Talk:Primate/Archive 1

Tarsiers
Where do Tarsiers fall in under the classification scheme? john 08:05 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

Hoolie Doolie, what a mess! And here was me thinking that bird taxonomy was a tangled and ever-changing thing. Regard my recent addition of the tarsiers as a temporary patch-up and subject to revision. I consulted three pretty decent sources just now and got about 5 different answers. Still, at least the tarsiers appear in the box now. Tannin 09:23 May 11, 2003 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Tarsiers are now in their own suborder. An expert source needs to be found first however. DarthVader 00:33, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Please notice the age of the post you are replying to, and note that the whole set of primate articles are now being managed by WP:PRIM, and we're using the most recent primate taxonomy published by Colin Groves. - UtherSRG 02:42, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Tarsiers, being small and nocturnal, are classified with lorises and lemurs as Prosimians on the suborder level, while they are in the same infraorder (haplorhines) as old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and apes.
 * Incorrect. Prosimii is no longer an accepted suborder. Tarsiers are more closely related to the simians than they are to the rest of the prosimians. Because of this, the entire classification was changed a bit. Tarsiers were moved out of Prosimii and into the Anthropoidea, and the two were renamed Strepsirrhini and Haplorrhini. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:18, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Language
I just deleted the pronunciation detail. I don't think it is encyclopaedic. I also changed the reference to Primate (religion), because I'm unaware which is older. Both are in current use, and I don't know how relevant the age of each is. - Cafemusique 21:49 26 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Weight comparisions
Just thought I'd note that the weights given for the gorilla are inconsistent with those given on the gorilla page.

Eh, 52kg for a human female and 75kg for a male? That seems a little low for your average westerner, at least for women. -- Kimiko 16:16, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * Yeah, perhaps it is a little low for average folks. Ah... I've found 62.5kg for women and 78.4kg for men . Thanks for the nudge. - UtherSRG 16:33, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Great Apes
I looked it up, and humans are considered apes, but not great apes. Since gibbons(lesser apes) are also apes but not hominids, I changed "apes (including humans)" to "great apes and humans", since all apes (ie the gibbons) were already exclude.--Mishac 01:00, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Excellent! - UtherSRG 01:31, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Does "great apes" include humans? I thought "ape" could include humans, but that "great apes" was specifically orangs, gorillas and chimps....--Mishac 19:32, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I've always understood humans to be included in great apes. I wish the person who removes such a linkage would cite a source. - UtherSRG 19:37, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Great Apes share a common ancestor. The first to speciate from the common ancestor was the orangutan. Thus, gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and humans all share a common ancestor that orangutans do not share. Then the gorillas speciated, resulting in chimps, bonobos, and humans sharing a common ancestor that orangutans and gorillas do not share. Then humans speciated, resulting in the common ancestor of chimps and bonobos that humans, gorillas, and orangutans do not share. So, it is possible to group together chimps and bonobos without including humans, but once either gorillas or orangutans are also included in the group, humans must necessarily also be included. - Mcarling 10:23, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * That assumes a cladistic understanding of taxonomy, doesn't it? By that standard, "reptiles" can't be considered a group without including birds, since crocodiles and birds diverged more recently than crocodiles and turtles.  Mammals might have to be included as well.  While understanding the order of speciation is certainly very important, I'm not sure why this should be assumed to trump the more standard way of classifying animals. john 00:12, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * 'Apes' is not a taxonomic term. There's not a clade named "Apes". The clade that includes all apes and humans is Hominoidea. If you want to use cladistic rules, you should use clade names, but not common words. For common words like "ape" or "wasp", it is correct to say that humans are not apes or that ants aren't wasps. If you want to talk about the taxonomic group we share with all the apes (great or small), use Hominoidea. El PaleoFreak --213.60.30.221 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * That, John, is best understood as a comment about the problems with the current classification of birds & reptiles. The fact that there is an exception to the usual rule (which will presumably be corrected sooner or later) doesn't mean we have to throw the whole baby out the window along with the bathwater. Tannin 00:27, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * I suppose, but the whole phylogenetic system doesn't actually work very well with the Linnaean classification scheme. Classification schemes based on monophyletic trees invariably have many, many, many, many more groupings than the other way of doing things - generally such that there aren't even widely agreed upon names for what classification level each division is actually at.  Perhaps that means that that whole current classification scheme needs to be abandoned, but as long as its around, isn't it rather unlikely that crocodiles, lizards, and turtles will all be split off into separate classes?  At any rate, here we are discussing a common name, "Great Apes".  I see even less reason why such a term should be monophyletic than that ordinary taxonomic groups be.  john 03:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * There is an argument (on the reptile/bird model) for not including humans among the apes or among the great apes - if you suppose we are so different that we no longer share key characteristics that the (other) apes share. But there can be no argument for excluding us from the great apes but including us among the apes, since if we are apes, we are clearly descended from the same stock as the great apes after they split off from the gibbons.  And it seems to me that the first argument was lost at the point where the Pongidae were renamed as the Hominidae.  I agree that there is a need for a name for the group consisting of the orangutan, gorilla, and chimpanzees: I don't think at present we have anything less clumsy than "the non-human great apes" or "the great apes (excluding humans)".  In nontechnical speech, it should be reasonable to refer to them just as "the great apes", just as we often talk about "animals" rather than "non-human animals" when we mean to exclude humans; the trouble is that there are people around who, for nonbiological reasons, don't want to recognise that humans are among the great apes, and this usage gives them hostages.  seglea 10:26, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * What are the biological reasons for including humans among the apes, avoiding the use of the correct taxonomic term for the group (Hominoidea)? There is none, as you can see at the Ape discussion. It is a trend, an opinion of several scientists, and a ruling opinion here at the Wikipedia. They have decided to synonimize the clade Hominoidea with the common term Apes. That's a matter of jargon, not a matter of science. Maybe it is a anti-anthropocentric reaction (turning it ape-centric), but it is not biology-based. (And no, I'm not a creationist. I'm an atheist, and an evolution lover). El PaleoFreak --213.60.30.221 11:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Body plan
Can someone explain what is meant by "unspecialised body plan"? thanks :)--Mishac 10:27, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)


 * I unerstand it to mean "not adapted to special needs". Feline bodies are specialized catching prey: for running fast, including a tail for balance, and dentition designed to clamp onto the prey to kill it. Cetacean bodies are desgned to survive for full-time aquatic life, while other mammals have made similar adaptions to living some of the time in water. Different avian ody types adapted to the particular niches they occupy (long bills, short bills, long legs, webbed feet, etc.). Primates are generally unspecialized in these regards. The gripping hand for brachiation is the most specialized form common to primates. Obviously some primates are less specialized and others are more specialized, but in general the form is considered unspecialized. - UtherSRG 16:58, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Sexual dimorphism
Someone asked in an edit summary whether the link between sexual dimorphism and polygyny is secure. Yes, it is. It is predicted on the basis of parental investment theory (an important component of sociobiology), and it is documented in detail for the primates in papers by Clutton-Brock and Harvey, if I remember rightly (I don't have my books here). We should really put a fuller table in - the present one is haphazard, and the data are all there to quote from - we need references, too. The same rule of course holds in other taxa, though in birds the dimorphism is more obvious in terms of colour, etc than size; however females are typically bigger than males in polyandrous species, as you'd expect. seglea 18:59, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * Originally, the article stated that pair-bonding was caused by lack of sexual dimorphism; now it says that lack of sexual dimorphism is caused by pair-bonding. Which is correct? Or is this a kind of feedback loop?


 * It's interesting to see that humans, who are the rare Old World species that mostly practices pair bonding, also have relatively low sexual dimorphism. Stormwriter 21:52, 28 May 2004 (UTC)


 * The human females breasts being enlarged even when not pregnant / producing milk in confusing to some. I believe thats unique among animals. (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Human
Please come help out on Human. Were facing a number of questions regarding a past poll and its results, the positioning of the taxobox and an image, the definition of "Human", if Homo Sapiens should split off into its own article, and even if the "article in need of attention" header is appropriate. I'd like as much expert involvement as possible, if you please. Cheers, (Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 11:45, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Legal status
Marskell, could you discuss the legal status section here, please, rather than just changing it back and forth? You seem to have two objections: first, you keep changing "human primate" to "human being." The reason I wrote human primate versus non-human primate is because this is an article about primates, and we are primates too, which ties in with the point of the section, namely that some primates have their individual interests protected, and some don't.

The second thing you object to is the Great Ape Project paragraph. Could you say why? Great apes are primates, and this project, which is taken very seriously and isn't just a crank thing, aims to extend the protection of individual interests to non-human primates through this campaign. I don't see that it matters that they're focusing on only one group of primates: the point here is that they seek to cross the line between human and non-human primates legally. It's a revolutionary idea and very much worth mentioning, in my view. SlimVirgin (talk) 17:57, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I'll take a quick stab at this befor eI run off to a meeting.
 * Humans are mammals and only some mammals have legal rights. Shouldn't we put this on the mammal page? How about animal? How about eukarayote?
 * The Great Ape Project is about great apes. A small mention as a link is appropriate here, and a reasonable section is appropriate on Hominidae.
 * - UtherSRG (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The reason it's more pertinent with primates is because the idea that primates (not just great apes) need some protection for their individual interests is one that is gaining currency and becoming more mainstream, that is, it's no longer a tiny-minority opinion. Of course, we could add it to lots of Wikipedia pages e.g. we could add to Murder that "the killing of primates doesn't count as murder because they have no rights in law," and so on, but it would be stretching the point. My argument here is that I don't feel a point is being stretched on a page that specifically deals with primates. For example, it would have been odd to write a story about African-Americans while there was still slavery, without mentioning that they had no, or few, legal rights, or a story about Jews during the Holocaust that didn't talk about their treatment in Nazi Germany. Similarly, it would strike me as odd, in an article about primates, not to mention how they are very often treated, and to say something about the reasons for that treatment, given that there is such widespread, and increasingly mainstream, concern about it: even George Bush has said something about it. I thought it was you, Stacey, who originally moved this section higher, which I took to mean you liked it. Perhaps I'm thinking of someone else, or some other page.


 * As for your point about the Great Ape Project, I'll go back into the article and reduce that paragraph, and perhaps that will be a reasonable compromise. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * It may well have been me who put it up higher earlier, but we have more sections in the article now. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First Slim, my edit summary was very clear: it belongs on the ape page not here. You say "not just apes" but can you clarify that the Great Ape Project extends to non-ape primates? I know it's not a crank but is anyone seriously arguing that lemurs should be considered person? If no, then not here. Chimps, Gorillas and Orangs are of course the best known non-human primates but they are three species (three genera, actually - UtherSRG) out of many dozens. I will abreviate this as it was before and move it the ape page. That is, not suppressing info but moving it to the appropriate spot. Marskell 23:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I've reduced it as discussed earlier. I'd appreciate it if you would stop simply reinserting your edits, Marskell. This is a properly sourced relevant section, which has been here for months. The article is about all primates, and I have offered information about the legal status of them, including information about people who are trying to change that legal status, and yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs. It strikes me that you're personally dismissive of the idea and therefore feel it has no place here, but that's your POV. This is not a tiny-minority opinion. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * This edit summary of yours is indicative of your POV: "placing legal status at bottom and removing great ape project ref. should lemurs be considered persons under law? a) no b) i don't care. save it for the ape page." SlimVirgin (talk) 23:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You asked for talk consideration and I have given it: it makes sense on the ape page, not here. The paragraph has now been inserted on ape (which I'd guess actually gets more read-throughs, so in no way is the info being suppressed). I'm not going to revert but edit to avoid duplication with ape as it now stands. K?
 * "And yes, people are very serious about extending the notion of personhood, a legal concept, to lemurs." Source? Marskell 23:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * If you've inserted it wholesale into Ape, you'd better adjust the figures in it to cover only apes. As for finding a source for you, you can find one yourself in five minutes, probably from the same places you'll find the figures you need to correct the Ape edit. I only look for sources for material I've inserted into articles. Please do not adjust this section any further. You got what you wanted: it's now right at the bottom of the page as though it's the least important issue, and the Great Ape Project paragraph has been reduced to one sentence. I would appreciate it if you would agree to that compromise and leave the rest of it alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

"As for finding a source for you, you can find one yourself in five minutes." Wow. Conversation over. Marskell 23:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, no, Marskell, the conversation isn't over. It never began, because you're determined to do whatever you want regardless. If you don't correct the figures in the Ape article, I will remove the section entirely. You're now engaged in WP:POINT, deliberately inserting false material elsewhere so that you can claim it's duplicated and therefore remove it from here. That is a violation of policy. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I was out of order accusing Marskell of WP:POINT. He did no such thing, of course, and I'm sorry for being so sharp and short-tempered about this issue. It was because of things happening elsewhere. I'll have calmed down by tomorrow, no doubt, and I'm sorry for taking it out on people here. I'll leave the sections in Ape and here alone. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I hope this isn't a permanent withdrawal from primate work, and is simply a chance to have some breathing room. I'd like to reorganize the ape article, as its sections are a bit disjoint. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

You probably don't need to hear this, BUT, coming in new and reading "Legal Status," the sentences pertaining to humans sound dissonant. Humans are editing Wikipedia. We are very nearly in every article either literally or from a human point of view. Why not say that humans are covered elsewhere and let it go at that. Not even sure that should be there. Just doesn't sound encyclopedic and detached.Student7 22:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

rewriting
I've decided to rewrite the first few sections of the article. I finally got annoyed at the size difference table, rewrote that entire section, merged it with the general description section, and expanded the lead ection to include a bit of division and habitation information. Feel free to comment, undo, or continue this work. - UtherSRG (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Diet
Could somebody put in something about diet here? Maybe this is too broad a page for that topic, but can something sensible be said about the general range of diets in (non-human) primates? Some are very highly specialized, some not, and I think it would be interesting to have a very brief overview and perhaps some references (and a bit more on some species specific pages). Abu Amaal 23:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Some are herbivores, some are more specifically foliovores and fugivores. Some are omnivores. I'm not sure if any are strictly carnivores. I'll add your comment to the ongoing peer review for this article and work on adding some information. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Primitive. Helpful?
"Generally speaking, the Primates are divided into three main groupings. The prosimians are the group of primates that represent the more primitive evolutionary line. "

Is there a different way to phrase that - our last common ancestor wasa long time ago, so unless they are like Coelocanths, which doesn't seem to be brought out and would be notable in itself, have they not done as much evolving since as the rest of us? Midgley 05:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Prosimians are considered more "primitive" because their adaptiations have not moved them far from our common ancester with them. They are tree dwelling, generalist insectivores. Yet I see your point about the word "primitive". I'll see what I can do. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One should be polite about distant cousins Midgley 14:16, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

vandalism
The TAXOBOX has been vandalized —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 206.51.13.11 (talk • contribs).
 * Oh? How so? I don't see any vandalism to the taxobox. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:11, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move
This page should be moved to Non-human primate.

