoonotic diseases? Ucucha 13:22, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I know the answer ("no, but they could be"), but I'm not sure if I can find it in any source. I'll email the vet I know at the Duke Lemur Center and see if they can point me to a source. In all the research I did over the past 8 months, this was one of only a few facts that I could not find sources for. The other had to do with life expectancy in the wild vs. captivity. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I hope you can get a ref. If not, it's not the end of the world—if there is nothing to say about this topic, we don't need to say anything. Ucucha 17:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm emailing the vets now. As for the "Human interactions" section, I think we would have to first address the unsettled issue of a standardized article template for WP:PRIMATE before we proceed. Whatever we set here will affect other primate articles, including existing FAs, such as Primate, Ring-tailed Lemur, Ruffed lemur, Homo floresiensis, etc. (Alternatively, it will only complicate attempts to standardize in the future.) I was going to bring up this template issue sooner or later. Would you like for me to bring it up now? Likely the only responses we'll get will be from me, you, UtherSRG, Jack Hynes, and maybe Rlendog. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:43, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally dislike such standardized formats, since different formats work better for different article (for example, the "Research" section does not appear in the WP:PRIMATE template). Ucucha 18:53, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, aside from a sentence or two that you were going to try to fix, some facts I need citations for (from the vets), an image that needs its tags fixed (if we can hear back from the owner), and an "Etymology" section that needs some more research and some re-writing, is there anything else this article needs? Let's make a new list here so that it's easier to go through. – VisionHolder « talk » 19:59, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep things organized by section, actually. I changed that sentence; I'll note it under the other sections where we need something. Ucucha 22:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• The image you introduced, File:Gr bamboo lemur.jpg, is sourced to this page and said to be taken by an NSF employee in the course of his duties. However, the source page provides no evidence for that, and in fact tells to write to the NSF office for permission to reuse images. Ucucha 01:14, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Damn... I just can't win. (Should I tag the file for deletion on Commons?) The only other photos on Commons showing lemurs eating will have Ring-tailed Lemurs, ruffed lemurs, and maybe sifakas. I'd go with a ruffed lemur since there are no images showing their full body on the page, but the only images I'd have to work with will show them eating things like apples in a zoo setting—hardly a good illustration of their natural frugivory. (Granted, the same could be said of the mouse lemur photo in the same section.) I have pictures from Madagascar showing L. catta eating leaves in a tamarind tree, as well as eating cactus at Berenty. What do you recommend? I am working on getting more images from researchers in the field, but it's hard to get people to give up the rights on their images. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:22, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, you should probably tag it over there. The licensing for the new image is fine. You'll have to strike a balance between not having too many ring-taileds and showing lemurs in their natural environment. Both are important; I think the latter should carry more weight, but I'll leave this for you to decide. Ucucha 12:52, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, as I said, I have more images coming. In fact, I may see about launching a campaign to get photos by either emailing the authors who describe and research species or by having something published in Lemur News. Hopefully there will be much more multi-media from the field in the near future. Otherwise, are there any other noteworthy issues holding up this GAC? Can the rest be handled in a short checklist on the page's talk page? – VisionHolder « talk » 13:09, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Such a campaign would certainly be great; I hope you're successful. The etymology and the Indianmedia source of questionable reliability. Perhaps we can hold this a few days, after which I'll have time to help look for sources. Ucucha 14:12, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

I've re-written the Etymology section per the more complete quote you provided via email, and I just got word from the vets at the Duke Lemur Center that the information we seek is not sufficiently studied and is therefore absent from the literature. Anything else? – VisionHolder « talk » 05:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

We've solved the remaining issues now by rewriting the etymology section and getting more refs for the "Cultural references" piece. I am happy to pass this as a GA now. It is an impressive piece of work and I learned a lot from it. Ucucha 00:10, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Predators

What are the lemurs' predators? There is mention of different warning calls for different predators, but no mention of who or what the predators are, other than hunting and habitat encroachment.

When I visited Madagascar, I recall hearing about one animal that is in fact a significant predator of lemurs (if not overwhelmingly so), but I don't recall what it was/is. When the subject came up with a friend just now, I came on here to look it up, and thus discovered this information is missing—unless I simply overlooked it. Perhaps someone else can supply it.

