Talk:Ring-tailed lemur

Major Update - 06/20/2008
Using research material I have accumulated while doing a project for the Lemur Conservation Foundation, I have spent the last 18 hours heavily revising the Ring-tailed Lemur article. Debatable information without sources was replaced with verifiable content and references. Several sections were re-organized and/or re-written. A picture of a "lemur eating fruit" was removed and replaced with a picture of a "Ring-tailed Lemur eating tamarind" (a native fruit to Madagascar). An entirely new section with sample audio clips of Ring-tailed Lemur vocalizations was added. (I hope to further update that section in the near future, adding more text and in-line audio clips that weren't appropriate for the table.) Audio clips and journal article details were used with permission (GDFL) from the author. If I can obtain them (and the rights), better Ring-tailed Lemur pictures will be offered soon.

Hopefully the article merits more than "Start-class" quality now. I intend to someday make this a feature article, so feedback is strongly encouraged.

I'm going to bed now. I need sleep.

Visionholder (talk) 11:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This is certainly one of the best Wikipedia entries I have ever seen. Thanks and congratulations, Visionholder.  Hajnalka (talk) 21:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks! The article has progressed significantly since I wrote the message above, but still has a long way to go.  I was in the process of revamping it again, but I only got half way through before getting delayed by other projects.  Hopefully I can finish cleaning it up and adding new information by the end of the year. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 01:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Sympatric Species
I think there are some issues with the list of sympatric species. For example, I do not believe any ruffed lemur is sympatric with the ring-tailed lemur. Also, I believe that the sympatric brown lemur species is the red-fronted brown lemur, not the common brown lemur. I checked page 248 of the "Lemurs of Madagascar" book as referenced and the listed species were not on that page. Perhaps additional pages need to be added to the reference. I changed the brown lemur reference in the article, but I have not touched the ruffed lemur reference, in case I missed something in the reference.

By the way, I am not sure how best to do this, but the article would probably read better if the list of audio files (or at least most of them) was moved to the end so the list doesn't impede reading the article.Rlendog (talk) 15:52, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the ruffed lemur species do not occur anywhere near the Ring-tailed Lemur's range. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the bad reference. According to the Primate Info Net fact sheet by Cawthorn Lang, Varecia variegata and Eulemur fulvus are sympatric species.  I forgot I had used multiple sources for this.  In regards to Eulemur fulvus, her reference dates to 1994, before Eulemur rufus was promoted to species status.  As for Varecia variegata, I looked in "Lemurs of Madagascar" and although it does not mention them as being sympatric, there is some potential range overlap of Lemur catta (page 238) and Varecia variegata (page 304 - see "possible original extent of distribution") east of Ihosy.  Whether this one reference and inference from range maps merits reinstatement is up to you.  I was simply reporting what my sources claimed.  Visionholder (talk) 18:56, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the same maps, and I disagree that the inference can be made. They may have been sympatric historically, but they are certainly not sympatric now. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:06, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, your revision will stand. Case closed (unless new research shows otherwise). Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Natural history vs. behaviour
I respectfully disagree with the revision of the "Natural History" section to "Behaviour." According to use on page 21 of "Lemurs of Madagascar" (and doubtless many other sources, as well as my personal college-level education in ecology, ethology, & evolution), "Natural History" summarizes the ecology & behaviour of a species. As the page stands now, the new "Behaviour" section includes not just behaviour, but also the basic ecology of the species. Hence my reason for naming the section "Natural History."

Rather than fight back and forth with our revisions, I was wondering how everyone would feel about the following revision:


 * 1) Renaming "Behaviour" back to "Natural History" (as a level 1 heading)
 * 2) Inserting an "Ecology" (level 2) heading directly under "Natural History"
 * 3) Relocating "Sympatric Relations" between "Geographic range and habitat" and "Diet"
 * 4) Demoting "Geographic range and habitat" and "Sympatric Relations" to a level 3 heading.
 * 5) Inserting a "Behaviour" (level 2) heading under "Geographic range and habitat"
 * 6) Demoting "Diet" through "Breeding and reproduction" to level 3 headings.