Exploding Boy 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Support

 * 1) Exploding Boy 22:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

 * 1) No it shouldn't. This article is about the whole order. Ucucha 19:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 2) Absolutely not. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * 3) No. --Vjam 11:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Removed Legal Status which was complete mess
Legal status of primates is regulated by several international conventions in animal trade. I personally feel that it is superfluous in this short intro, but maybe some user with technical info feels it is necessary.

Short information about endangered primates & extiction risk, on the other hand, is needed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.152.84.114 (talk • contribs).
 * So add information abut those conventions. And add information about endangered species. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

How about a pointer to "Endangered Species," which already exists and an expansion of that topic to include primates (other than the aye-aye, which is already there)?Student7 22:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Brachiation
The physical description section correctly states that primates have opposable thumbs, fingernails and long inward-closing fingers, but wrongly implies this to be a result of a common brachiating ancestor. Only the apes can brachiate (swing through the trees), and this is reflected in their anatomy, notably in the shape of the shoulder, hip and wrist joints, and the relative strength of the arms. The other primates move along the branches of trees, rather than swing between them. I suggest deleting the part about brachiation, without losing any of the information on the hands themselves. Perhaps the brachiating part could be replaced by the more general point that primates hands developed because they can grip branches, but I don't have any sources for that. I wanted to check though before changing. --Robbie251 19:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I think i was wrong in saying only apes can brachiate (the spider monkey can too, at least), but the point remains that it is not a feature common to all primates. --Robbie251 19:15, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. I believe I have updated the text in an appropriate manner. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Laughter
This laughter section is a little detailed for a taxonomy page. It ought to be referenced and then the article conducted in another page, either a new one about laughter in primates or as a section in a laughing article.LH 07:10, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I would support either of those splits. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The laughter section is more about laughter than about primates. I say.....take it to laughter. AHHHAaaaHHAHAAAA --Shalljsa 16:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Propaganda?
I am very disturbed by the sections "Legal Status" and "Laughter in Primates". Both are topic the refer more specifically to the great apes, and should be removed that article, if those issue are to be discussed in Wikipedia at all (or rather discussed in a taxonomy page). Both seem to be propaganda intended to make the case that we should be treating primates as people, a view that is at best controversial and in any case which fails the test of NPOV. The part in "Legal Status" about their use in experimentation I see as a seperate topic, but another editor does not wish to separate it from "Legal Status", making that text very POV. Finally there is the picture of the monkeys in a crate. Once again, I see a strong POV there, and I do not like that.

This article needs to be about primates in general. It should not be promoting legal rights and pushing for a stop to primate experimentation. (However, I do approve of the text on experimentation. I have a hard time arguing that it is not relevant and encyclopedic.  Also, my complaint about the push for legal status for the great apes is that this article is about primates and not the grat apes in particular.) --EMS | Talk 21:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article would be POV without the legal status section. Can you imagine an artice on Palestinians that didn't mention their situation in the West Bank, or an article about African Americans that didn't mention they'd ended up in America because of the slave trade? It would be POV to have an article on primates that didn't mention how one set of them (human beings) have legal rights, while others are allowed to be experimented on, with no legal rights, simply because they resemble the human beings so much.


 * Why do you say it's POV to have legal status and testing combined? One is a direct effect of the other.


 * As for the image, you have images of primates looking free and happy, so there's nothing wrong with having one image of them in a cage, which is where large numbers of primates find themselves. SlimVirgin (talk) 03:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You have not dealt with my concern that the first half of "legal status" and the "laughter" section do not apply to the whole order Primates, but instead to a specific subset of it. I also am having serious difficulty with the analogy between the Palestinians and the primates.  In fact, I very, very bothered by the undercurrent in those two sections that reads "these beings are like us and should be treated the same as us".  That is a very pro-animal-rights position, and IMO belongs in an article on anumal rights and not here.
 * I find four points being made here:
 * Non-human primates lack rights of their own. (This is trivial)
 * A movement exists to give the great apes rights. (This belongs in the great apes article.)
 * Primates are used in experimentation for our benefit. (This is an important point, whose presense I applaud BTW.)
 * Great apes can laugh. (I love this item, but once again it belongs in the great apes article.)


 * All that I can tell you is that the last part of this article hits me like a slap in the face, and when I ask myself whether that slap belongs there I came up with a flat "No" on that. This stuff reads to me like input from an animal rights advocate and not from an interested but unbiased editor.  Even splitting the "Legal Rights" section like I did tones down the whole business and IMO makes this into a much milder and neutral article, as it should IMO be. --EMS | Talk 23:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking of the legal rights section, you see it as propaganda because you don't agree with it, in my view. It's written in a very dry, factual tone. It gives details of how many primates are in captivity, says that some groups want to extend the concept of legal personhood to them. It's also very short, as is consistent with summary style. It's your POV that "non-human primates lack rights" is trivial. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You response is confirming something that I have been very suspiscious of since you reverted my changes, namely that animal rights and the treatement of primates is a hot-button issue for you. Let's just say that editing on a topic that is emotional for one's self is generally not a good idea.


 * It's something I'm interested in; not sure about "hot button." Similarly, it's clear to me that you oppose animal rights. That's fine. That's how NPOV works. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * On the legal rightsd section, I agree that it is written in a properly factual tone. What ruins it is that you start out talking about the possibility of the great apes being given rights, and then proceed into a discussion of how primates of all types are experimented on.  This creates an implied message of "these beings, which ought to have rights, and being treated as guinea pigs".


 * Well, it's obvious that if their rights were protected, they wouldn't be sitting in laboratories having toxicology tests run on them. I don't think that's any kind of leap of logic, or strange association of facts. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * In other words, the ordering as association of facts is an important as the words that you use in each sentense. In fact, I have less quibble with the content than with its placement and ordering.  That is why I split the legal rights section, for instance.  No content was lost, but that odd juxtaposition of rights and experimentation as being a singualr issue was removed, as I intended.


 * Perhaps we could have it as a sub-head then, though it seems odd to split such a small section into multiple sections. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The picture is also an issue. Combined with your words, the effect is very POV.  Without the words, the result is a much drier and more neutral article.  It really is the whole that matters here, and as a Wikipedia editor I find the current whole unacceptable.


 * The picture is important because we have two very positive images of primates in captivity, but that isn't the only situation for them. It's important to show the other side. I deliberately didn't pick an image that was very disturbing. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Beyond that, do be advised that this is not a page that I care to fight over, and you are a respected editor with whom I would rather not fight. Even so, I will press my case in the talk page for time being, in the hope that we can reach an understanding here that benefits this page and therefore Wikipedia itself. --EMS | Talk 01:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I just saw your comment on Talk:Non-human primate experiments.  Given those comments, I am wondering what the issue is with my concerns here. --EMS | Talk 01:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what that refers to. SlimVirgin (talk) 08:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


 * The subheading works. I'd still rather not have a picture in the animal testing section and definitely think that the part on laughter has to be removed to the "great apes" article.  However, the first issue is not worth pushing on without others participating (so that the decision can be based on a consensus instead of being your view or mine); and for the laughter business the "great apes" article needs a rewrite in order to be able to accept it.  (BTW - The great apes have more than laughter in common with us, and that should be documented somewhere.)
 * As for your Talk:Non-human primate experiments comments: I found them to be "right on", making this argument all the wierder to me. --EMS | Talk 17:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Changes
1) I would change the first part of the first paragraph in this way

A primate (L. nominative singular primas, "one of the first, excellent, noble"; plural primates) is any member of the biological order Primates, the group that contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the latter category including humans.[1]

It's more simple, more correct from the linguistic point of view and more understandable than the current text.

2) I would add immediately:

The order Primates was established by Linnaeus in 1758, in the tenth edition of his book Sistema naturae. In the first edition (1735), he used the taxon Anthropomorpha for apes, monkeys and sloths. In following editions, he also suggested that Non-Primate Mammals should be called Secundates and that Non-Mammal Animals Tertiates, which was not accepted.

3) I would change this paragraph

The status of non-human primates has generated much debate, particularly through the Great Ape Project[6] which argues for their personhood.

in this way

The status of non-human primates has generated much debate, particularly through the Great Ape Project[6] which argues for the personhood of Non-Human Hominidae. In 1995 Ignaas Spruit, director of the Leiden (Netherlands) based Pro-Primates organization, went farther, as he proposed that some rights should be recognized to all Non-Human Primates [SPRUIT, Ignaas, 1995: "On Declaring Non-human Primate Rights: An Approach to Primate Protection" in CORBEY, Raymond and THEUNISSEN, Bert, 1995: Ape, Man, Apeman: Changing Views since 1600, Department of Prehistory, Leiden University, pp. 377-383]

4) I agree that all Primate clades be merged into this article.

User: Vasconicus (23rd May 2007).


 * I've adapted these suggestions into the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me have a look at the 1735 version of Systema Naturae to verify something about sloths. I'll let you know my information tomorrow.

Vasconicus. 24 May 2007.


 * Ok. Also, please register an account. It's much nicer talking to a registered user than an IP. :D - UtherSRG (talk) 11:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Anthropomorpha 1735: Homo, Simia, Bradypus Primates 1758: Homo, Simia, Lemur, Vespertilio Therefore, sloths were included within Anthopomorpha and bats within Primates. I have already corrected the text. Sorry for the mistake. I have introduced some minor changes too. In the section about Primate hybrids I don't know whether anything should be said about the experiments to mix chimpanzees and humans, as, contrary to what most people think, the genetic difference between Homo and Pan is lesser than between Pan and Gorilla  and . It's up to you

Vasconicus 25 May 2007.


 * We're well aware that Pan is more closely related to Homo than to Gorilla. Look to "Hominoidea" and "Homininae" for such evidence. I don't know that any info about attempts an humanzees needs to be added, as none ever were and Pan and Homo do not hybridize. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I agree. You've done an excellent work, UtherSRG Thank you. 213.97.3.81 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Vasconicus213.97.3.81 06:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added the reference for Euprimates, which was lacking, and the genera for the Linnean Anthropomorpha and Primates. Vasconicus 06:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * May I suggest to split the header sentence into 2 sentences, the first defining the subject, and the second listing its members, to make a clear and concise definition of that specific taxonomic order, which is now is not immediately apparent. It would read along these lines:


 * "A primate is any member of the biological order that is destinguished by presense of five fingers with one finger opposing and fingernails rather than claws, generalized dental pattern, eye orbit postorbital bar, and a unspecialized body plan, that distinguish them from other taxonomic orders. The Primate group contains all the species commonly related to the lemurs, monkeys, and apes, with the last category including humans...."  Thanks,  Barefact 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating Primate
Greetings from WikiProject Disambiguation! This page did not show up on our list, but I realize that it should. I just changed 26 links from [[primate]] to [[primate (religion)]], such as Diocese of Canterbury.

After this change, there are 358 links to the holy man sense, and 1457 to the chimp sense. Numbers aren't everything, but 20% is a significant percentage, and this is not a frivolous pop culture topic.

The obvious solution is to rename this article to primate (mammal), and make primate a disambiguation page. I understand this will leave 1457 links that need fixing. Well, fixing links is what we do at WP:DPL, and I promise that we will fix them. (When I say "we" I probably mean "I".)

I'll give everyone who watches this page a couple days to toss in their 2¢ worth, but I think the only thing to debate is what to call the page. I already gave my choice (primate (mammal)); there's an unused redirect at primate (biology). I don't care too much about the name. The change has to be done. It's embarrassing for Wikipedia to call the Archbishop of Canterbury the gorilla of all England. — Randall Bart (talk) 05:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree with moving this page. There is a disambiguating link at the top of the article. That is sufficient. Fix the 358 links and leave the 1457 alone. K.I.S.S - UtherSRG (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * From WikiProject Disambiguation, I disagree -- the current primate article topic appears to be the primary meaning, and should remain at the base name. -- JHunterJ 21:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There are cases where the primary meaning sufficiently overshadows secondary meanings that it can stay at the base name. A subject of this import with 358 links is way bigger than that. I just fixed 26 links that I could easily find, because the word "bishop" or "church" or "diocese" was in the article title. There are sure to be at least a dozen more. The way we currently have for keeping up with this is to have a Disambiguator look at each article. It is important that every time someone links [[primate]], either that person or someone else looks critically at the link. Do you want to offer another way to handle this?