ChicagoLarry (talk) 04:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed in the last paragraph of Lemur#Ecology. You may have been thinking of the fossa. Ucucha 04:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Comoros

Lemur populations are endemic to and can be viewed in the wild in Comoros. At least one species is unique only to the Comoros. Lemurs are not kept in Zoos there so seems unfair to categorize Comoros with Zoo status. It seems reasonable to include mention of the Comoros in addition to Madagascar for the extent of their habitat (as happens in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoose_Lemur). The relative lack of any scientific research of the Comoros Lemurs should not prevent people from understanding the range of their natural habitat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trekkwik (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 May 2010 (UTC) (Trekkwik (talk) 14:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC))

Comoran lemur populations are currently thought to be introduced; see under Lemur evolutionary history#Distribution and diversity. Ucucha 15:29, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Note on movie trivia

In the "Cultural references" section, only the Madagascar movie series the TV series Zoboomafoo and Lemur Street/Kingdom were mentioned when the article passed its featured article candidate review. Unless something significant comes along, please do not add any others. For example, ring-tailed lemurs play a role in the movie Fierce Creatures and are even seen briefly (in cages) in one or two of the Harry Potter films. Including these amounts to adding trivia. As for the Disney movie Dinosaur, the movie only appears to officially call the primate characters "lemurs" in the DVD extras, where it briefly describes lemurs and the origins of primates. But unless the movie took place on the island of Madagascar, it is more accurate to say that Disney was either basing these primate characters off of ancient lemur-like primates (like adapiforms)—and therefore naming them incorrectly—or they were playing off the common misconception that lemurs are the ancestral primates. Anyway, the film was not a huge success and did not bring strong attention to lemurs, when compared to the movie Madagascar and the children's TV show Zoboomafoo. The point is that the three shows currently mentioned in the article already border on being "trivia", and unless good reliable sources can be presented along with a reason to mention other shows, it should probably be left as is. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:17, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

A small correction for above: In the movie Dinosaur, the character Aladar refers to the primate characters as lemurs only once. The rest of the time, monkey jokes are used (inaccurately). The primate characters are clearly based on sifakas because of their appearance and movements. However, my comments above about trivia (per WP:TRIVIA) still stand. – VisionHolder « talk » 15:16, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Shortened footnote format.

There are a large number of citations in this article that have this form:

The name derives from the [[Latin]] term ''[[lemures]]'',{{R|2007Garbutt85-86}} == References == <references> ... <ref name="2007Garbutt85-86">{{Harvnb|Garbutt|2007|pp=85–86}}</ref> ... </references> ;Books * {{cite book|last = Garbutt|first = N.|title = Mammals of Madagascar, A Complete Guide|publisher = A&C Black Publishers|year = 2007|isbn = 978-0-300-12550-4|ref = harv}}

Which renders as:

The name derives from the Latin term lemures, References Books Garbutt, N. (2007). Mammals of Madagascar, A Complete Guide. A&C Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0-300-12550-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

The same effect could be achieved with less complexity by using this method:

The name derives from the [[Latin]] term ''[[lemures]]'',{{sfn|Garbutt|2007|pp=85–86}} == References == <references> ... </references> ;Books * {{cite book|last = Garbutt|first = N.|title = Mammals of Madagascar, A Complete Guide|publisher = A&C Black Publishers|year = 2007|isbn = 978-0-300-12550-4|ref = harv}}

Which also renders as:

The name derives from the Latin term lemures, References Books Garbutt, N. (2007). Mammals of Madagascar, A Complete Guide. A&C Black Publishers. ISBN 978-0-300-12550-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

In addition, this method is (a little bit more) standard. Is there an advantage to the first method that I am overlooking? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

You are correct, and the method you mention is what I'm now using on anything new I create (generally). I'm not sure why I didn't create this article that way, but it may have had to do with change in {{Sfn}} after the fact, poor documentation (at the time), or just stupidity on my part. I've been planning to adjust the referencing, but have been busy lately. Maybe I'll finally get around to fixing that tonight... – VisionHolder « talk » 02:43, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The article has been converted to Sfn. – VisionHolder « talk » 08:05, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Lemurs in captivity

I don't know if the article could use a picture of lemurs in captivity but this might be a good picture to use that features a goup

Pwojdacz (talk) 08:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. However, pictures of lemurs in captivity abound, and Wiki article reviewers favor photos from the wild. Eventually I plan to revamp the Ring-tailed lemur article, and since it's the most populous primate in captivity, I might try inserting a captive photo there. We'll see... – VisionHolder « talk » 14:26, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Audio

The audio vocalization clips are great; but they sometimes abruptly end mid-sentence (so to speak). It would be nicer if there were perhaps a fast-fade at the end, which would also eliminate >click< from some audio cards. Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:53, 22 October 2012 (UTC) - Upon review, most are fine, it's the 'Indri duet' where I noticed above issue. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll try to clean it up tomorrow along with everything else. – Maky ^« talk » 00:56, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

I've fixed the Indri duet. Let me know if it sounds better. Please remember to purge your cache and reload. If there are any others, just let me know. – Maky ^« talk » 22:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that does it. Now the article is flawless! I'll have to find somewhere else to nit-pick. ;) ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish it were flawless, but as articles age, standards change and information needs adding. I wish I had used {{Sfn}} more... and that's something I'll have to go back and fix some day. – Maky ^« talk » 01:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Comoros

