Talk:Rhesus macaque

Macaque / human DNA difference
The article currently says humans and macaques share about 93% of their DNA sequence. The BBC report at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6550865.stm says rhesus macaque, chimp and humans share about 97.5% of the same genes and, following the link to Science, I found The average 3% difference between macaque and human genes... in http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/316/5822/216

I've asked on User talk:Warbola if he has a reference for the 93% but it looks like it should be 97%. --Cavrdg 18:19, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * LA Times: Macaques and humans share about 93% of their genetic information
 * Louisiana State University :The rhesus macaque ... still shares about 93 percent of its genome sequence with humans.
 * VOA News: The macaque genome agrees with the human genome 93 percent, according to Gibbs
 * National Human Genome Research Institute: Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human
 * Monkeys In The News: Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 percent to 95 percent of its sequence with humans 
 * Innovations Report, Germany: Overall, the rhesus genome shares about 92 to 95 percent of its sequence with the human (Homo sapiens) and more than 98 percent with the chimpanzee.
 * About the 97.5% in BBC news: Not sure, but it talks about sharing genes, which does not sound same thing to me as sharing genome sequences. Warbola 06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. The Washington Post has about 97.5 percent similar to those of chimps and humans but I think the nearest thing we have to an original source is the press release from the Human Genome Sequencing Center which has The macaque genome differs by approximately seven percent from that of humans, while chimpanzees are just one to two percent different. I'll add the link to the press release to the article as a reference.--Cavrdg 06:24, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The most authoritative source is the Science report itself, although that may require a certain amount of interpretation. According to Science, 13 April 2007, 316(5822);222 - 234, DOI: 10.1126/science.1139247, Research Articles: Evolutionary and Biomedical Insights from the Rhesus Macaque Genome [free], the chimpanzee "alignable sequence" is 1-2% different from human, while the human-macaque sequence identity is ~93%.


 * (I think all the rhesus macaque genome stories are free on the web.)


 * I think there are different ways of comparing DNA sequences. Before the days of sequencing entire genomes, they used to mix the different DNAs and measure the hybridization. Now with sequenced species they can line up the actual DNA sequences on computer and compare -- but not all differences are functionally significant. Some coding DNA differences produce the same peptide, while others produce different peptides. Some peptide differences are functionally different, while others don't matter. If a DNA coding sequence in a macaque and a different DNA coding sequence in a human produce the same peptide sequence and presumably the same protein, do you count the DNA sequence as different even though the protein is the same? Or if one peptide is different, but the protein is functionally identical, like insulin, do you count the DNA sequence as different? Suppose 95% of the genes are identical, but 93% of the DNA sequence is identical, including the junk DNA. Which number do you use?


 * I'd go with 93%, unless somebody comes along who knows better. Nbauman 05:33, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

rhesus macaque
Rhesus macaque is the accepted common name for Macaca mulata and generally should not, I believe, be capitalized. Rbogle 17:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * See WP:BIRD (which is referenced by WP:PRIM) for the reason capitals should be used. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed on the lack of need for initial caps. Names of species aren't proper nouns. One doesn't write Cow but cow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.57.113 (talk) 12:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not the standard for the articles in the WikiProject Primates. Please read the section in WP:BIRD so that you can be informed instead of making comments out of ignorance. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

average age
could someone clarify average life expectancy captive and wild. http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/211.shtml reports wild average life expectancy is about 4 years, with 30 years being peak captivity age, pretty big discrepancy, so if possible, the average age in this article should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.3.42.1 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

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

Would you please take a look at that here:

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

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

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

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay but here's the thing though
At what point do we add an "in popular culture" section about Ikea Monkey

at what point — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.88.160.3 (talk) 23:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Monkey attacks
I was attacked by a rhesus monkey as a child. They are nasty creatures. They're also known to start fires if given matches. A rhesus troop killed the deputy mayor of New Delhi. In Ubud, Bali, they are trained to steal jewelry and money. Don't mess with monkeys!! Don't look the in the eye -- ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.172.184.53 (talk) 01:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone—subject to certain terms and conditions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.75.13.97 (talk) 06:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Rhesus macaque. 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 https://web.archive.org/20121101233505/http://www.ergriffinresearch.org:80/about-elizabeth to http://www.ergriffinresearch.org/about-elizabeth/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 02:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: GEOG 479 Primate Behaviour, Ecology and Conservation
I will be adding into the sections of "Human Conflict", "Conservation Status", and "Distribution and Habitat". Kindly let me know if there is ongoing additions being done in these sections.

— Assignment last updated by Jonathan.diamantstein (talk) 18:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Bruh
In the etymology section, it is said that an archaic name for the rhesus macaque is "bruh" with two citation, are they verifiable or is this a new Brazilian aardavark? TheKuygerian contribs userpage 02:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I checked both sources (and added the second). Both are available on the Internat Archive. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 07:01, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * None of the sources actually back this up for the Rhesus macaque. All of them notably mention nemestrinus, which is currently the Southern pig-tailed macaque (but included three other now distinct species). The accounts of "bruh" are also from Bencoolen, (or more widely, Sumatra and Java), and the range of the Rhesus monkey does not extend that far south. This mistake may have been made when reading The Menageries, as page 378 discusses the rhesus monkey directly after discussing the bruh. From context, the native word used is actually "bhunder." See Horsfield's Catalogue for a more explicit distinction between M. nemestrinus referred to as "bruh" and M. rhesus referred to as "rhesus"
 * There also seems to be a discussion about "bruh" on the M. nemestrinus talk page, so not sure if the info should be removed or added to another article. I propose, if the information is to be included in some other article, something along the lines of
 * "In the 19th century, macaques classified in the species nemestrina were sometimes referred to as 'bruh' or 'broh'. Some sources include distinct varieties Bruh sepotong, Bruh selapi, and Bruh puti. These names are derived from native Malayic words for macaques on Sumatra and Java."
 * so it is taken seriously and not seen as a prank edit.
 * Fluxjupyter (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That actually seems to be correct; mea culpa - my previous checks were somewhat hasty. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Rhesus macaque_(Macaca_mulatta_mulatta),_male,_Gokarna.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for March 12, 2023. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2023-03-12. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)