The number 1457 looks like a lot of links, but I fixed half this many for [[Goth]] (Alaric I was leading a band of overage adolescents with bad fashion sense, and I didn't like it). If I end up doing this alone it may take me a week, but the links will be fixed, and after that the Disambiguation faeries will keep on top of it. — Randall Bart (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can that easily disambiguate [[primate]] to [[primate (mammal)]], then you can more easily do the smaller [[primate]] to [[primate (religion)]]. sorry, but your argument of simplicity works against you. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand the disambiguation process. I am saying the 1457 need to be looked at (however see below).  The changing is a minor part of the process, it's the looking that's expensive.  The changing is to mark that it need not be looked at again. — Randall Bart (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I fixed the remaining ones that needed it (Arthur Rose, Paul Kwong, List of Royal Military College of Canada people, Hovnan Derderian, Panteleimon Sklavos, Metropolitan John (Stinka), Metropolitan Michael Khoroshy, Joseph René Vilatte, Metropolitan Ioann (Vasiliy Bodnarchuk), Metropolitan Iziaslav (Brutskiy), Alfred Barry, Jędrzej Kitowicz, 30564 Olomouc, Karekin I, Prince primate, History of the Anglican Communion, Peter Kwong, Consecration, Jan Łaski, Robin Eames, Belfast Royal Academy, Ted Scott, Constitution of May 3, 1791, Stefan Nemanja, and Adam Marsh). Those are the ones that linked to primate and also included the string "bishop" somewhere in the article. That might do it for now. -- JHunterJ 01:30, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I need to know what tools you are using, because I can't do that from my browser. I assume you include "archbishop", but what about embedded forms?  I can imagine something like "the Archbishopric of Foo, home to the primate of Bar".  If you can catch that, I call this good enough.  You'll need to run that from time to time to keep up with it.  I sadly confess that if you run it once every three months is as good as the service you will get from the disambiguation gnomes, but I would prefer you did it more often.
 * Between the two of us we've fixed 52. That many wrong links (not ambiguous, but wrong) on a religious topic is a serious problem.  However with your scan (assuming you caught "archbishopric") should bring it down to one or two bizarre cases, which is good enough.
 * I remind you that most cladistic terms come from other fields. In this case the lead bishop sense was well established long before Linnaeus was born.  To someone studying religion, your use of "primate" is merely pop culture with a century of maturity.  If you polled the editors, I'll bet more than 80% of the time when they use the word "mouse" they mean a computer input device.  How long before mouse is moved to mouse (rodent)?
 * I believe the truest form of WP:NPOV is to include all common uses on a disambiguation page. There are cases where one meaning overshadows all the others, but this is not one.  It's not even close.  — Randall Bart (talk) 23:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I used AWB. It included the string "bishop", so anything that had those letters in that order (case insensitively), such as Archbishopric or obishopping (buying for Japanese belts?) would be included.  You're welcome for the current effort, but I won't be running it from time to time to keep up with it. Subsequent Wiki editors can do so, of course, and if any get overlooked, the Wiki editor who notices can just fix that one instance.  The normal method of improving Wikipedia works here too.  You're right, primary topic-ness can change with time.  If the time comes to move Mouse to Mouse (rodent), I'm sure it will be.  In this case, Primate and Primate (religion) are currently the correct nomenclature for their Wikipedia articles, since one use is the primary one. In addition to the disparity of intraWiki links for the topic, Googling "primate bishop" gets just under a tenth of the hits of "primate monkey", for example. If you disagree, you can propose the move using the WP:RM process, and see what the editorial consensus is. Cheers! -- JHunterJ 11:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow! This is a lesson in search engine differences.  You need to subtract Wikipedia, and you'll find different numbers.  Google gives me 1,750,000 for "primate monkey" and 580,000 for "primate bishop", which is 3 to 1.  AltaVista gets 994,000 for "primate monkey", and 410,000 for "primate bishop", which is only 2.5 to 1. Yahoo gives 996,000 for "primate monkey" and 783,000 for "primate bishop", about 1.2 to 1!
 * Based on the meaningless numbers above, and the Wikipedia numbers which are now 1434 and 380 (under 4 to 1), I disagree with your POV.  I am not taking this to WP:RM now, because there is no problem now.  If WikiProject Primates keeps this clean, then you can keep it.  If WikiProject Disambiguation needs to keep this clean, then this needs to be a disambiguation page.  I'll come back some day to see how you are doing.  — Randall Bart (talk) 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'd like to engage me to do some tasks for you to "come back some day to see how [I am] doing", please contact me about my contracting rates. In the mean time, we can keep this as it is. WikiProject Disambiguation does not need to keep this clean, any more than it needs to keep all other links to primary topics clean.  That's up to the Wikipedia editorship as a whole, since any editor can introduce an incorrect link to any article.  And part of the tools at our disposal is the WP:RM process.  The only part of this that is my POV is the assumption that a Request Move of Primate to Primate (biology) would not meet with consensus. -- JHunterJ 14:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Quotes
I have added two more quotes (Milner's and Hooton's). Vasconicus 06:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Fossil Primates
Dear Proteuontologists (this funny word would be the purist Greek word for our discipline if we wanted to avoid the Latin-Greek hybrid "primatologists"), I suggest we try to create an article with the tittle "Fossil Primates", where the classification of the direct ancestors of all current Primate families appear. It is impossible to be up to date with new findings, published in too many revues. We could use this discussion page to keep each other informed about the advances of Primatology/Proteuontology. We have been able to do so with living species. It might be time to do the same with extinct ones. Thank you for your help in advance. Vasconicus (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not the place for such discussion. You want WikiProject Primates. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A minor change I would make to the physical description:
In the fifth sentence of the physical description section I would suggest changing a single word to make the sentence a bit more clear.

I would change the part where it says "short fingernails" to "flat fingernails". I just think it's a bit more clear in the way it differentiates their nails from claws.

Anyone opposed to this change? DDRaver (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about you, but my fingernails aren't flat. They are curved. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Blainville
I have corrected some wrong information about Ducrotay de Blainville in the second paragraph and I have added some important references. Vasconicus (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Could you perhaps also add something about the contents of Gravigrada and Pachyderma, as both taxa appear to be quite a bit out of date? Ucucha 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that's relevant here. Perhaps on an article about the history of the Linnaean classification system? - UtherSRG (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it might be an idea to create a list of outdated higher taxa, so that we can have a place where things like Linnaeus' Bestiae are defined (which are important for taxonomic history), but without having articles about them, which would mostly be quite short. Ucucha 18:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be nifty! - UtherSRG (talk) 19:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for encouraging me. It took me ages to find the article by Blainville. By the way, does anybody know why "Henri-Marie Ducrotay de Blainville" appears in red? It should be appear in blue as there is an internal link for it(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henri_Marie_Ducrotay_de_Blainville).

The article I've got is only an outline of his main work, Ostéographie ou description iconographique comparée du squelette et du système dentaire des mammifères récents et fossiles (1839-64), where further information about Gravigrada and Pachyderma must be given. I agree with you that we should study in depth the history of the Linnaean classification system, including stones (Lapides), fungi (Regnum Chaoticum) and diseases (Morbi), which are not known at all. Thank you again. Vasconicus (talk) 06:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is red because your link has a hyphen and the article doesn't. I've made your link a redirect to the article. In the meantime, let's start a list of defunct taxa. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I've competed the title of the revue where Blainville's article was published, which is ''Annales Françaises et Etrangères d’Anatomie et de Physiologie Appliquées à la Médicine et à l’Histoire Naturelle"88.2.148.216 (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2008 (UTC). Sorry for the inconvenience.

Pachydermata
In English is Pachydermata, not Pachyderma (sorry, I was translating from French). Please, correct it in all articles. Vasconicus (talk) 10:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Primate collaboration
This article is Mammal Collaboration of the Month at the moment. It'd be great if we could sort out a to-do list to get things rolling, maybe some of the issues address on the discussion page should be addressed properly? Cheers, Jack (talk) 18:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)


 * This is a quick comparison between the Encyclopedia Britannica and the Wikipedia page topics. We should be able to get the article to cover all the topics plus add a little extra, including more up-to-date research (e.g. Britannica still lists 300 species).


 * Cheers, Jack (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, things that are still important: evolution (first split between strep and hap, then the hap split into plat/cat, then the cat split into apes/monkeys), reproduction, and habitat. I'm off on holiday now! Cheers, Jack (talk) 22:17, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Something should be said about vocalizations (in this article) and about extinct Primates (not necessarily in this article). Vasconicus (talk) 12:10, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Dimorphism?
i read the section on sexual dimorphism and still don't know what sexual dimorphism is. 76.14.67.219 (talk) 15:12, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It means that males look different from females. I've added an internal link to sexual dimorphism, if that helps. Anaxial (talk) 17:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Move "legal status" to non-human primage page
I feel that the legal status section is a bit out of place in a taxonomy article. I think this would be more adequately addressed on the page non-human primate. I feel that the primate article should be about the entire order, and not discuss things like animal research or personhood (which are more specifically issues regarding non-human primates, not primates in general). At the moment, I have copied this section over to non-human primate and ask for comment. Chaldor (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree. We want to build up this article, not split it apart at this point. Look a couple of sections up, we're looking for more sections and more depth. Moving out the legal status section would be working contrary to this goal. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merged content of NHP into this article. Chaldor (talk) 08:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Vocalizations
I still think something else should be said about Primate vocalizations in this article, for example, experiments by Richard Lynch Garner (c.1890) and Peter Marler, Robert Seyfarth, and Dorothy Cheney (c.1980) and so on Thank you. Vasconicus (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I've quickly added the communication section into the cognition section. Didn't have time to look at any of your suggested authors yet. Will have another go soon. Cheers, Jack (talk) 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Awareness of death
I have to confess my ignorance about awareness of death in Non-Human Primates. Nevertheless, I think it is an exciting topic. Apparently, elephants know they are going to die. What about Non-Human Hominidae and other Primate families? Does anybody dare write something about this? It would be an excellent complement of this article. Theodosius Dobzhansky said (more or less, I am re-translating from Spanish): "The being who knows that it is going to die some day is born to ancestors who did not know". According to him, awareness of death makes us Human. I cannot find the exact reference. I would really appreciate it if anybody could. Thank you very much in advance. Vasconicus (talk) 06:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Undue weight on legal status of NHP?
I don't know how this strikes others, but it seems to me that there is undue weight on the question of legal status of NHPs in this article. I don't think it is as significant an issue as the text makes it out to be. The references to the experts are rather unknown individuals, and there are no references from experts on the other side of the position (then again, I don't think there needs to be counter-example references because it's just not that big an issue). I propose we consider removing some of the material and possibly merging the rest with the introductory sentences at the beginning. I think the UN declaration is relevant, but the references to the great ape project, Spruit, and Hooton don't belong in this article. Chaldor (talk) 20:43, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the section is fine as it stands. It's not overly long, and I think it is an important issue, considering some recent research I've read about in National Geographic (March 2008) on the cognitive abilities of animals, which calls into question many previous assumptions about the differences between humans and other animals.

I could see removing the Hooton reference, but I think the rest is good. Cadwaladr (talk) 21:06, 7 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't know about undue weight - I disagree with the sentiments presented in that section but I don't find the section problematic. But I removed the Hooton reference, since it does seem less important than the other information in the article, and the article is quite long. Rlendog (talk) 22:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Red links in article
There are currently quite a few red links in the article. I'm going to list them here for review, should they be removed/replaced with more common words/created?
 * Comparative analysis - "The analysis of an experimental array compared to a baseline array." (using Google's define:)
 * Ontogenic scaling - The relative extension of a common growth trajectory.
 * Allogrooming - "Care given by one individual to the condition of the body surface of another individual." (from Britannica)
 * Palaeopropithecidae - Extinct lemur family
 * Archaeolemuridae - Extinct lemur family
 * Toothcomb (anatomy) - Type of tooth found in lemurs
 * Anthropomorpha - Defunct taxon
 * Gravigrada - Defunct taxon
 * Paraconid - The cusp of a primitive lower molar corresponding to the paracone. (McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms)
 * Jack (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I created a stub article for toothcomb. Rlendog (talk) 22:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I found an additional redlink - paraconid. Rlendog (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We have had articles for Palaeopropithecinae and Archaeolemurinae as subfamilies. As these seem to be widely accepted to have been elevated to family status, the subfamily articles should probably be moved under the family names.  However, for now I just created redirects from the family name to the subfamily article for each one. Rlendog (talk) 01:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:RED. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-consciousness
Sorry for insisting, but it might be useful to say something about the experiments by Richard Lynch Garner (1890) and Peter Marler(1980) on NHP vocalizations. With regard to NHP self-consciousness, one prominent aspect is that of awareness of death. Theodosius Dobzhansky said (more or less, I am re-translating from Spanish): "The being that knows that it is going to die some day is born to ancestors that did not know". According to him, awareness of death makes us human (elephants and other Mammals, including some NHP, must be humans too). I cannot find the exact reference of Dobzhansky's text. I would really appreciate it if anybody could. PS. I would not remove the Hooton reference, which is very suggesting and very funny as well. Vasconicus (talk) 15:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * We do have to think about WP:LENGTH even for this vast topic. I'm not sure the subjects you've mentioned are necessary to further this article, and are possibly not backed up with enough evidence. Quotes aren't really at home here and should probably be removed unless entirely needed. Though I do agree more should be done on primate vocalisation. Cheers, Jack (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, Jack. I'll try to learn something else about vocalizations for the article, which, by the way, is excellent already and doesn't need improving. Thank you. Vasconicus (talk) 08:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