I feel that this would appropriately categorize all ecology and behaviour facts under a more general "natural history" heading. I also hope this is an acceptible compromise. Comments? Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. the arearrangement will make the headings fit better. However, the WP:MOS requires that headings not be capitalizaed, except for the first word and any proper nouns. (So, "Natural history", etc.) - UtherSRG (talk) 21:17, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This approach sounds good to me.Rlendog (talk) 21:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I removed the "Natural history" heading today, per the proposed WikiProject Primates Article format. Visionholder (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Toilet-claw vs. grooming claw
Several months back, an unregistered user changed my mention of the toilet-claw to "grooming claw". Until then, I had personally never heard of this anatomical feature being called that. After checking several sources, I reverted it back to "toilet-claw" right before I started work on the major revision of the Lemur catta article. When I noticed that it was changed back in less than 24 hours, I did some research to determine the most common name for this anatomical feature. Sources that use the term "toilet-claw" include:


 * 1) Primate Info Net on factsheets for:
 * 2) Lesser bushbaby (Galago)
 * 3) Aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis)
 * 4) Animal Diversity Web on information pages for:
 * 5) toothcomb and toilet claw
 * 6) Tarsius tarsier
 * 7) Family Lorisidae
 * 8) Family Lemuridae
 * 9) Family Galagidae
 * 10) Euoticus elegantulus
 * 11) Family Cheirogaleidae
 * 12) "Animal", DK Publishing, Smithsonian Institution, ISBN: 978-0756616342
 * 13) "The Encyclopedia of Animals: A Complete Visual Guide" ISBN: 978-0520244061
 * 14) Nails and claws in primate evolution, Christophe Soligob and Alexandra E. Müller, Journal of Human Evolution, Volume 36, Issue 1, January 1999, Pages 97-114

Sources that use the term "grooming claw" (that I found) include:


 * 1) Husbandry manual for Asian Lorisines
 * 2) Unique Characteristics of Primates, Smithsonian National Zoological Park

Furthermore, I'm pretty sure that most of the scientific journal articles that I've seen mention this feature have only called it a "toilet-claw." Again, rather than getting into a revision war, can we come to a consensus on this, first? Visionholder (talk) 20:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know if the Mittermeier book ever refers to grooming or toilet claws? I did a quick scan and didn't find any references, but  the index is not exactly condusive to this sort of thing.  If there is a reference to toilet/grooming claws there, I would be inclined to use the consistent term in the Wikipedia article.Rlendog (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find mention of either term in Mittermeier. I'm at a loss. I would prefer the more accessible term "grooming claw", but since there seem to be more uses of "toilet claw", I suppose that's what it should be. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * As both of you pointed out, Mittermeier doesn't appear to mention it. Although "grooming claw" sounds cleaner, I'm strongly inclined to go with "toilet-claw," so I will make the change.  I have personal contacts at both the Lemur Conservation Foundation and the Duke Lemur Center, so I will also contact them to get a more definitive answer.  Ultimately, pages need to be created for both the toilet-claw and the tooth-comb.  I'll try to tackle that soon, as well. Visionholder (talk) 21:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Changes have been made. I was also tinkering with the "tooth comb" reference, but reverted the spelling back after a quick glance over my sources.  "Dental comb" is also common, so we may need to get a definitive answer on that as well.  Visionholder (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Alternative terms should be included in the article. One function of an encyclopedia is to provide vocabulary. Because the literature sometimes uses the term grooming claw, that term should be included in this article, in parentheses. Instead of "vs", think "also".
 * The term grooming claw has been added as requested. As I slowly work on revising all lemur pages, I will be sure to include the term in a similar fashion. - Visionholder (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Or, simply pick one term and wikify it. Toilet-claw exists and its current redirects include Toilet claw and Grooming claw. --Una Smith (talk) 16:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing the redirects. Sorry I didn't do them earlier.  Are we still good with mentioning both names in the article, or is that redundant?  - Visionholder (talk) 22:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My view is, if all the alternate terms are given together in one page about the thing, it is not very important which term is used in the link to that page. One thin g you maybe should do is search (use the Search button, not the Go button) for all the terms and wikify them.  I did that and saw a bunch of pages that do not link to the article, but I did not bother editing those pages.  --Una Smith (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, this issue is quite separate from the GA review. I reviewed the article and listed the issues needed to bring the article up to GA criteria; those are the only issues you have to fix to achieve GA. A Good Article has to be good, not perfect. Stand by while I deal with the GAN. --Una Smith (talk) 01:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

