Talk:Zanzibar red colobus

Huh?

What are you trying to say here:

Here, there are actually higher densities of the red colobus who in more cohesive groups. This is true, however, of shambas that are only adjacent to Jozani; in locations further away, there are no reports of monkeys living in those places.

- UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: this has been corrected. Thank you CJjensen01 (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Great, thanks. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

pro vs pilio

UtherSRG: Why did you undo the really good revision by CJjensen01? Looks like that you have an interest in systematic but that you are not professional enough to follow recent literature in the field. This species should be in deedlisted as Procolobus. Every single systematic work that was published during the last 10 years list the species as Procolobus kirkii. These works are written by expert systematic researcher in primates and that includes morphological, physiologcial, and biochemical/genetic evidence. They all - without exemption list the species as Procolobus. What is your evidence for changing it back to Piliocolobus?

So please do everybody the favor and actually read the recent peer reviewed literature:

Title: Evolutionary Acceleration and Divergence in Procolobus kirkii Author(s): Nowak, K; Cardini, A; Elton, S Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 29 Issue: 5 Pages: 1313-1339 Published: 2008

Title: The radiation of red colobus monkeys (Primates, Colobinae): morphological evolution in a clade of endangered African primates Author(s): Cardini A, Elton S Source: ZOOLOGICAL JOURNAL OF THE LINNEAN SOCIETY Volume: 157 Issue: 1 Pages: 197-224 Published: SEP 2009

Title: Mitochondrial relationships and divergence dates of the African colobines: evidence of Miocene origins for the living colobus monkeys Author(s): Ting N Source: JOURNAL OF HUMAN EVOLUTION Volume: 55 Isuue: 1 Pages 312-325

Together these articles establish overwhelming evidence that the genus is Procolobus and not Piliocolobus In addition other experts in the field adopted this new classification

Title: Frequent Water Drinking by Zanzibar Red Colobus (Procolobus kirkii) in a Mangrove Forest Refuge Author(s): Nowak, K Source: AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 70 Issue: 11 Pages: 1081-1092 Published: 2008

Title: Alterations in social behaviour and structure in response to population compression in the Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii) Author(s): Siex, KS Source: FOLIA PRIMATOLOGICA Volume: 75 Pages: 28-28 Published: 2004 Meeting Abstract: 49

Title: Colobus monkeys and coconuts: a study of perceived human-wildlife conflicts Author(s): Siex, KS; Struhsaker, TT Source: JOURNAL OF APPLIED ECOLOGY Volume: 36 Issue: 6 Pages: 1009-1020 Published: DEC 1999

Title: Ecology of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey: Demographic variability and habitat stability Author(s): Siex, KS; Struhsaker, TT Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 20 Issue: 2 Pages: 163-192 Published: APR 1999

Title: Translocation and introduction of the Zanzibar red colobus monkey: success and failure with an endangered island endemic Author(s): Struhsaker, TT; Siex, KS Source: ORYX Volume: 32 Issue: 4 Pages: 277-284 Published: OCT 1998

Title: Charcoal consumption by zanzibar red colobus monkeys: Its function and its ecological and demographic consequences Author(s): Struhsaker, TT; Cooney, DO; Siex, KS Source: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRIMATOLOGY Volume: 18 Issue: 1 Pages: 61-72 Published: FEB 1997

When I did a search only one single article showed up that still used the genus Piliocolobus in the last 20 years and that one sure was published in the least known journals of all here in the list:

Title: Ecotourism and biodiversity conservation in Jozani-Chwaka Bay National Park, Zanzibar Author(s): Salum, LA Source: AFRICAN JOURNAL OF ECOLOGY Volume: 47 Pages: 166-170 Published: 2009

Now bring forward your evidence for keeping the genus at Piliocolobus. You may be interested in systematics - that does not give you any right to change back good revisions of an article without doing your homework first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.20.6 (talk) 14:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

MSW3 lists as Piliocolobus. MSW3 is the official listing of mammal taxonomy. All of the articles you listed have nothing to do with taxonomy. They have to do with ecology and biology, mostly about behavior and diet. None of that has anything to do with taxonomy. The Primates section of MSW3 was written by Colin Groves, one of the foremost authorities on primate taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:43, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

You really have very little idea. You must be an American without realizing that the world is not limited to what the Americans think. There is no official listing of mammal taxonomy that has to be accepted worldwide. Such just does not exist - never has. The work you cite is sure to be taken seriously - but your claim is just unfounded. Who voted this work to be the worldwide binding taxonomy bible for mammals? By the way - why do the first 3 citations - each contains taxonomic work and conclusions - why do these peer reviewed publications have nothing to do with taxonomy? Because the authors do not agree with your personal favorite standard MSW3? Or is it just that you do not understand genetic evidence and how to interpret mitochondrial DNA similarities? What is your goal here with wikipedia? - To be the only one who can be right, and that you have to block any other opinion - even if there is good evidence against your position? I am biologist, teach biology at a university as prof, and have done (and published) taxonomy and physiology since 20+ years (not on primates though). But of course we all have to bow to your superior knowledge and foremost to your favorite MSW3. Good luck everybody in trying to improve anything here about taxonomy as long as Uther thinks he must control everything. After all its his to decide what is true and what not. I give up. In the end its just not worth fighting a control freak.

