Talk:Macaque

Animal rights avdocate complaint
the picture of the poor monkey slouched over himself in a cage is the saddest thing i've seen all day. get rid of that picture, it makes you seem insensitive -

An "advocate" should know how to spell the word advocate. 80.58.35.46


 * The picture illustrates the cruel conditions that primates are held in for vivisection research. - UtherSRG 15:11, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Main Picture
What on EARTH is wrong with the eye of the monkey in the main picture. Surely there is a better pic out there!

Peanutaxis (talk) 11:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Not only that but I do not even think that it is a picture of a crab eating macaque. It looks more like a toque or bonnet macaque. If there are no objections I will find a photograph of a Japanese macaque to replace it with.

Skamnelis (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2013 (UTC) I have now replaced the main image which was http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Monkey_eating.jpg incorrectly identified as M. fascicularis and having an inflamed or necrotic right eye, with this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Macaca_fuscata.jpg. Skamnelis (talk) 01:30, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The main photograph has been replaced by a photograph of a fuscata pair (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macaque&oldid=620228100#mediaviewer/File:Macaques_in_Sagano.jpg) owned by user Pundit without any comment. Although this is a lovely photograph in more senses than one, the general standard is to have a portrait of an individual animal focusing on the characteristics specific to the genus or species. Among the morphological characteristics of macaques are the close-set nostrils, their cheek-pouches, moderately elongated snout, absence of a rhinarium, fingers apposed by a small thumb, forward directed eyes, ischial callosities, arms and legs of similar length. The picture can stay for now but another focusing on these features would be preferable. Skamnelis (talk) 14:14, 26 August 2014 (UTC) I agree the lead image is now inappropriate - it shows far too little detail when viewed on the page itself. I am goinf to be BOLD and replace it with the previous one. The image of the pair may deserve a place elsewhere in the article__DrChrissy (talk) 12:57, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The photo of the pig tailed macaque is also very good, as are others in the various species subsections. The photograph of the fuscata pair can stay in the gallery until we have a subsection on macaque societies or affiliative behaviour. It could also be included in the M. fuscata subsection, e.g. in the section on group structure. Skamnelis (talk) 13:29, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree there are are other good photos. I'll try to make a multiple-image collage of various species for the taxo box - several other articles do this.  I'll bring it to this talk page to discuss.  The fuscata pair could also be used to illustrate their typical environment if this was introduced into the text.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:33, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By all means, I am quite ignorant about standards for animal portraits :) I haven't even thought it is better not to have a pair. However, the previous image is basically quite substandard in terms of size. It does not seem very sharp neither. Perhaps something else can be added? Pundit | utter  15:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As no-one objected, I replaced the main picture with a much higher resolution one from Commons, and moved the main one to the gallery (along with the previous one). Pundit | utter  06:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not really like the new lead photo as it is only a portrait. I always try to get a lead image that shows the whole body and perhaps some characteristic or behaviour such as eating.  However, I take the point that it is a better resolution.  I will go back to my idea of a collage of species and post it here for discussion.__DrChrissy (talk) 10:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * FYI - I've uploaded a slightly higher resolution pic of a macaque for potential use, but this is not great, neither. We need more monkeys! Pundit | utter  09:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Macaque in Nagano.jpg

This page is about to get a lot more traffic.
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4125006.html Mathiastck 14:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * ""This fellow here, over here with the yellow shirt, Macaca, or whatever his name is. ... He's following us around everywhere. And it's just great," Allen said to appreciative laughter.

Doubtless no one present knew what "macaca" meant, but subsequently, those three syllables have caused a tectonic shift in the political plates. Literally, it's the name of a monkey common to North Africa and Asia; figuratively, it's a racial slur in some parts of the world.

And in the United States, effective last Friday, it's an eponym for "major political boo-boo."" http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/outlook/4125006.html Mathiastck 14:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I placed the Washington Post story in the external links. While the article is about a monkey, the term is used as a slur, as demonstrated by Senator George Allen's usage. Chriscarlos
 * And I'll be removing it again. There's an article for the racial slur. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

talk about macaques
I'm sorry if I don't understand the established institutions here, but why was the irrelevant discussion about racial slurs deleted from the talk page, but not the irrelevant discussion of vivisection? Is there a point after which it is acceptable to delete old stuff from a discussion page?