FA push
(Adding header between transclusion and new text on this page. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Thank you very much for your time and effort in the GA review. If you ever need a favor, let me know.  As for not needing perfection to be rated GA (as you stated in the section above), that may be true... however, my goal is to get this article to FA status.  If you have a little bit more time in the near future, would you please give me feedback to tell me what you would like to see in order to merit A-class?  As I did today, I will do my best to make the revisions immediately.  After that, I will submit for a FA review, so additional feedback and general FA suggestions would be very valuable.


 * I'm wanting to added a section entitled either "Cognitive abilities" or "Intelligence", and I plan on adding video of spur-marking behavior and hopefully a stink fight (if I can get it). Aside from those additions, and maybe some re-working of the references, I'll need some pointers on where else to take this article to merit FA.


 * Best wishes! - Visionholder (talk) 04:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Visionholder, thanks for your offer. I reviewed this article because reviewing helps to improve content. I think Wikipedia should be about its content, not about trading personal favors, so you might return the favor to Wikipedia (not to me) by reviewing an article nominated for GAN. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding how to get to FA, read Featured article criteria and also watch some other FACs. I would not bother with class A. The problems I see most often in science FACs involve quality of prose (criterion 1a) and appropriate structure (2b). Problems re those two criteria often go hand in hand. This article's lead, for example, has problems re both 1a and 2b. It has three main themes, commingled: (1) differential diagnosis of this species (what is most unique about it);  (2) this species compared and contrasted with closely related species;  and (3) habitat loss and species conservation. Try this: imagine you are a reader, not an editor; read the entire article, and for each paragraph write a topic sentence. That will help you find places in the article where prose and/or structure need work. --Una Smith (talk) 17:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Query
While doing some clean up, I found this statement: As for the Ring-tailed Lemur, it is currently thought that it may share closer affinities to the bamboo lemurs of the genus Hapalemur. Um... closer to Hapalemur than what? Closer to it than something is is closer to Hapalemu? Or closer to Hapalemur than to Eulemur? This needs to be resolved. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:09, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Feel free to clean up the wording, if you'd like.  - Visionholder (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. :) - UtherSRG (talk) 15:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving refs out of templates
I understand and respect the desire to move refs out of the taxobox template, however, the edits by AnomieBOT broke some refs, one of which is only used in the taxobox and no where else in the article (the Lemur catta page link). Consequently, I fixed the refs by essentially undoing the edit. Anyway, I suspect someday we'll need to re-do all the refs anyway, possibly using the style involving both Notes and References sections. Thoughts? - Visionholder (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with taking the refs out of the taxobox, but I understand it when there are one or more instances of the same ref in the article body. However, I combined all the MSW3 refs since they are all for the same page in the book. (Yeah, I know that means the link to the website is not 100% correct, but it just looks wrong to me to look through the references and see three seeming identical references.... And the website is easy to navigate through.) I'm not a fan of splitting the References into Notes and References, but I also understand that at some point that becomes more manageable and readable. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, what do you think about the multiple refs to Cawthorn Lang paper (from Primate Info Net: Primate Factsheets)? There are two issues here.  First, the factsheet is spread across multiple pages, so should each individual page be referenced, depending on which one the information was sourced from?  (FYI: My citation of that source generalized the pages as one source, but Rlendog cited one of the later pages.)  Second, if information is sourced on different dates, either by the same or different editors, then the "access date" or "retreived on" date will be different.  Would that merit separate citations?
 * And one last question on the Groves citations: What pages are the ruffed lemurs on? I don't have the book, and I want to make sure the page numbers are correct (and not just carelessly copied from another page).  - Visionholder (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes for FA

 * Make all redlinks blue.


 * All books need page refs - have a look at Lion to see at the bottom in the ref section.