Is it correct to say that lemurs are found on the Comoros as well as in Madagascar? If so, this should be mentioned in the Distribution and Diversity section, if not in the lead also. I suspect lemurs may also be found on Mayotte. Bazonka (talk) 22:04, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

There are lemurs on the Comoro islands, but they were introduced by humans. Madagascar is the only place where lemurs are indigenous. Ucucha (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I presume you mean that there are wild lemurs on the Comoros (they exist in zoos all over the place). In any case, I think this should be mentioned. Do you have a source? Bazonka (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I have many sources that say that they live in the wild, but if we do that, then we need to mention that they also live in the wild (free-range) in Durham, North Carolina; Myakka City, Florida, St. Catherines Island, Georgia, and in the British Virgin Islands. Having lemurs free-range, whether the forests are enclosed or not, isn't a reason, IMO, to change their range in the article. I might try to add a mention of their presence in the Comoros, but the article is already too long as is... – Maky ^« talk » 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Free-range and wild are not the same thing. Bazonka (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

By textbook definitions, you're right. In practicality, it all depends on how it's managed. Anyway, if I have time tonight, I'll mention the Comoros. I thought I had at one point... – Maky ^« talk » 22:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Confusing relationship to the family?

Actually trying to back-trace from the Japanese word, but that maps to the family name, and there is no link from this article, though the "Lemuridae" article does link to the Japanese. Maybe it's some kind of confusion in Japanese? Anyway, after looking at both English articles, I'm still unclear how to consider the relationship between the usual usage of "Lemur" and the other members of the family. Shanen (talk) 10:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Lemur (not the vernacular name for all indigenous Malagasy primates) is a genus, not a family. As you noted, there is a family Lemuridae, but otherwise the genus Lemur refers to the ring-tailed lemur. – Maky ^« talk » 18:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, it came up again in connection with another Japanese program on Indri (インドリ), but this time my tracking led me to some kind of confusion between the Family and Superfamily. The confusion seems to be more on the Japanese side of things. Shanen (talk) 10:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Reference style

Hi Maky. You recently reverted my change of the reference list format. No major drama here. I've seen plenty of articles with 2 columns, but I don't think I have found 4 before. I found it almost impossible to navigate around so I changed it. What I might do in the future is temporarily change it if I am working on the article. Do you have any other examples where this style of referencing is used?DrChrissy ^(talk) 08:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

No worries. I pretty much copy and paste this reference section heading and template onto every lemur-related article I work on. (Strepsirrhini would be one example. There are many others, but I don't have time to look them all up and link them.) As for your edit, I did not get 2 columns, I go just one, no matter what size I changed my browser to. I'm using Firefox for my Wiki work. I didn't try it in Chrome. – Maky ^« talk » 15:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I think I edited it for just 1 column, so I wouldn't blame the browser.DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

One column is a bit extreme. I might settle for two, but I'd prefer at least 3. Are you viewing the pages on a phone? I haven't tried to see what it looks like there. Otherwise 4 columns looks perfectly readable at 1920x1080 resolution... at least to me. That's pretty standard now. – Maky ^« talk » 16:13, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not reading it on a phone but a lap-top with a widescreen. This is really just a matter of personal style preference and seeing you have put so much work into this article, I'm happy to leave it as it is.__DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't own the article. And I'll be the first to admit that the references need some work. (I now prefer to put both books and journal articles in the "works cited" section and reference specific pages.) If you think it would improve the article, we can tweak the column sizes. – Maky ^« talk » 06:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 13 external links on Lemur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420175602/http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://bork.hampshire.edu/~josiah/EVANarticle.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/madagascar/10252191/Furry-lemurs-could-be-wiped-out-within-20-years.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ibtimes.com/lemurs-face-extinction-20-years-risk-losing-species-first-time-two-centuries-1393907
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-18825901
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.livescience.com/21592-madagascar-lemurs-endangered.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100120/full/news.2010.23.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080728192653.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080612170515.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/travel/columnist/guest-columns/2004-03-30-jacobson_x.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2217
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.estandardsforum.org/system/briefs/275/original/brief-Madagascar.pdf?1261005963
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xavier.edu/occ/documents/Humanitas_32.1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:27, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Lemur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.owlnet.rice.edu/~vr2/Publications/Dunham_Rudolf_JEvolBio2009.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719154849/http://sws1.bu.edu/MSOREN/Eberle.pdf to http://sws1.bu.edu/MSOREN/Eberle.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100620094526/http://www.duke.edu/~maclean/papers/maclean_TI.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/~maclean/papers/maclean_TI.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081218041240/http://www.lemurlife.com/ to http://www.lemurlife.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lemur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130922212616/http://www.mwc-info.net/en/services/Journal_PDF%27s/Issue1/Flagshipspecies.pdf to http://www.mwc-info.net/en/services/Journal_PDF%27s/Issue1/Flagshipspecies.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:04, 29 September 2017 (UTC)