However, I for my part, prefer to follow specialists who publish in peer reviewed journals (therefore their material and claims are checked by several other specialists before it is published) over one book that is not peer reviewed (like MSW3) and anybody can write whatever they want without any real check by other specialists in the field. The view of the majority of experts should not be blocked out at the whim of one hobby biologist - but it is.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.160.20.6 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I missed the first three. (I had started at the bottom, got to the gap after the first three and thought there was no more. Why do you think I'm an American who only think American views are important. Groves is Australian. Groves (2001c) seperated Piliocolobus from Procolobus. (Only verus is left in Procolobus. We try not to use primary sources for taxonomy (or for most things, really), because that would induce too much flux into the encyclopedia. We try to rely more on secondary sources, such as MSW3, to avoid those thrashings. I'm not a professor or a biologist. I'm an encyclopedist. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

pro vs pilio redux

I agree with 71.160.20.6 here; it seems that most of the literature uses Procolobus as the genus for this species and that Groves is in the minority. We should follow them, rather than relying on a single source, even when that single source is MSW 3. Ucucha 08:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

• sigh* Very well. I'll need to change all of the 'pilio' species articles, turn the genus article into a redirect to a new 'pro' article, update the Olive Colobus article, and all of the articles that link to these articles. this'll keep me busy for a little bit... - UtherSRG (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

All in the interest of encyclopedic accuracy. :-) Ucucha 09:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

So, now that I'm in this quandry, you'll have to help get me out. Procolobus redirects to Olive Colobus. Piliocolobus redirects to red colobus. Where should the genus article finally reside? "Olive" isn't a shade of "red" the last I checked... - UtherSRG (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Procolobus, I would say. "Red colobus" can remain as an article, I think, since Piliocolobus should still be accepted as a subgenus (but perhaps 71.160... also has something to say here). Ucucha 10:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Overall, the prose is very well written and easy to read. I've made a few minor grammatical adjustments here and there, so there's nothing major that really needs work.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The article is adequately cited using inline citations to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The article is complete and covers the topic well.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

   The article is written neutral and meets WP:NPOV guidelines and requirements.

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

   No evidence of reverting or edit warring.

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   The image 'File:JCBCP logo.png' needs a fair-use rationale. Its caption is a bit long; see if it can be shortened to be more concise. There are no captions on the two images in the 'behavior' section.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   I think the article meets the GA criteria and can be promoted once the issue with the images is resolved. I will put it on hold at WP:GAN until that is solved. WTF? (talk) 18:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, WTF. I've left a message for the original image uploader, but they've been idle for most of this month. I'll edit down the caption, but we may need to ditch the image altogether if the uploader can't provide the fair-use rationale. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the uploader will respond at this point. Though, now that I think of it, for non-free corporate logos to be used under fair-use, our policy really only allows the fair-use to be used on one article. Usually, that article would be about the corporation or organization itself. So, in this case, I would think the best bet would be to remove the logo from this article, and the article could be promoted. I don't think the logo is really necessary anyway, for an article that's about a particular species. WTF? (talk) 19:52, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Ok. Image is removed. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Article passed. Nice work! WTF? (talk) 18:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Free images

I've just uploaded to Commons 7 images of Zanzibar Red Colobi which I found on Flickr. Several are of very good quality and might be useful for this article: File:Red Colobus 1.jpg to File:Red Colobus 7.jpg (all in this category). Pruneau^talk 11:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments

The Zanzibar red colobus is cited as a good article. The article focuses on a general description, habitat, behavior, reproduction, communication, evolution, and conservation. Within behavior, there is a subcategory of feeding. The two separate categories of reproduction and communication should be subcategories within behavior. The article mentions altruistic behaviors between males and comments upon group living and group territoriality. A section on kin selection can be added to this if researched due to a possible connection between territoriality and relatedness within a group. The complexity of their communication can be expanded upon and analyzed from an evolutionary standpoint. Additionally, given there is sufficient research, interfamilial relationships should be discussed. The talk section shows a clear display of an article that is backed by facts. Papers are cited in nearly every comment to prove or question an edit. Several users edit the article multiple times each month. Katims90 (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

New, better picture as the hook-picture for this article

Hi everyone I would like to propose that the hook-picture for this article be updated to the following File:Zanzibar_Red_Colobus_Monkey.jpg I think this is a better hook image as it shows the primates facial features very well in addition to the color of its coat. If you feel it is a better picture please use it. It can also be used in other articles where it may add value. I am new to wiki so please feel free to add it to articles you think may benefit from it. hasin 08:18, 27 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hasin Shakur (talk • contribs)

File:Zanzibar Red Colobus Monkey.jpg to appear as POTD

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Zanzibar Red Colobus Monkey.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on March 13, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-03-13. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:58, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture of the day

The Zanzibar red colobus (Procolobus kirkii) is a species of red colobus monkey endemic to Unguja, the main island of the Zanzibar Archipelago. Brought to attention of Western science by Sir John Kirk, this colobus was first described by John Edward Gray in 1868. It is now considered an endangered species, and extensive conservation efforts have been undertaken since the mid-1990s.Photograph: Hasin Shakur

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zanzibar red colobus. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20101205215109/http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/Convention_Nature%20&%20Natural_Resources.pdf to http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/Convention_Nature%20&%20Natural_Resources.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 07:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:51, 2 January 2023 (UTC)