 * On first glance, there are too many subsections. I will look closer later but have little time now.

Back later. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:12, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the pointers. I will work on all of this.  I'll start with the redlinks, although I would value UtherSRG's or Rlendog's opinion on how to handle the links (or new pages?) for the 3 scent gland mentioned, especially since many lemurs and some other mammals share them.  (Should we just point to the article Scent glands, or more specifically to Sebaceous gland and Anal scent gland while doing some editing on those pages?)  As for the refs, I was kind of expecting your suggestion.  I'll work on it shortly.  The subsections, however, I'm not sure on.  I have been trying to both comply with the WikiProject Primates Article format and categorize distinct types of information as succinctly as possible.  I'm open to new ideas, so whatever you and your team feel is needed, just let me know. - Visionholder (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * My inclination would be to link the glands to scent gland since that really covers the topic. I think that sebaceous gland is a bit more esoteric, and I'm not sure I'd consider either of these to be anal scent glands.  One possible alternative would be to direct brachial gland to lymph node, and add some verbiage to the lymph node article to cover brachial glands, but, again, that may be a bit more esoteric than necessary.  Another alternative is to write separate articles for each of the glands, assuming there is enough material specific to these particular glands to warrant an article independent of the scent gland article.  But you probably have more expertise there than me to know if that is the case. Rlendog (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Wow, had not seen the primate article format. That's fine then, never mind. Had sorta developed one for birds and fungi, and similar one for disnosaurs, while Lion was an aberration as I did it to conform with Marskell's FAs which preceded lion, Jaguar and Puma. Have to read and think on the scent gland when I have more time. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you be more specific about the comment about page refs? Unless I missed one all the book references seem to have page refs.  The differences I can see between the page refs on the Lion article and this one are that: (1) the pages are referenced with more specificity in the Lion article (i.e., if 3 facts from 3 different pages are referenced, there are 3 distict footnotes), and (2) the page references have a "p." in front of them.  But I want to make sure that these (or one of these) is the issue being referenced since I have been reverted (by multiple people, including during a GA review) several times on different articles for attempting to create a footnotes that conform more to the Lion article in these respects.  The multiple page references have been combined in order to "clean up" the reference list, and the "p's" have been deleted as unnecessary.  So I want to make sure to address the proper issue(s) here.  Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Red links have been cleaned up, and changes to the referencing have been started. Once Rlendog's question (above) is answered, that part of the clean-up will be completed.  Otherwise, I'm ready for another set of suggestions.  - Visionholder (talk) 22:38, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, was in a bit of a hurry with some flyby pointers. I can see better now. I use 'p.' s in book refs but not in journal refs (which is what I can see in the ref section here (?)). I haven't checked the history though.


 * Another point - I thought you'd have to mention Fierce Creatures where lemurs seemed to play a central plot element. I can see if I can find a ref when I next visit my mother who has a monumental film library, unless you find something online :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I can add a mention of Fierce Creatures. I own the film on DVD.  I haven't added it because I was trying to keep the "Cultural References" to a minimum.  Technically, we could mention the brief appearance in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium, but I think such mentions will only bog the page down with trivial details, not enhance its quality.  Brief appearances in a movie or TV shows probably shouldn't merit mentioning.


 * As for the book refs, I only moved the ones that had multiple sections of the book referenced. If references pointed to only one section of a book (a contiguous block of pages on a particular subject), then I left the reference the way it was.  Please let me know if that's acceptible.  If I need to find the exact pages where every single fact comes from and reference them separately, also let me know.  Like I said, if you want more done on the references, please give very detailed instructions.  I looked at the Lion page, and it appeared to have several contradictions, so I used my own judgement for the last set of reference edits.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Visionholder (talk • contribs) 03:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree about not mentioning brief appearances - refs are ok by me. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Is there anything else you can recommend?  (Take your time if needed.)  If not, where should I go from here?  I'm still waiting for a 3rd supporter on the FA-Team's Mission Proposals page.  I'm looking forward to working with the FA-Team, so I hope it happens.  If not, should I go ahead and submit for a FA review?  - Visionholder (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

"Cognitive abilities and tool use" section added
I have finally written up the one remaining section that I know has been missing from this page -- Cognitive abilities and tool use. If someone has time, please read it over and ensure that it contains a NPOV (neutral point of view). (This topic overlaps with some of my personal research, so I have an axe to grind... but I've tried to keep it out of the article.)