NHP Link Broken

 * I'm not sure how to correct this, but the recent change by Jackhynes of putting the NHP section within the relationship to humans section broke the Non human primate link. I don't know how to correct this. Can someone fix it? Thank you. Chaldor (talk) 07:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I was meant to fix that as I knew I was breaking the link. It's done now though (I've fixed four, are there any more than that?). In future to fix a link like that you would click Non-human primate, it will redirect to Primate. Under the Primate title it says "(Redirected from Non-human primate)", you click that link which has a no redirect action attached to it. Edit the actual Non-human primate article and add whatever the heading you want to redirect to is, e.g. Primate. Save the page and you're done. Hope that helps! Cheers, Jack (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding fossil age and era
User:545lljkr has, three times now, made changes regarding the fossil date and era of origin. These changes don't appear to be reflecting consensus and are not discussed before the change is made. I would like to ask him to present his reasons for making this change here so we can reach consensus about it and prevent an edit war. Thank you. Chaldor (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * It's possible he's thinking of this little critter: Purgatorius, which is late Cretaceous, although not quite as old as 545lljkr is maintaining. As I understand it (and the Wikipedia article seems to confirm) it's pretty debatable that this animal really is a true primate, although it is almost certainly related to primates. Come to that, last I heard, there was some debate about Plesiadapis too, making the oldest definitive primate Altiatlasius. However, this may have been resolved since, and if 545lljkr has a reference to a proven 85 mya fossil of a primate, then, of course, we'll take a look. Anaxial (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What exactly made you think Purgatorius was a primate in the first place? I wrote the spanish version of that article and classifying its order as "incertae sedis".

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020418073440.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talk • contribs) 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I've seen arguments that it might be, although they don't seem to hold up. Anyway, we obviously agree that it isn't, so that's now beside the point. Unfortunately, the article you cited doesn't mention any 85 mya fossil primate, either. Remember, it's the fossil range we're talking about here, not the age implied by molecular evidence (which is useful information, but already mentioned in the article). Anaxial (talk) 06:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Classification
I think that we should include all extinct families within the article itself, cercopithecidae and pliopithcidae aren't in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 545lljkr (talk • contribs) 00:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds fair to me; it's done for some other taxonomic groups. Anaxial (talk) 06:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello again
Hello Axial, I'm no expert on Wikipedia but I try my best and have written a few articles, let's leave the primate issue as 55ma. I just need you to help me with please: How exactly do you incorporate images to this site? I've gone to the help section but itdidn't give me answers. 545lljkr (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Replied on talk page Anaxial (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

To do
Is that To do list updated? Rather long for an article at FAC. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:12, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * It's either comments from the GA review or my own feelings. Some of the issues may have been addressed during the FAC and some may be non-issues. Jack (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Heaviest primate
The Mountain Gorilla may be the heaviest primate when taking average weight into consideration, but surely the heaviest recorded primates have all been seriously obese humans? Some of the world's heaviest people weigh as much as two adult male Mountain Gorillas, so I would consider changing the article to reflect this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.221.2 (talk) 15:31, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Morbid obesity on that scale is a disease/disorder in humans. That would be like finding a gorilla with a huge brain tumor and saying because of that discovery humans don't have the langest brain of any primate. Rreagan007 (talk) 19:31, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

morbid obesity isn't normal and that's why it's called morbid, if you stuff another primate full of food he can also outweigh a human but it's about natural weight. Markthemac (talk) 00:35, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Largest and smallest species
Actually, the Eastern Lowland Gorilla averages larger (male 163 kg/360 lb) than the Mountain Gorilla (156 kg/343 lb), although the largest individuals appear to have been mostly Mountain Gorillas: Guinness lists 310 kg (683 lb) "N'Gagi" as the heaviest, though the graueri article has higher claims. This is of little significance, however, as both represent the same species.

The smallest species is Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur (30.6 g/1.08 oz). The Pygmy Mouse Lemur (45.2–49 g/1.59–1.73 oz) was indeed declared smallest upon its rediscovery in 1993, however many sources have failed to notice that since then the genus Microcebus has been split into more species, and the smallest type no longer goes under the name M. myoxinus. I've commented this more in detail on the Pygmy Mouse Lemur discussion page.

--Anshelm &#39;77 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the smallest primate, I plan to update that on their respective pages. Normally I make updates to such minimal pages with complete re-writes, which can take days or weeks to do.  However, I will try to find time between tonight and tomorrow to make those minor updates.  I appreciate your attention to detail interest in seeing that information corrected. –Visionholder (talk) 14:06, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The pages regarding the smallest primates have been fixed. Of course, complete re-writes are forthcoming. –Visionholder (talk) 14:48, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

First Primate
As explained in the article Fossil Primates, the first Primate was neither Purgatorius nor Plesiadapis, both of them being Plesiadapiforms, but, perhaps Altiatlasius (although it might be a Plesiadapiform too) Vasconicus (talk) 06:25, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Range graphic
The range picture is not entirely correct, (wild) primates live in northern africa and gibraltar as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, the map does include some parts of Northern Africa and Gibralta. It's not very clear however as the map is of a low resolution. Jack (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

picture
can you add picture of a human to right top? please. --144.122.250.222 (talk) 13:43, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Humans are only one species of primate, there are many others. The Olive Baboon image was selected as a recognisable non-human primate. Jack (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

haha why do the people in the homo sapiens picture both have completely shaved bodies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.165.189.188 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

These people are shaved. This is very odd, i.e., not natural. I think the picture should be removed. We all know humans are primates, we don't need a nude picture to prove it. The picture doesn't add anything to the article.  Jwesley 78 07:29, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Primates
Just to let you guys know, I have created the Primates portal. Any contributions are welcomed.  Zoo Fari  17:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Eye color of primates?
There doesn't seem to be any mention of the eye color in primates. Is it safe to say that all primates but man have brown eyes? Many other mammals have different colors of eyes (like cats and dogs) but as for chimpanzees, apes, baboons, orangutans, and other primates - they all appear to have brown eyes? The main article could be improved if a paragraph or two were added on eye color. Dexter Nextnumber (talk) 06:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, no it isn't safe to say that. The clearest exception being Sclater's Lemur, although many other primates have eyes that aren't really what we think of as brown in humans (they might be more orange in colour, for instance). Which isn't to say that a section on all this wouldn't be valuable for the page, of course. Anaxial (talk) 10:17, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Nude photo
Since my edit was reverted, would someone like to explain how a nude photo of two people conveys information relevant to the article? (Other than the fact that humans are primates.) I think the alternative line drawing, or no drawing at all, would be sufficient.  Jwesley 78 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The images in this article show some of the diversity of the primate order. Its most common species, the human, should certainly be included. Line drawings have no other advantage than satisfying some people's objections to nudity, but Wikipedia is not censored. Ucucha 05:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the following policy is more relevant WP:Profanity - Words and images that would be considered offensive, profane, or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if their omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternatives are available. I would claim we have reasonable alternatives that are no less informative.  Jwesley 78 05:43, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * * BTW. I don't have a problem with this picture in the Human article.  It appears to be adding quality information that could not otherwise be easily provided.  Jwesley 78


 * "Typical Wikipedia readers" are very unlikely to consider this image a profanity. What you are referring to here is more apparently "some readers".
 * Content disclaimer: Wikipedia contains many different images, some of which are considered objectionable or offensive by some readers. For example, some articles contain graphical depictions of violence, or depictions of human anatomy.
 * Different versions of this image is being used as a default representation of humans in a series of articles. Seriously, do you expect Wikipedia to add leaves to all images of mammals? Or limit itself to drawings of primates?  --Fama Clamosa (talk) 06:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're being ridiculous. I'm talking specifically about the use of this image in this article.  (And to turn it around) Are you saying every article about mammals or animals needs nude pictures of people in it?  Jwesley 78 06:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * * And to answer your question, I think a typical reader would find it at least one of "offensive, profane, or obscene", but most likely just the first.  Jwesley 78 06:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To answer the original question specifically, the image falls in line with all the other primate images used in the article. It shows skin tone, fairly detailed anatomy, our lack of pelage (except cephalic hair), etc.  It is more informative than a picture of a person wearing a t-shirt and blue jeans would be.  Admittedly, it's not perfect.  Personally, I feel the images should show people with unshaven bodies (pubic hair, facial hair, etc.) and possibly alternative ethnicities to demonstrate variability (although we don't make efforts to show every color variant of each primate shown).  A line drawing would be an even bigger step down in the quality scale, IMO.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  06:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to determine sufficient conditions for which full-frontal human nudity is appropriate. Apparently, this article meets those conditions. (The need to show Caucasian human skin tone satisfies the clause: "omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, *and* no equally suitable alternatives are available.") I understand that most wikipedia editors think nothing of human nudity, but there is a large segment of the U.S. population that finds it (at least) mildly offensive. Wikipedia policy apparently states that offensive material should be used when necessary, and should not be used when not necessary, i.e, it says "if and only if".  Jwesley 78 06:44, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I feel in necessary to note that the same segment of the US population would find it as offensive, if not more so, to suggest that humans and the rest of the primates are in some way related. Given that many of them prefer to frequent such fact-free corners of the interweb as Conservapedia and consider us evil anyway, is it necessary to worry unduly about what they think about this article? Sabine's Sunbird  talk  09:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, it would be interesting to know (if it were possible to know) what percentage of the population would truly find the material offensive. In the U.S., graphic material&mdash;particularly pertaining to sexuality and/or nudity&mdash;is becoming quite common in the media. Our media is controlled by market forces, meaning an increasing number of people obviously don't find sexuality and nudity offensive because they tune in for it.  If they didn't, the media wouldn't display it.  –   VisionHolder  « talk »  09:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The photo is plainly relevant, and offensive only to the most prudish, but may I suggest that using examples from whom all body hair has been shaved is not truly representative of the species? One would hardly shave a gorilla for use in illustrating the article about that species, after all. 192.91.173.42 (talk) 01:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The nude photo is in no way offensive to me, but a naked, shaved human is unnatural. A Martian visiting Earth would not often encounter naked people, let alone shaved ones. I think we should replace the image with this one, depicting a couple in Thailand, which appears at the top of the Human article. It's a much more natural image, as it shows people as they really are. Gary (talk) 01:52, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm changing it for the following reasons: -- Cjensen (talk) 07:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Most scientific classification articles are illustrated with a relatively natural image of the species as found in its natural habitat.  I'm unaware of any which show an species example where the species body is splayed out for better view in a laboratory like setting.  The image from the Homo sapiens article is a much more natural image of the species as found in the environment, so I am replacing it with that.
 * 2) The image does not even illustrate a natural Homo sapiens sans clothing.  The female, for example, appears to have mammary development consistent with a fully grown Homo sapiens which has reached sexual maturity, yet lacks the pubic hair which is universally found on fully grown Homo sapiens.  Similarly, the male example lacks the pubic hair and also the facial hair.
 * 3) For that matter, usually hair is found somewhere other than the head.  I see no hair *anywhere*, which is not consistent with the species.
 * 4) This image does have redeeming features: It would make an excellent anatomical image for demonstrating details of the outside of the human body.  The removal of the hair and the splayed out arm positions make for better viewing of external anatomical features.  But as a general rule, classification articles do not contain images of such minutiae of anatomy unless the particular minutiae is a feature of the classification subdivision.
 * 5) Pink skin as found on these examples is unnatural on a nude Home sapiens.  H.s. skin generally darkens when exposed to sunlight unless covered full-time by clothing.
 * 6) Frankly, I'm pretty sure most readers of the article are likely familiar with Homo sapiens.  I'd actually prefer to remove the image entirely and substitute it with an image of one of the less-obvious members of the classification.
 * And if we really must have an image from the Homo branch, how about File:A.afarensis.jpg which demonstrates features common to most of the Hominids, rather than just the remaining non-extinct species of the family. -- Cjensen (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

