Talk:Moor macaque

Authority: F. Schinz, H.R. Schinz or F. Cuvier?
Copied from User talk:Ahoerstemeier

You may be right, but IUCN says otherwise. I'll keep digging to see what's what. - UtherSRG 17:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm getting conflicts when I search. I'll find (Schinz, 1825), but I'll also find (F. Schinz, 1825) and (F. Cuvier, 1823). Most common is the first. I think f. Schinz came from a mystype of Schinz & F. Cuvier somewhere down the line. I'll check my Groves when I get home very late tonight. - UtherSRG 17:40, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I searched a lot as well, and most online source simply use "Schinz 1825", and only four use "F. Schinz 1825". The one which finally convinced me that the F. should be wrong was which list the actual citation as well, and "Das Thierreich" was co-edited by H.R. Schinz. Sadly I didn't find any biographical about him except his birth- and death year, not enough for a good stub imho. andy 19:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Groves says (F. Cuvier, 1823). - UtherSRG 07:39, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strange, the year would make it volume III of "Das Thierreich", not volume IV, . Google only find exactly two hits which cite it from Cuvier 1823, while all others seem to agree on Schinz 1825. And according to (google cached site, original site didn't answer) cite it as Schinz 1825, and say "Based on specimen depicted in Cuvier, 1823". So maybe that's the answer - Cuvier gave the depiction, but it was Schinz who made the description and naming two years later? andy 08:42, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe you've nailed it. Cuvier might have described it as a specimen of another species, but Schinz quickly (for the day) corrected him. And why "F. Cuvier" instead of "Cuvier"? Mysteries and mysteries. Anyway, I'm inclined to follow Groves, since his work is the most accessible to both the public and the scientist. - UtherSRG 13:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then we should at least move this discussion to the article talk to make it accessible for others who might stumble across it - or maybe also add our interpretation into the text. Even though I am not that happy with it as it's just (educated) speculation. You don't have the "Das Thierreich" at your hand? :-) andy

Killer Dolphins
I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to "[Name] Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).

Would you please take a look at that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins

And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called "[Name] Macaque" traditionally.

(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Wikipedia article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Wikipedia is a problem.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: GEOG 479 Primate Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation
— Assignment last updated by Floudghi (talk) 19:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)