I've reverted the reversion so that people can see what I'm talking about, but don't mind if someone deletes this whole conversation, esp. if they tell me where it should be happening. --Jaibe 22:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Natasha had a stroke or stomach flu
The "Natasha (monkey) — a macaque who began walking on her hind legs after a stroke." doesn't match the information in the link it points to. The Natasha article says that the monkey suffered a stomach flu, not a stroke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.110.32.5 (talk) 20:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation
How do you say "Macaque"? Aaadddaaammm 07:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say "Mahcack". - UtherSRG (talk) 10:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I say "Macack" (short a in both syllables), and so do the people I work with, but I've no idea whether we're right. I think the Latin version (Macaca) would be pretty universally pronounced with short "a"s, and I guess we just take that over into English.  seglea 22:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * On a WildBoyz episode Steve-O pronounces it "Mah'cock" - whether or not he changed the pronounciation for the sake of humour is unknown to me, but that's the pronounciation I'm using. Baribeau 22:52, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's ok, if you are in a comedy show.Skamnelis (talk) 01:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Material removed to species pages
There's some clutter on this page which belongs on individual species pages (if it belongs at all), and I'm shifting it. It includes:


 * Results of a research shows that male Crab-eating Macaques will groom females in order to get sex. The study found that a female has a greater likelihood to engage in sexual activity with a male if he had recently groomed her, compared to males who had not groomed her.


 * See also:
 * Britches (monkey) - an infant macaque used in sight-deprivation experiments who was removed from the laboratory by the Animal Liberation Front.
 * Nafovanny &mdash; the largest captive-breeding non-human primate facility in the world, housing 30,000 long-tailed macaques.
 * Natasha (monkey) &mdash; a macaque who began walking on her hind legs after a stroke.

seglea (talk) 11:36, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is highly unlikely that 90% of Macaques in captivity are carriers of Herpes B virus as this article claims... If no one can find a citation for that sentence then it should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.95.6.122 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 26 June 2009

zati / Macacus pileatus / capped macaque
Are these other names for the bonnet macaque ? - Rod57 (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Killer Dolphins
As you know, the Killer Whale is actually a member of the dolphin branch of the cetaceans. As you also hopefully know, a Wikipedia editor does not have the personal authority to singlehandedly change the name to Killer Dolphins (nor Peace-Loving Dolphins).

Wikipedia editors must be reporters presenting facts as they exist, not activists trying to change facts. Neutral Point of View. No personal agendas. No innovations. No personal research.

But someone has gone through and changed all the macaque species articles to "[Name] Macaque", e.g. Barbary Ape to "Barbary Macaque", Formosan Rock Monkey to "Formosan Rock Macaque".

And this has been done crudely — or perhaps with a totalitarian intent to simply erase the past — because the traditional names are not even presented as an alternate, e.g. we don't find "The Barbary Macaque (traditionally Barbary Ape) is ..."

Now, if a conference of leading primatologists has passed a resolution calling for this renaming scheme, then you can change the article titles. While very clearly also giving the traditional name at the start of the article as the alternative, and explaining later that the species was only recently renamed and by whom.

Lacking that, if you can find an example of "Formosan Rock Macaque" in use, in print, in a scientific publication, PRIOR to these Wikipedia fabrications polluting reality on the Internet, then you can do "The Formosan Rock Monkey (or more correctly Formosan Rock Macaque[REF]) is ..."

In both cases, there should be a discussion in the article of the traditional use of monkey/ape based on physical type, versus use in phylogenic classification.

Note incidentally that the traditional use is not "scientifically wrong" as long as it is understood as a description and not a class. Saying "ape" is no different than saying "(large) tailless (ground) monkey" — which you're happy to say, despite taillessness not being a phylogenic definition. The "error" (and source of confusion) was really scientists deciding to appropriate the traditional description "ape" to apply to only one of the phylogenic groups that has ape-like characteristics. And in fact it is little in use in practice today in that sense, compared to Hominoidea, in serious publications.