NHP
The terminology NHP is not explained in the article and is currently unlinked. I can't edit it, since the page is protected. 80.216.22.208 (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wan't logged in. Stupid me. Anyway, I tried to fix it. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 00:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Photo
The photo of the humans in this Primate article is the only photo in the article that shows genitals. It is, therefore, not consistent with the rest of the article. Unfortunately, the photo of naked humans makes this article inappropriate as a reference for students. Nanelena (talk) 23:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting we need more picture of the genitals of other primates? Oddly enough, it is easier to see genitals on humans, on account of us lacking the dense hair of the rest of the order. It hardly makes the article inappropriate, however. My school biology textbooks had such illustrations, if memory serves. Inappropriate would be if it were Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy illustrating the reproduction section. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I prefer the existing photo. There's nothing wrong with nudity. Our society's hangup with nudity self-promulgates. Stop making nudity taboo, and our hangups of nudity will diminish. Children should see appropriate pictures of human nudity, like this one, to remove the stigma nudity has. Wikipedia is not censored. - UtherSRG (talk) 05:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not a matter of censoring Wikipedia. Humans don't naturally float in an empty white void where they have no clothes and their pubic hair is shaved. The image I posted above, of the couple in Thailand, is a better representation of what human beings look like and how they live. Almost all humans wear clothes and none of them float around in an empty void. You can tell a lot more about humans from the photo I suggested than from the photo of the naked people. Gary (talk) 17:23, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Skulls don't sit naturally in rows in the void either. Would you question the value of that image? The photo you suggest doesn't tell you a lot about what humans look like physiologically, which is an important consideration in an article where you are comparing the variation within the order. Though I agree with the above comments about shaving, there is no question that the article needs an anatomical illustration of humans (in addition to one of humans in a more natural state, perhaps). Sabine's Sunbird   talk  20:02, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think you need a photo showing what humans look like anatomically (I assume this is what Sabine means, rather than "physiologically"), even if you also have one of them dressed to show their normal behaviour. On the other hand, I also have no objection to an image showing them unshaved instead of the current one, since that would be a more natural state for the species. But this article is largely about biology, so a biological image is appropriate. Anaxial (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Additionally, human is the place for having a variety of pictures depicting the multitudes of looks and environments associated with humans, not primate. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:35, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Humans have behavior that is very different from the other primates. We wear clothes and use written language, among other behaviors. I think that an image that indicates some of our behaviors that are atypical for primates is certainly not out of place. We already have an image with Japanese macaques in a hot spring, and another macaque storing food in its cheek pouches. Several images of primates show them in their habitats, and I don't think these images exist solely to show variations in anatomy. I think we have to decide why we need an image of humans in the first place. Do we want to show off human anatomy? Or do we want to show what is unusual about humans? Or do we want to show that yes, humans are primates too, and not off in some separate category altogether? Gary (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * By that logic, we shouldn't include pictures of bats on mammal; after all, they're far more different from most mammals than humans are from other primates. Mokele (talk) 02:01, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The mammal article has two photos of bats. Gary (talk) 02:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was my point. Mokele (talk) 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not criticizing the use of images of primates with unique behaviors or features. Humans have a number of unique behaviors and some of these behaviors should be illustrated in whatever image we select. I suggest that we determine what purpose an illustration of humans should serve in our article, and then we should select an image that fits that purpose. Gary (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

How about:



S B Harris 01:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a fan of that image and all it signifies, but I would prefer a photo to a drawing. How about this image? It shows a human being, front and center. Less of her body is concealed by clothing than in the photo of the Thai couple. It also depicts social interactions between humans, and hairstyles, and the decoration of various objects, including the use of beads. There's a woman who appears to be selling fruit, implying some form of trade. There's even a white man in the background with a camera, indicating both human variation in skin tone and the use of complex technology. Gary (talk) 02:08, 12 May 2010 (UTC)




 * I too prefer a photo to a drawing. While I like this latest image for it foreground content, it is very busy. It's also hard to see what is going on with her mouth. Answering some of the previous questions: I think the image of humans on this article should show a little bit of human diversity if possible, but more importantly that humans are primates, even though we have some significant differences from other primates. Right now, the existing photo fits best for me, still. - UtherSRG (talk) 03:45, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with UtherSRG. The suggested photo is very "busy", and though it conveys useful information, it probably goes too far in conveying too much for one image.  This is a hard issue to address in such a fundamental article, compared to Human, where many images could be dedicated to demonstrating the differences, anatomy, etc.  For now, I continue to support the existing image, though this suggested replacement has been the best to date. –   VisionHolder  « talk »  04:59, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Primates may be 85 Million Years Old
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/04/020418073440.htm --Smm04983 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That's an old article that bases its dates on molecular clock studies. The fossil record does not support it, so the date for the origin of primates is still up unresolved.  This is already covered in the article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 18:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

primate size
Primates range in size from the Madame Berthe's Mouse Lemur, which weighs only 30 grams (1.1 oz) to the Mountain Gorilla weighing 200 kilograms (440 lb). hmm, and humans can weigh 400kilograms or has this page been taken hostage by creationists? Markthemac (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are figures for healthy individuals. No healthy human without abnormalities (acromegaly, etc.) outweighs a gorilla. Mokele (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

okay of all the primates humans are on the top of everything especially the weight and size thing Markthemac (talk) 17:19, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you are talking about there. It seems only logical for ranges like this to use normal individuals, not extremes like humans weighing 400 kg. Ucucha 17:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Zoonotic diseases
I have a problem with the intro paragraph of the section titled, 'Interactions with Humans' where it states 'some have hypothesized' when referring to zoonotic diseases. Zoonotic diseases are a fact and many are transmissible between apes, monkeys, etc. and humans. I don't have any links, but the one used is from 1987 and I skimmed the article and didn't see anything that said 'hypothesized' in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.154.232.44 (talk) 17:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, the source does indicate that there are some recorded cases where this has clearly happened. Something that has been shown to happen is more than a hypothesis, so I've changed the wording accordingly. Anaxial (talk) 15:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Primates are generalist mammals?
I think "Primates are generalist mammals" is dubious:
 * There are big differences between monotromes, marsupials and placentals. So there are no extant "generalist mammals". Evolution of mammals may give a clue to when the last "generalist mammals" lived.
 * Even within placentals, there are huge differences in anatomy and ecology between e.g. horses, rats, carnivores and ceteceans.
 * Primates are at least as specialised as all the other terrestrial groups (and hominids such as humans most of all):
 * Five digits on the fore and hind limbs with opposable thumbs and big toes.
 * A flat nail on the hallux (in all extant species).
 * Sensitive tactile pads on the ends of the digits.
 * A trend towards holding the torso upright leading to bipedalism. The other bipedal groups I know of move with the back level and balanced by a heavy tail: kangaroos; and dinosaurs (including birds). --Philcha (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to some point. Every primate that I can think of is specially adapted to its environment... but you could say that of any animal.  Sometimes adaptations will follow a similar theme in unrelated lineages of mammals (convergent evolution), while other solutions are unique.  Clearly the ancestral primate was even more of a generalist than today's, and the list of "defining traits" does exemplify the difficulty of defining shared, unique traits among all primates.  Casting aside the typical cultural image of a primate (as monkey or ape) and considering the full scope of the extant and extinct primates, particularly including lemur diversity—both living and extinct, you find primates that look like mice, squirrels, sloths, giant ground sloths, koalas, and marsupials (compare the Aye-aye to the Striped Possum).  I support adjusting the statement in question, but would like to hear a suggestion that would adequately summarize all of this. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd remove "Primates are generalist mammals". --Philcha (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it may refer to diet. Or maybe to the large number of basal characters, such as 5 digits. Abductive  (reasoning) 11:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-human primates
This article is ment to include all primate speices. I beleive that this article over uses this term even using it when not necessary. I also think it's redundant to put into captions "including humans" when referring it great apes because humans are implied when it's mentioned. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westvoja (talk • contribs) 01:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Update primate classification
The genetic data are now quite clear that tarsier is the sister group of anthropoids and that they should be grouped together in the Strepsirrhini while lemurs and lorises should be grouped together in the Haplorhini. Some newer citations are:

Xing et al. (2007) Mobile elements in primate and human evolution, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 134: (Supplement 45) pages 2-19 Jameson et al. (2011) Genomic data reject the hypothesis of a Prosiminian primate clade. Journal of Human Evolution (epub online ahead of print)

149.169.132.5 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2011 (UTC)acstone

I think you have Haplorhini and Strepsirrhini backwards. The former contains anthropoids and tarsiers and the latter includes the lorises and lemurs. Rlendog (talk) 18:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Oops, yes, backwards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.169.148.160 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

range question
don't see it addressed in article, but is the limited range partially an issue of the effects of man (even primitive man)? I know that in North America, the megafauna die-off happened suspiciously similar to the time that the Indians came over. Just wondered if fossils or what have you might show this effect also with primates and the big gaps where they are not?TCO (talk) 04:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Primates (aside from humans and the Japanese macaque) live in tropical forests, which have contracted around the equator over the last 30 million years or so, causing a natural decline in primates. The development and expansion of the Sahara Desert has also eaten away at their range.  More recently, habitat loss caused by humans is significantly reducing their range, even in regions of the world that would normally support them.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 05:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm...so never in Florida?TCO (talk) 05:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like they are in even the southern Carribean either, let along Cuba or the like.
 * I don't recall the details about the Carribean... either they were exterminated by humans, went extinct for various reasons, or never made it out there in the first place. It is definitely a special case.  Otherwise Florida is mostly subtropical, and I'm not sure if primates ever made their way that far north, given they would have had to pass through what is now the southern U.S. first.  Anyway, I don't have sources off-hand, so that's all I can say.  But yes, I would like to see this article expanded, if not broken up into specialty topics, such as evolution, ecology, etc. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 06:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There were native monkeys in Jamaica, Hispaniola, and perhaps Cuba (the age of the one there is not certain) until quite recently. Their disappearance is without a doubt the result of human colonization, though apparently European and not Native American colonization. See Xenotrichini. Ucucha 11:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I googled a bit (very little) and just saw stuff on million year old fossils and such.  Or the monkeys that got brought over in the 1600s.  Would think if monkeys got killed by Euros that there would be written records of their observations.  (At what point, do we say eff it and just consider that part of the range...a philosophical issue, like all the taxonomy slap-fights.)  Anyhoo...Cuba is only 90 miles from the Keys....TCO (talk) 11:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, and some Caribbean bats did get over to Florida from the Caribbean islands. Primates aren't as good as bats about getting over water, though. There are in fact some doubtful historical records of Xenothrix, the monkey of Jamaica (or, apparently, one of the Jamaican monkeys, since there are some other primate fossils from Jamaica that are thought not to be Xenothrix)—it may have gotten confused with the kinkajou. Ucucha 12:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I started a bat article, from a redlink, "U.S. state bats".TCO (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)



Mediawiki primate
¿por qué me envió a mediawiki:primate ? 190.175.196.140 (talk) 00:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * I was importing old edits from the Nostalgia Wikipedia; my procedure for doing this, described at User:Graham87/Import, sometimes involves moving the page to the MediaWiki talk namespace. Graham 87 00:29, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's probably a good idea not to do that on the current today's featured article, though. Ucucha 00:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
It is wonderful to see a generic subject of major importance as the featured article, rather than a monograph.

However, I'm not entirely happy with the choice of the Thai couple as the representative photo of homo sapiens. In some ways, they represent the true state of the earth's people, apprehensive, overworked and underfed. On the other hand, they do not answer a lot of the questions that were brought up about the picture in 2010. Homo sapiens are distinguished from other primates by their driving ambition, there ability to use (and exploit) what is around them. The pictures of other primates show happy, successful, well adapted primates. I want to see a picture of happy successful well-adapted homo-sapiens, being the way homo-sapiens want to be. The picture that I have placed here demonstrates these characteristics that distinguish homo-sapiens from other primates.
 * 1) they cover their genitals (the teacher who didn't want the kiddies using a page that showed nudity cannot complain about this)
 * 2) they have hair on certain regions and not others (this answers the question of the shaved naked pubes)
 * 3) they smile on cue (chimpanzees do this too!)
 * 4) they "display" in certain ways. Note the attitudes of the male legs (wide apart to keep his testes cool) and the female legs (crossed to protect her vagina) (Men and women present like this on public transport and at meeting as well.)
 * 5) they have courtship rituals
 * 6) they wear bodily adornment

Please seriously consider replacing the image. Those poor tired, sad, apprehensive examples of humanity don't represent what humanity is really about. This image "tells the story" much better.

Amandajm (talk) 03:23, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose The suggested image does not reflect reality. At best, it may help certain viewers 'connect'. At worst, its egocentric and delusional to suggest this is how the majority of homo sapiens worldwide live, or court.Smallman12q (talk) 20:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Prefer a different photo altogether. Like Smallman, I'm somewhat repelled by the artificial, Western/consumerist values implicit in the beach photo. But like Amanda, I'm disappointed that the Thai couple photo (Akha_cropped.png) doesn't illustrate characteristics that distinguish humans from other primates. I very reluctantly prefer the beach photo to the Thai couple, but can't we find some pic that illustrates at least two characteristics in which our species seems pre-eminent, e.g. our emotional expressivity, and our extraordinary ability to purposefully change our environment to meet our needs ?


 * Re that first characteristic, the degree of differentiation of our emotional expression seems remarkable among the primates, and the current photo is just "flat", even grim: It reminds me of American Gothic. Re the second, all other primates have to conform very strictly to the demands of their immediate environments to stay alive; even their coloring makes them blend in with it. We're the only primate that can reverse that dynamic, within limits, to make our environment conform to meet our needs.
 * That's very anthropocentric. Other primates exhibit rich emotions and facial expressions, too.  Anyway, I find it quite interesting that every time people debate these pictures, the humanistic crowd focuses keenly on how we're different.  If anything, this article should focus on our similarities, saving our differences for the Human article. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * So what about a photo that shows, say, a grinning, affectionate couple using science or technology ( also an especially human endeavor ) and successfully shaping their environment thereby to meet their needs? A different farming couple, perhaps standing with a tractor or at least a manual irrigation pump in the background? But the photo aside, I also want to say that this is a beautiful article, a wonderful gift to give the world, and something to be proud of. Best congratulations to all of you who stayed with the often difficult process of collaboration to produce it. –  OhioStandard  (talk) 00:32, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Rather than trying show both a male & female (which we don't go out of the way to do for any other primate species in the article) and focusing on some "standard race" (which there is none), I suggest we should show a standard activity that represents how humans have lived within their world for the last few thousand years. For example, see File:Malagasy rice planting 01.jpg.  (Note: This also addresses "our extraordinary ability to purposefully change our environment to meet our needs" as you put it.) –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose I think the current photo is just fine editorially speaking, and in terms of technical photographic quality it's much better than the proposed alternative. The lighting is superior and most of the people aren't cropped out of the frame. Steven Walling  00:35, 7 July 2011 Steven Walling 00:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)     ........What absolute nonsense! the quality of that photo is very low resolution and the lighting has nothing to do with whether it represents a primate well! Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Response: What a sensitive and discrete lot of primates you all are! You are all sitting there in front of your electronic communication machines, kidding yourselves about how the human race ought to represent itself!
 * So it's OK for us to have a representation of two terribly sad overworked people or a politely smile couple fully clothed behind their computer, or several people with their backs to us planting "rice"! ( Is this caption actually serious? Bananas will grow on that hillside. Rice will not! Why on earth would they be planting a crop that grows in a foot of water, out on a bare hillside?)
 * But a young man with the hat and the shades and the bird, and the hairy chest, and the attitude  .............. did any of you actually read the reasons for using this photo?  Are you telling me that these two people don't actually represent the human race?


 * Please take this on board. I object to that picture of the two sad, tired, underfed examples of the human primate.
 * Your poor starved couple, your half naked African teenager with perky boob and your people who are out planting rice where only bananas will grow, only represent a fraction of what humanity is about.


 * Human primates composed the Messiah, painted the Sistine Chapel and built the atomic bomb.  The human primate is the most adventurous and arrogant creature on earth. That is what sets us apart. Not just the fact that we show emotion.


 * That young man with the attitude and the girlfriend:
 * uses fossil fuel
 * communicates electronically
 * shits in a toilet
 * makes plastic waste
 * uses money
 * eats food that other people grow, gather and prepare
 * practices contraception
 * has consigned his grandmother to the care of professionals.
 * I put it to you that these people truly represent the human primate.
 * Be brave! Come into the 21st century! Don't go hiding behind some primitive sense of value and pretending it is reality! It isn't! This couple who live on the edge of the jungle and root up bananas to feed pigs do not adequately represent the human primate. Get real about it.
 * Amandajm (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * And the couple are sexy. Let's not undervalue sex - if there's more human primates in the world than anything else bigger than an armadillo, there must be a reason. (I hear gorillas are embarrassingly underendowed).PiCo (talk) 13:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, the article says that Buddhism prohibits eating monkeys. I don't think this is true - Buddhists don't eat monkeys, but it's not for religious reasons (no food taboos in Buddhism). PiCo (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ... Buddhism teaches people to value life (particularly animal life), and as a result, many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan. It's not a taboo, and the statement is generally true.  Most importantly, the statement is sourced.  Re: Amandajm—The people are planting rice.  Yes, hillsides are not ideal for growing rice, but populations are rising in Madagascar and much of the best land is becoming unusable due unsustainable agricultural practices.  As a consequence, people are clearing forests in less and less desirable locations to grow their food crops.  They don't grow bananas because they can't live on a diet of bananas.  In third-world countries, fruits like that are grown for the consumption of the "developed" world, not for the local people.  And on top of that, we pay them so little for those crops that the people can't afford to feed themselves.  All that aside, the photo you suggest has no value to this article.  Not only is your argument ethnocentric, but the photo has no educational value given the topic of the article.  We are not looking to "represent" all of humanity here; instead, we are looking to illustrate how the human species belongs to the order Primates.  Humanism has no place in this article.  Should that image find it's way into the article, I will revert it without further discussion. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "many Buddhists are vegetarian or vegan." Boy have I got news for you! PiCo (talk) 22:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Very interesting discussion, but am I really the only one thinking that a picture of humans is unnecessary, because EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE?!? (Except the blind, and a picture won't help them anyway) Brutannica (talk) 22:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information concerning rice. I was unaware that it could possibly grow on a steep hillside.
 * Concerning Buddhism, I want you to know that I have eaten a great number of delicious plates of pork, duck and lamb cooked by practising Buddhists. On the other hand I do believe that religious at our local monastery are vegetarian. They don't eat monkeys up at the monastery. They don't eat kangaroos, either.
 * ..... and Yes, we do need a picture of human primates. But keep in mind that the human primate had a highly organised system of government and religion that built the Pyramids og Giza 4 thousand years ago. Your people who are planting rice and gathering banana stalks on the edge of the jungle may be human primates that plant crops, (as well as gathering) and undoubtedly have a highly developed religious system, but in other ways they have been left far far behind.  The couple in love revolting as it may seem) are much truer representations of what the human primate is about. Trust me! If those poor sad people could live like like, they would.    Amandajm (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Largest primates?
The introduction says primates may range in size up to that of the mountain gorilla, weighing 200 kg. There are some homo sapiens who weigh significantly more than that. Should that be mentioned?--178.167.176.137 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When that's discussed in the academic literature, it's considered an abnormality. Given the size of the article and how much there is to know about primates, I would not consider that to be of much importance. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Map
I propose the map showing the range of primates be modified to show the range of humans (i.e. that shown in in one colour, with the range of non-human primates overlaid in a second colour. I don't know how to do this myself unfortunately. LukeSurlt c 00:02, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Humans = Great Apes?
In the Historical and modern terminology diagram the green lines denoting the great apes should also encompass humans as well (humans are great apes) LukeSurlt c 00:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed other statements in this section states that humans are not great apes, however great apes states the opposite. Which is correct? (I'm pretty sure humans are great apes, but I'm not a biologist) LukeSurlt c 00:09, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Although the section does discuss the question, it would seem sensible to have primate and great ape articles in agreement and then have the opposing view as an aside. LukeSurlt c 00:11, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * At present, I don't think that you can say that either one of the uses is an "aside". I have checked sources very carefully, and "ape" and "great ape" are used to include or exclude humans with more-or-less equal frequency. Even within the same work, an author will almost always use terms like "ape" both to include or exclude humans. The facts are:
 * Primates used to be classified scientifically in a way which separated "great apes" and humans.
 * There is now no dispute that this is incorrect and Hominidae are a monophyletic group, and are thus the appropriate group in a scientific classification.
 * At present, sources and authors are divided in the way that the common names are used. Some are changing their use of the common name "great apes" to refer to Hominidae. Some are not, and even those that are changing are not consistent.
 * As part of looking into how sources use these terms, I tabulated some inconsistent uses by Richard Dawkins: see User:Peter_coxhead/Work_page. Wikipedia policies are clear that we must maintain a neutral point of view and reflect all sources. So I think that at present we can only say that there are two usages, and must not favour one over the other. In the future the situation may change.
 * At the risk of repeating myself, I would stress that this is purely a matter of how common names are actually used as per the last paragraph of Primate. The scientific facts are not in dispute. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Human relatives
Besides primates, which are the top 5 animals most closely related to humans? Pass a Method  talk  07:03, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That can be found by clicking the next level up in the scientific classification found in the taxobox (at the top of the article). Basically, see Euarchontoglires. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 12:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

THIS NEED TO STOP!
I am studying to become a Anthropologist, I can tell you damn well that humans are reguarded as apes, great apes in particular. I see way too much separation between humans and other apes. This needs to stop NOW! I request that the article be revised to include humans as apes!69.247.254.89 (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article is very clear that humans and members of the group traditionally called "great apes" are in the same monophyletic taxon. That is not disputed. The only issue is whether the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sources use the term "great ape" to include or exclude humans. The answer seems to be that reliable sources do both. Wikipedia does not aim to reflect what you think or what I think, but what reliable sources say. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:50, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The problem is though those "reliable" sources that separates humans from other apes are either dated or are written by people who's education is dated. My local zoo is one who still follows the incorrect version of placing humans in a separate family from the other great apes. Yet if you would ask a local biology or anthropology professor they would tell you the correct version and would also include humans in the term "great ape".Acdcguy91 (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I can only repeat that there is no dispute that reliable sources say that humans and "great apes" belong in the same clade, which in one classification is given the formal rank of Family Hominidae. What is not the case is that even very recent reliable sources consistently use "great ape" to include humans. Therefore Wikipedia needs to say that both uses exist. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence
The end of the opening sentence has been changed back and forth a few times recently. The current version is "A primate ... is a mammal of the order Primates ... which contains prosimians and simians." I think there is a problem when formal ranks like "order Primates" are mixed with common language terms like "prosimians" and "simians". In particular it's not clear what "simian" means when it's used in contrast to the very informal term "prosimian", which no longer corresponds to a formal rank. Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, etc. are without dispute members of the infraorder Simiiformes; "simians" may or may not be coterminous with this infraorder. At the time that "prosimian" was a formal rank, "simian" would have referred only to monkeys. It seems to me better to either give a list of common names, or to use formal ranks. A sentence using the former approach could be "A primate ... is a mammal of the order Primates ... which contains the animals commonly called prosimians, monkeys, apes and humans." Peter coxhead (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

The first sentence as it is now, does not obey the rule that every article should link to Wikipedia's page on philosophy when every first unbracketed link is followed. Instead, the article forms a relinking with Wikipedia's page on prosimians. Does anyone have a proper suggestion to solve this? (Renee & Carlo) 20:05, 6 May 2013 (UTC+02:00) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.97.239.227 (talk)

Quick review of the hierarchy
Are humans a kind of Simian, which is a kind of Primate, or what? I took physics and chemistry, but no biology in high school. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See the third paragraph of the lead. Ucucha (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't want a vague answer. I want to know why my edit - which stated plainly that humans are primates - was reverted.


 * Are we, or are we not primates? If we are, why can't we say it in the first paragraph? And why can't you answer a simple question directly? --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Humans are primates. Should the article say this in the first sentence? Ideally, yes. However, it's not exactly clear how to say this accurately, which was the point of my comment in the section above. One possibility is to change the first sentence to read as I suggested there, namely "A primate ... is a mammal of the order Primates ... which contains the animals commonly called prosimians, monkeys, apes and humans." The reason why it's not obvious how to word the sentence is that these common names used to correspond to formal scientific groups, but they don't any longer, which makes them somewhat ambiguous. For example, some sources now use "apes" to include "humans", some don't; in principle, "simians" could be used to mean Simiiformes, which would mean that "simians" includes monkeys, apes and humans, although I don't know a source which uses it this way.
 * Sometimes what appears to be a simple question just cannot be answered simply. A good slogan to remember is "For every question, there's a simple and wrong answer." Sometimes you just have to read the whole article. :-) Peter coxhead (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Explaining wikilinked terms
It's always a difficult issue to decide whether a relatively technical term, which can be linked to another Wikipedia article, should be briefly explained or whether it's sufficiently familiar to most Wikipedia readers to be left as it is, relying on the link to provide an explanation for the minority. WP:NOT says "While wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text."

So although it's arguable whether terms like "sexual dimorphism" should or should not be explained in the text, there's no reason to remove the explanation once it is there. The fact that other technical terms are not explained in the text is not an argument to support removal of explanations; rather a reason to add them. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it depends on how many terms need explaining (if the article has a lot of terms it could easily devolve into a glossary rather than an article about the subject) and how big the article is, and also how easy it would be for a reasonably smart person to guess. Also, the current disputed section is " Many species are sexually dimorphic, which means males and females have different physical traits, including body mass, canine tooth size, and coloration. " - Arguably that could be too long and could be better done as a wikilink, except in this instance I think the latter section is valuable enough to be included anyway, - explaining which features specifically are sexually dimorphic in primates. But shortened it should read Many species are sexually dimorphic,in relation to body mass, canine tooth size, coloration and so on" or something. Whether sexual dimorphism, which seems fairly self explanatory, needs and explanation I'll leave to others. Sabine's Sunbird   talk  19:25, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Reply to Peter coxhead
My experience with Wiki editors is that they stick together and enforce each other’s decisions no matter how arbitrary. Perhaps you will prove to be a welcome exception.

Here is the entire guideline citation, with my added enumeration in parentheses, and my bolding:

A Wikipedia article should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the topic's field. Introductory language in the lead and (1) initial sections of the article should be written in plain terms and concepts that can be understood by any literate reader of Wikipedia without any knowledge in the given field before advancing to more detailed explanations of the topic. While (2) wikilinks should be provided for advanced terms and concepts in that field, (3) articles should be written on the assumption that the reader will not or cannot follow these links, instead attempting to infer their meaning from the text.

re (1) if the word “dimorphic” is in violation, then it should not be used in the first place, and should be removed. However, I also submit that “dimorphic” in fact meets the requirement of a term understandable to most literate readers. The requirement that a term be understandable to all literate readers is obviously impossible to meet, and I hope enough Wiki administrators realize so, and change the requirement to most literate readers.

re (2) “Dimorphic” is obviously not an advanced term or concept in any field, so it should not even be internally linked according to the guideline requirements. However, I do not think the advanced term and concept requirement is reasonable, and I hope enough Wiki administrators realize so, and change the requirement.

re (3) Frankly this is a ridiculous Wiki policy assumption, and should be reversed: Numerous literate readers do not know the meaning of any of the terms listed below beginning with “paleocene”, and if the assumption is that a reader is not going to look up something he does not know, then there is no reason to provide a link to begin with. I hope enough Wiki administrators realize so, and change the requirement.