I have posted this main comment here in the Macaque article — I will post referrals to this in each of the individual macaque species Talk sections as well. It is the list here in the Macaque article, and all the species article titles, and the intro text of all the species articles, which need to be addressed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Before the 19th century, if Europeans managed to distinguish between "apes" lacking tails and "monkeys" with tails, then they were doing pretty good (considering that sometimes some people didn't bother to make such a distinction). However, subsequent scientific work revealed that the primates lacking tails were not all closely related, and that primates lacking tails did not form a valid grouping according to traditional taxonomy (much less cladistics).  I don't know why we're required to stick to an 18th-century understanding of the word "ape" in species naming... AnonMoos (talk) 13:36, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the feedback! On Wikipedia we follow published literature when naming articles. We have followed Mammal Species of the World volume 3 for the past five or six years, it is a standard taxonomic reference. As the book is now six years old, there are new species and new naming conventions so we use our best judgement in trying to get the current consensus. In your examples the common names in MSW3 for Macaca cyclopis and Macaca sylvanus are Formosan rock macaque and Barbary macaque respectively; other macaques are named similarly. In response to the accusation that there isn't a mention of the traditional name, see the article lead: "Although the species is commonly referred to as the "Barbary ape", the Barbary macaque is a true monkey, not an ape." Yeah this could be expanded further, we're not trying to erase the past, but instead that this article is incomplete. If you want to make additions that would be greatly appreciated! Cheers, Jack (talk) 09:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion
The article has a Start Class rating, due to lack of content. Could we agree on what content is needed? Evolution, phylogeny, morphology and related debates - whether a genus or a species, whether a single genus or two, etc. Social structure. Sexual dimorphism. Other ideas? Also I do not think the description section is always correct, e.g. macaques are not found in Southern Europe. Gibraltar is mentioned in the next sentence in any case. Skamnelis (talk) 14:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Legal Precedent?
How does someone refusing to remove a pic for which copyright is claimed, constitute "legal precedent"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.67 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

There was an entry made on the 7th August 2014 with the following content: "Copyright test case. In 2014 selfies taken by a crested black macaque seemed set to establish legal precedent, after the Wikimedia Foundation rejected a copyright claim. The photos had been sold widely by David Slater, a professional nature photographer, whose camera was temporarily carried away by a group of macaques. After the photos were uploaded to Wikipedia, the organisation refused to delete them, claiming "This file is in the public domain, because as the work of a non-human animal, it has no human author in whom copyright is vested." Funny as that is, it has no place in the macaque article. It may have a place under copyright or copyright test cases. The alleged self-portraits remain in the article as of the 25th of August, causing some vandalism as follows: "since Wikipedia is edited by teenage mouthbreathers, we only have access to a photograph of one we do not own the rights to. Stealing photos of monkeys is like torrenting 'Burn Notice,' so it's cool we are young and poor! We can't afford actual encyclopedias, much less the rights to a photograph." dated also the 7th of August. The comment, later removed, may have originated in the photographer. It is unlikely these are self-portraits, even if the photographer has claimed so himself. The entire topic verges on the childish. Moreover, the text has been removed, leaving only the photographs in place. I would propose that the alleged self-portraits and any relevant discussion on copyrights is removed and taken, if necessary, elsewhere. Alternatively, the two photographs could be moved to the gallery. Other opinions? Skamnelis (talk) 12:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Ooooops! I just moved one of these images to the gallery because it seemed totally irrelevant to the text section, and deleted the other image because it is so similar to the first.  I did this before reading the above, so hopefully my edit will be seen as an unbiased one.__DrChrissy (talk) 15:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference in taxobox title
There is a reference attached to the title of the taxo box. This looks unusual to me. Is it done elsewhere?__DrChrissy (talk) 13:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Relations with humans
Crested macaques are threatened with extinction because they are eaten in Sulewesi. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.53.191.77 (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Macaque. 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/20060322150850/http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/051208-1906.asp to http://www.news.utoronto.ca/bin6/051208-1906.asp

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

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:49, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

"Macaca (genus" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macaca_(genus&redirect=no Macaca (genus] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 04:28, 11 February 2024 (UTC)