As for contention that the article fails to provide enough definitions I do not believe you really mean that you think the following terms should be defined within just the 1st section of the article:

paleocene

molecular clock

arboreal

stereoscopic

prehensile

Repeat: by your standards those are terms needing definition only in the first section. Following your logic the article would become larded with definitions, and would devolve into a form of glossary, to borrow Sabine’s Sunbird’s expression. I do not think that conforms to the Wikipedia mission

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.106.248 (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if we didn't edit war over this. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  23:08, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We have been in an edit war for several days. You showed sign of recognizing the merit of my position earlier. I hope you will consider reading my opening section above carefully because I think you will agree that my position is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.35.106.248 (talk) 00:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It is not a question of being correct; both positions have merits and where to draw the line between doing things one way or the other is difficult. I'm sufficiently underwhelmed by the issue that I don't care one way or the other in this instance. I don't want to see slow burn edit wars though, so perhaps getting a few more opinions would be good. Sabine's Sunbird  talk  01:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * 184.35.106.248: Please note what I actually wrote. I entirely agree with Sabine's Sunbird that this is a difficult issue; both positions have merit; and where to draw the line is difficult. My point was only that it's not constructive to remove explanations where they already exist, aren't too long and don't interrupt the flow of the article. Shorten or clarify by all means, but please don't remove what other editors have put there. What harm does the material you removed do? The fact that other terms aren't explained is irrelevant; Wikipedia articles aren't finished items but work under construction. Let's all work together to make articles as clear and as accessible as possible. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 * The removed material did not only explain what "sexual dimorphism" meant, it also listed some features that are sexually dimorphic. I have restored this information. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Extinct primates in the cladogram
We should probably include two extinct groups to the top cladogram, the omomyids and the adapiforms. The only tricky part will be placing the omomyids, although I think it's safest to favor a sister group relationship with tarsiers. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 17:21, 10 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I would advise against adding more detail to the cladogram at Primate, if that's the one you mean. It's already a bit over-complex and the way it's drawn (with most branching to the top) doesn't display well with browsers in the Safari/Chrome/Opera group (see Template:Clade) but it needs to be drawn this way here to illustrate the false view that there is an "ascending ladder" leading to humans.
 * It would be useful to have a cladogram showing evolution within primates at Primate, rather than just showing the evolution of primates. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

"Old World monkey" and apes
In the article it says that Hominids count among the catarhines. The Platarhines and Catarhines are all monkeys under the parent clade Haplorhines, right?

Then shouldn't hominids also share the label "Old world Monkeys"? I'm irritated by the fact that everyone gives special non monkey privileges to apes when they're still monkeys themselves. The source of both clades would still be a monkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impiousimp (talk • contribs) 08:12, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Catarrhine" is a taxonomic term, "Old World monkey" is not. Hominids (and hominoids, in general) are a branch nested within Catarrhini, but the general term "Old World monkey" is a paraphyletic term—meaning it excludes some of the clade's members.  A lot of commonly used terms suffer from the same problem: "monkey", "reptile", "amphibian", "fish", etc.  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 15:38, 1 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This is what the diagram at Primate tries to explain. If you look at that diagram, then perhaps at some time in the future reliable up to date sources may all agree that the English language term "monkeys" refers to the taxonomic unit (clade) "Simiiformes" and that the English language term "Old World monkeys" refers to "Catarrhini". If we were writing a teaching text, we could decide to use these terms in this way. However, for historical reasons, this isn't how the term "monkey" is currently used and Wikipedia policies are that we have to reflect the actual use in reliable sources, which is still mainly as the diagram shows. Annoying perhaps, but that's just the way it is at present. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Taxobox image
Because this is high-profile featured article, I have reverted the replacement of the taxobox image. It is shown here to the right. We should discuss such replacements before making them.

Personally, I favor the original image (the olive baboon) primarily because it is clearly not taken in captivity. The image to the right is decent quality, probably better than the baboon picture, but that does not show in the thumbnail size sample seen in the taxobox. Also, the sawed-off branch partially obstructs the view of the chimpanzee. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 20:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Hominini
The diagram shows "Hominini" as the common ancestor of humans and chimpanzees. However, the article Hominini says that Hominini is the tribe of Homininae that comprises Homo, and other members of the human clade after the split from the tribe Panini (chimpanzees). I don't know which is correct, but I presume that they are not both right. John M Baker (talk) 00:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the text of the article you'll see that it says "The diagram below shows one currently accepted classification of the primates". The precise circumscription of Hominini, Homininae and even Hominidae is subject to considerable debate and varies from source to source. So actually they are both "right" in that both circumscriptions can be found in different sources. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:31, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to change the cladogram to show the now more common classification scheme which has Hominini include humans and extinct hominins and panini include the genus pan. This is clearly the more common usage nowadays and the one we follow in the other articles on hominin evolution.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, provided that it still says that this is "one currently accepted classification" and that appropriate reference(s) are added. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:42, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Change to cladogram
The previous cladogram at Primate was sourced to Groves et al. (2005). The changed cladogram is still given the same source. This surely can't be right? Either a new source needs to be provided or the changes reverted. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll find a source, but it may be hard to do given the plethora of (incomplete) phylogenies and taxonomies for primates. If a source with a complete strepsirrhine taxonomy in table format is sufficient, I should be able to find that.  The main challenge will be finding a source that agrees on everything on both sides of the Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini split.  There are so many points of disagreement, especially when considering paleoanthropology as well, that sourcing a single, leading taxonomy is nearly impossible... as some of my previous sources have noted. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 21:29, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I understand your problem (I've been over this ground many times with extinct plants), but you can't merge classifications from different sources – that is WP:SYNTH and forbidden. Personally I think some very simple cases are ok, e.g. replacing a label in one sourced classification by a subtree from another and saying clearly that this is what you have done, but I know that other editors have objected even to this. There's no problem with "re-presentation", e.g. replacing an indented list by the equivalent cladogram. Anyway the present text needs to be fixed, because the cladogram isn't now from the source given. I'll remove the reference for the present. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the Wiki purists may have to just sit on their thumbs for this one. Sure, they can pick up an anthropology or primatology textbook (probably out-dated anyway) and say "this" is what we should use.  But anyone with experience in multiple primate fields will know that the taxonomy is not as concrete as this article paints it.  This is why all of the strepsirrhine/lemur/loris articles I've worked on explicitly list multiple leading phylogenies and taxonomies.  I have gone with a specific strepsirrhine taxonomy (in taxoboxes and text) because without it, I literally cannot write about specific topics on Wikipedia without using complicated or over-generalized (and thus incorrect) language.  But as you said, it sounds like you've been through the same thing before.  Again, I will try to find something, and with some luck, I can replace the ref.  Thanks for understanding. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:00, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In "Primates in perspective" (2011), I have a macrophylogeny that would require me to remove adapiforms and Lemuriformes, change Simiiformes to Anthropoidea, and omit the labels Homininae and Hominini. In "The Human Lineage" (2011), most of the cladogram would be supported, except that Simiiformes would need to change to Anthropoidea, Hominidae would have to exclude Pongidae, and Hominini would have to be removed (not explicitly named)—but I could also add in Omomyoidae.  A chapter in "Primate Neuroethology" (2010) also comes close, but would require many of the same changes as the second option, plus a few more subtractions beneath Hominidae.  Do you favor any of these?  These are probably some of the newest sources that are brave enough to attempt to tackle a broad, but specific classification of all or most primates. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:21, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the cladogram at Primate is only there to enable readers to understand the contrast between modern classifications and the historical terminology embedded in non-scientific language. So the fine details of the modern classification used don't matter too much, although it should, of course, be an up-to-date one. So I've adjusted the cladogram to precisely reflect the source, but excluded fossil groups, which aren't relevant at this point.
 * Then I've raised Primate to a full section in preparation for what I think is the next step, namely changing this section to "Classifications of the primates". Then I suggest that you use the approach rightly employed in other primate articles, of putting some sourced modern classifications side-by-side, rather than just include one as if it were definitive, as the article currently does. I leave that to you – you obviously know more about this than I do. I only got involved here to try to sort out wrangling and edit warring over the relationship between historical and modern terminology. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did not write this article, and have only contributed to small parts of it. So far, all of the major strepsirrhine articles list multiple classifications and the controversies (unlike this article).  The only thing that I have made definitive is the use of a specific taxonomy for strepsirrhines—but only in taxoboxes and the text (as terminology, e.g. "lemuriform" or "lorisoid").  The reason is that there needs to be consistency between articles for terminology, and the taxoboxes need to reflect that terminology.  I agree: This article needs to present multiple taxonomies, but since it does not, I wanted it to be in line with the rest of what is being used on the strepsirrhine side of things.  Unfortunately, I do not have time to update this article, and I've already got a long list of strepsirrhine articles I need to fully re-write.  But again, thanks for your feedback and help. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 17:49, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, if you ever have time, you can certainly make a useful contribution to this article. For the present, I have added a note that there are alternative classifications, and given the division of the living Strepsirrhini into two infraorders, Lemuriformes and Lorisiformes, as a referenced example. It's certainly better than before. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Petrosal bulla
How is it that one of the defining characteristics that define primates is not mentioned once in the article? Justanaccountnothingmore (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a source for this here, including discussion about the possibility of it being a defining characteristic or not. Maybe you'd like to use this in the article? Cesiumfrog (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Tool use section
Why is tool use getting its own section, separate from the "Cognition and communication" subsection (where it probably belongs)? Also, the material is a bit one-sided, focusing primarily on apes and a little on monkeys. There is also evidence of tool use abilities (the basis for tool use) in lemurs. If needed, I can add that once the article structure is worked out. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 21:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I placed Tool Use as a separate subsection because it is relatively rare behaviour and appears to be limited to a few taxa of animals.  On the other hand, there could be a "Cognition and communication" section for almost any animal.  I do not feel strongly about this placement, so move it if you wish.  The reason it is focussed primarily on apes is because that is where most of the rsearch and detail exist - it is simply availability of information.  I'm happy for you to expand it to redress the balance if you wish.  Great that you have a reference to lemurs - the only ones I know of are trained lemurs which I have avoided including - please add this!__DrChrissy (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your helpful additions to the article. I'm glad you added the material you did.  I was thinking of renaming the section "Cognition and communication" to "Cognition, communication and tool use", since cognition studies often touch upon tool use.  Yes, lemurs have been trained to use tools (demonstrating that they understand the properties of tools without naturally using objects as tools), but they have also been observed using body parts as "tools" in ways very similar to how monkeys and apes use objects as tools.  It only merits 1-3 sentences, and I can't make any solid connections because it would constitute original research.  Since behavior is your area of specialty, if you're interested, you are welcome to email me to discuss. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * By the way, does your reference apply to both paragraphs? <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 22:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * My own preference would be to see "Cognition" as the main heading, and then "communication" and "tool use" as separate sub-headings, but I know I tend to be a splitter rather than a lumper.
 * When you say "using body parts", do you mean parts of their own body, or parts of another animal's body? The former would not be acceptable for most definitions of tool use, but the latter may be.
 * One example includes ring-tailed lemurs learning (on their own, and then through social learning) to use their tails to dip in a pool of water, then drink from it (like an ape dipping a leaf in water to collect it). Another example is a slender loris applying saliva to its arm, placing it in the path of ants, and then collecting the ants that stick to its arm (similar to termite fishing in chimpanzees, but without "tool making").  I'm sure it's debatable, but the academic literature has called it tool use, or at least precursors for it.  As we noted, lemurs have been trained to use tools and demonstrate knowledge of tool properties.  Again, email me if you'd like to discuss this in more depth.  I'm always looking for academics to bat these topis around with.  I have a lot more material that makes this issue even more interesting, but again, it would be OR.  As for this wiki article, I'll stick with my reliable sources and what they say. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Very interesting examples of behaviour, but I'm afraid they would fall foul of most definitions of what is a tool. What should be "the" definition is highly debatable, but, most would say using a body part for a novel behaviour is NOT tool use. One of my cats drinks by dipping his paw in the water and sucking it - I would not call this tool use.  Similarly, secretions of the body are usually excluded as tools because this would mean spider webs would have to be included and also animals using their faeces to mark territory. But, saliva spreading is not a behaviour I have heard of before (apart from kangaroos and other spp. using it for thermoregulation).__DrChrissy (talk) 23:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, there are other ways to look at this, but will only go into it in email. It's a very hairy subject, and most definitions of tool use don't take into account instincts and neurology.  Anyway, I will go by my source, which is a comprehensive review of lemur cognition for a graduate-level textbook.  I can't remember which examples it cites.  As for saliva spreading, I have only heard of two cases: the slender loris and the common chimpanzee—both using it to capture ants/termites by placing it on an object (arm or stick) stuck in their path. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 23:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I am not sure to which reference you are referring but willing to help.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that tool use should be a subsection of cognition. I think tool use is a behavior, one that may or may not involve complex cognition, just as communication is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * They are actually very similar on a fundamental level, and there are neurological studies that support the idea. Both communication and tool use are ways that an animal manipulates its environment to its own benefit.  The primate cognition research often lumps cognition and tool use, so I'm not sure why we should not. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 22:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * One of the problems I see is that in the past, tool use in primates has been lumped with cognition to further the arguement of primates having higher cognitive abilities. However, depending on the definition of a tool (a highly contentious area) many animals, including invertebrates, use tools.  For example, many apes build a nest each night which is often included as "tool use".  If this is the case, why do we not think of the huge number of birds which build nests; how can we argue they have dissimilar cognitive capacity to primates in this respect.  This is why I prefer to keep "cognition" and "tool use" seperate.__DrChrissy (talk) 22:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that assessment of the history. The field is in big need of new terminology that is clean of the old anthropocentric bias.  Unfortunately, I feel taking this approach throws the baby out with the bathwater, especially when you look at primate neurology.  At the very least, tool use should be listed under "Behavior". <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 23:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Done! It had always been my intention that Tool use was a subsection of Behaviour - I did not realise I put it up a further level than I wanted.__DrChrissy (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't nest-building get its own section? LittleJerry (talk) 23:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Spelling of Haplorrhines
On this page, I made an edit to change the spelling of haplorrhines. This was based on the Haplorhini article which spells it with only one "r" i.e. haplorhines. Which is correct, or am I missing something taxonomical?__DrChrissy (talk) 18:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * The correct answer is: it depends on who you want to piss off. (We are primates after all, right?)  The predominant spelling in the recent academic literature uses one "r", and that follows the spelling for its original use.  However, this Latin Greek spelling is incorrect—it should be two r's.  Furthermore, the three other "rhinis" used in the order Primates all use the correct two r's (Strepsirrhini, Platyrrhini, and Catarrhini).  They were defined earlier by É. Geoffroy (1812), who was apparently better at Latin Greek.  After Pocock (1918) defined Haplorhini (and in the process, removing the second "r" from the other three), people started using single r's... until someone pointed out their error in the 1990s.  (This is mentioned in the Strepsirrhini article to some extent.)  At present, there is still a mild push to correct everything and use two r's, but in general, the usage is all about whether you want to keep the traditionalists happy or the promoters of proper Latin Greek.  And trust me—the choice of one over the other can really piss people off.  There's one very well-known researcher that nearly flipped at me for using two r's for Strepsirrhini here on Wikipedia.  <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 19:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the explanation. I have a friend who is heavily into taxonomy and whenever I see inconsistency and ask which is corect, he answers "depends which book you read"!  I'll leave it to you experts.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * This is a hard and fast rule of the Greek language -- yes, Greek, not Latin, although it is written in the Latin alphabet according to the transliteration rules that were devised by the ancient Romans -- and that is: when a word begins with rh-, as does the Greek word for nose, the r will be doubled when in composition with another word in which the rh- word is the second element of the compounds. There are no ifs, ands, or buts. Take it from a professional linguist. By writing Haplorhini with one r you guys are simply perpetuating a typo. I don't care how important the scientist who first committed the typo was, a typo is still a typo and needs to be fixed. So get on with it and fix it! Pasquale (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ermmm...can I respectfully suggest you tone down your criticism of editors on this page and read the Talk more carefully. I asked the question about whether it should be one or two "r"s (because my Greek and Latin are not the best and it is spelt with one "r" in other places) and I was answered on this talk page that it should be two.  So what are we supposed to get on with and fix?__DrChrissy (talk) 17:52, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Although it may be clear that the correct Latinization has two r's, the zoological code at Article 32 is equally clear that incorrect transcriptions or Latinizations are not errors to be corrected, so the original author's spelling should be preserved. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And that Code does not apply to taxa above the family group. Of course, we should still follow the usage in reliable sources. Ucucha (talk) 07:19, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Nor is it our job to decide what is correct and what is incorrect. It is our job to consolidate the determinations and arguments of the experts. There are one or two places in related articles that explain why some -rhini words use one r while others use two r's, and the explanations have proper citations. Our job is done. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
 * How can "our job be done" when the article has close to a 1:1 split between the spellings? One must be chosen and used consistently, although of course the other must be explained, and the reasons (which include applying the ICodeZN to the name although this is not strictly required, as Ucucha pointed out). Peter coxhead (talk) 19:12, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Ah, as opposed to making all articles just use a single spelling. True enough. Ok, I flipped a coin, and one r won. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

"Distinguishing features"
This section seems pretty redundant. We already have "Anatomy, physiology, and morphology". It also overlaps a little with "Behavior". LittleJerry (talk) 20:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, please consolidate into the appropriate sections. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">– Maky  « talk » 03:02, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Orangutan classification in cladogram
In the cladogram it classifies orangutans in their own family (Pongidae), but really orangutans are in the family Hominidae with gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans. Can someone fix this or explain why orangutans are classified this way? — Preceding unsigned comment added by B14709 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Orangutans should be in the subfamily ponginae of the family hominidae. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:42, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * By the usual classification, yes. The citation being used as a source for the cladogram might say something else, though, since it shows a trichotomy at that point, possibly making Hominidae sensu lato paraphyletic. But I don't have the source to check whether that's the case. Could be made clearer, if that's the intent, though. Anaxial (talk) 00:12, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And now, it's been changed to "subfamily Pongidae", which is obviously wrong. I'm reluctant to change it, because I don't know whether the citation used as a source says "family Pongidae" (as the shape of the cladogram might imply) or "subfamily Ponginae" (as is the usual terminology). Does anyone know which? Or, alternatively, have another source we could use? Anaxial (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Fixed with a second source. Thanks for bringing this up. <span style="text-shadow:grey 0.1em 0.1em 0.3em; font-family: fantasy, cursive, Serif">–  Maky  « talk » 15:39, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Image of a human in main box?
The homo sapien species is a member of the order primates, and it is unarguably the most significant one. It would be logical to include an image of it in the main box. I see no reason to arbitrarily exclude humans in this article. With the exception of the last section and that one image, there is a general reluctance in this article to talk about them(or "us"). We're animals, and as an encyclopedia covering a biological topic, you have to ultimately deal with that, even if it might seem odd or uncomfortable. JDiala (talk) 06:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. It is important to recognize that humans, too, are primates. B14709 (talk) 20:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The picture in question is an illustration of one species from each of the main families of primate (although, admittedly, not from all the smaller ones), so to add a human we'd have to get rid of the chimp. Not impossible, of course, if somebody has the time to redo the image, but that's the result. Personally, I think that one picture of any given species in the main article is sufficient, to better show the diversity within the group. We are just one species among 450 or so, so Hominidae might be a better place to discuss this (and to be honest, could be improved). Anaxial (talk) 07:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. And the first photo after the taxobox is of humans, and there shouldn't be a need for more than one photo of a particular species within the article, so I don't think there is any problem.  Nor are humans excluded from the text - mentions of humans start at the 3rd sentence of the lede. Rlendog (talk) 14:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

If you wanted to put humans as the focus, you might as well leave out the rest of the primates. There's already a separate article for humans, so I suggest that if you want to read about humans, you go to that article, but this article is talking about the rest of the primates. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:25, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You might want to fully read what you are replying to. This was a brief discussion from almost a year ago. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Range
Is there any good reason why the geographical range of primates in the article explicitly excludes humans? I can think of several arguments as to why this might be done, but as far as I can see none of them have been explicitly made on the talk page. My feeling is that, in principle, it makes more sense to have a map that covers the geographical range of all primates, even if this means colouring every landmass bar parts of Antarctica green. This would be consistent with how Wikipedia treats the range maps of other animal orders, which as far as I can see don't exclude a single species from consideration if it has a vastly greater range than all the others.

Vegetablelove (talk) 16:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
 * One reason is that the range of humans is so much larger than any other primate species, so that a combined range would be misleading. The same issue would arise in any taxon where one member has a range that is atypically large compared to the others. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Article is racist to humans
It does not include pictures of humans. We should add that, given that we are the most numerous primate. --82.164.6.47 (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There already is a picture of humans. (Two pictures, if you count the skull). Given the number of primate species, I think one is sufficient. Anaxial (talk) 21:10, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to read about humans, go to the human article, but this focuses on the other primates. Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 01:26, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Also an old discussion. And actually, this is about *all* primates, including humans. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Joking aside, can we swap in a photo of H sapiens for the hominid, instead of the chimpanzee? H sapiens is the predominant hominid. It is, in fact, the predominant primate. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect this page
There is an RFC that may affect this page at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 16:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Officially, Chimps aren't Hominids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunkleosteus77 (talk • contribs)
 * Officially, it depends on which branch of science you are thinking of. As was pointed out in the RFC. You should probably have gone there to comment instead of posting here. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Primate. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160112134044/http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php to http://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/science/can_you_live_in_antarctica.php

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

– Rules of engagement  Paine   05:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 11:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Recent studies
New euprimate postcrania from the early Eocene of Gujarat, India, and the strepsirrhine–haplorhine divergence. Please update.--Nizil (talk) 06:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Impending extinction crisis of the world's primates Will update Conservation with recent data. --CAS307 (talk) 19:51, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Disagreement between Antarctica and Primate articles
This article claims humans live on every continent apart from Antarctica. The Antarctica article lists a permanent population of about 135 humans. Children are born there regularly, and there are schools. Is there any reason to keep the claim in this article? Sakkura (talk) 21:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So amended. Ordinary Person (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Map inaccurate
I query the accuracy of this map. To my knowledge there have never been non-human primates living on Ambon or Halmamera.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:08, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Primate. 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/20110726104027/https://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf to http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081029184647/http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/human-origins/PrimateEvolution.pdf to http://homepage.mac.com/wis/Personal/lectures/human-origins/PrimateEvolution.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080907073204/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/bejc/ to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/bejc/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608230639/https://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/crucial-link-in-primate-evolutio.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2013/06/crucial-link-in-primate-evolutio.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131102050710/https://www.clemetzoo.com/apetag/Bonobos.html to http://www.clemetzoo.com/apetag/Bonobos.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131126074458/https://orangutanislands.com/sumatra-orangutans.htm to http://orangutanislands.com/sumatra-orangutans.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141208080853/http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html to http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080820011354/http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php to http://www.greatapeproject.org/declaration.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130608041322/http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2003/09/0916_030916_primatepets.html to http://news.nationalgeographic.co.uk/news/2003/09/0916_030916_primatepets.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725190533/http://www.aesop-project.org/US_Pet_Monkey_Trade.htm to http://www.aesop-project.org/US_Pet_Monkey_Trade.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120117061036/http://www.ebra.org/ebrabulletin-the-supply-and-use-of-primates-in-the-eu_17.htm to http://www.ebra.org/ebrabulletin-the-supply-and-use-of-primates-in-the-eu_17.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081003004620/http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=169&topic_id=1078&level3_id=5345&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&placement_default=0 to http://awic.nal.usda.gov/nal_display/index.php?info_center=3&tax_level=3&tax_subject=169&topic_id=1078&level3_id=5345&level4_id=0&level5_id=0&placement_default=0
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080929214536/http://www.eceae.org/a1_directive.php to http://www.eceae.org/a1_directive.php
 * Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5wa4X2PoC?url=http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Program_Publications/Wildlife_Trade/Campaign_Scientific_Publications/asset_upload_file812_49478.pdf to http://www.ifaw.org/Publications/Program_Publications/Wildlife_Trade/Campaign_Scientific_Publications/asset_upload_file812_49478.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wii.gov.in/envis/primates/downloads/page81statusofprimates.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wii.gov.in/envis/primates/downloads/page92primatesne.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Humans
Shouldn't the 'some families' image include humans? They are a relatively noteworthy example of primates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:9D01:400:C5F7:E406:9520:4146 (talk) 22:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC) I think Hominidae is covered already. Bottom row, picture on the right. 71.150.249.102 (talk) 04:38, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Primate. 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/20120425232556/http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf to http://www.nagonline.net/HUSBANDRY/Diets%20pdf/Bonobo%20Nutrition.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080910043814/http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/52/52rbz271-280.pdf to http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/rbz/biblio/52/52rbz271-280.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primate. 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/20111003152030/http://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/pdf/Publication163.pdf to http://lalandlab.st-andrews.ac.uk/pdf/Publication163.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:05, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primate. 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/20080910043811/http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/animalcommunication/PrimateComm_ElsevierEncy.pdf to http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~mnkylab/publications/animalcommunication/PrimateComm_ElsevierEncy.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Primate. 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/20110728153456/http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04149196.pdf to http://www.epjournal.net/filestore/ep04149196.pdf

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:06, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

all species are social?
Am I right in thinking that all primates are social, that is live together in family or larger groups? If so maybe the article should explicitly say this. Right now this seems to be kind of assumed. PopSci (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No, orangutans are for example not particularly social.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't a male and female live together to raise their young? Anyway I will check out their article.PopSci (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, the male is solitary and the female raises the young for two to three years and then they leave when they are weaned.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. You are correct.  It does seem kind of strange that that is so. PopSci (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


 * BTW Gibbon says: "Like all primates, gibbons are social animals." Are orangutans the only exception? PopSci (talk) 13:59, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at some of the other primate articles and the Aye-aye also seems to be an exception, although maybe borderline social.PopSci (talk) 14:03, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * We probably should get a good source to cite on social patterns of primates.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree. I'm kind of hesitant to edit the article myself since I am not an expert and it's such an important one.PopSci (talk) 00:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

trivial sections?
To me the information in "Hybrids" and "Clones" seems kind of minor for a general article on primates.PopSci (talk)

article never states the meaning of the word
what is meaning of the word ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.150.8.147 (talk) 11:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ischial callosities
Could you maybe add something about ischial callosities to the anatomy section? They are funny. Uncle 1 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Human in lead images
By far the most noteworthy primates are humans and I do not really understand why they aren’t in the lead images.  IWI  ( chat ) 14:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Reversion on human-dog role
The relationship between humans and dogs has been a critical factor in the rise of Humanity, including into a role as apex predator. So far as I know, no other primate collaborates with dogs, animals that much of the world has the sort of fear that one associates with wolves. Dogs are obviously not primates -- and neither do they quite count as tools.

I would like to see the reversion reconsidered. Pbrower2a (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2019 (UTC)