Although far from perfect, I feel this is some of my better writing. I'm hoping it's more up-to-par with the FA status I'm trying to push for. Regardless, copyediting is encouraged.

I'm going to be very busy for the next couple of days. After things clear up, I will work on the red links and references as requested. (Sorry for the delays.) - Visionholder (talk) 08:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Cultural references section
An understandable attempt was made to delete the Cultural references section from the article. However, during the process of promoting it to Feature Article, the consensus was that a Cultural References section was acceptable if kept short and focused on very well-known examples from film. (I'm sorry, but I tried to provide a redirect to an archival copy of that discussion, but was unable to locate it.) For example, the animated film series, Madagascar, would be mentioned since a Ring-tailed Lemur play a key role and helped popularize this well-known film, whereas the brief appearance in Mr. Magorium's Wonder Emporium would not be mentioned.

In general, there are not many films or documentaries covering the Ring-tailed lemur, so the section should remain short and manageable. I am monitoring the page daily and will not allow the section to get out-of-hand. However, I encourage discussion about what is and is not worth mentioning on this page. Admittedly, some of what is mentioned in that section might be worth deleting. However, I would prefer to discuss this here on the talk page before major deletions are attempted--particularly those that involve the deletion of the entire section. –Visionholder (talk) 16:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Upcoming article revamp
I will be the first to admit that the FA standards have greatly improved since this article passed its FAC. For that reason, I am planning a revamp of this article within the coming months. I have obtained many new articles and an entire book on Ring-tailed Lemur biology, which will hopefully provide new details and replace less-than-reliable sources currently used as references. As with all my re-writes, please be patient. It is coming. –  VisionHolder  «  talk  »  22:18, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Update: I have now officially begun the note-taking stage that precedes my re-writing process. It may take me several weeks, but once my notes are complete, I will work my way through the article and start making significant changes.  Upon completion, I will submit the article for FAR to make sure the article is up to the current FA standards.  I hope that this will only take a couple of weeks, but given that this is the most heavily studied lemur species, I can't make any promises. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 03:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Another update: Not only is there an insane amount of material on this species to sort though, real life is starting to takes its toll on me, so I will be on a limited Wikibreak while I struggle to make time for myself, some research I'm doing (involving lemurs!), and a job that's not respecting my availability. I will be working casually on this article offline for the rest of the year, and I hope at the beginning of 2011 (or earlier) to fully resume the re-write.  Sorry for the delays. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 22:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Re-vamp in progress
The re-vamp is officially in progress, and the first three sections of the article have been nearly finished. I just need to finish the remaining sections and review a few more sources, and then I will submit it for a Featured Article Review. If you see some broken references for a couple hours at a time, then you know a major edit is in progress. I will post back when the re-vamp is complete. –  VisionHolder « talk » 20:31, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
There is an odd type of vandalism in the Evolutionary History section. In the second sentence there is a short phrase that appears when viewing the article that doesn't appear while editing it that says "except the fact that this little *$^*&W named Ricecake had his way with a colony of lemurs in his mansion in Shangai, China, Asia" I'm unsure how to delete this entry, and just created this account to point this out. Jvbridge (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Really it is a very, very strange situation, because the vandalism was reverted, but nevertheless the text kept on being seen, slightly really rare. To solve it, I copied the previous version to the vandalism, and I did a small change, and it seems that now it is already solved. Thanks for the notice. --Furado (talk) 11:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Lemur ball


Don't know if this photo of Ring-tailed lemurs in a lemur ball is of any use in the article. Stronach (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sharing. At the moment, the article is fairly well illustrated, but when I get around to finishing the re-vamp, maybe there will be room.  Even if it's not used here, it may be used on other lemur articles or on other non-English Wikis.  –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Moskito Island
First of all "Moskito" is not a misspelling. Richard Branson has brought 9 Lemurs To the British VI. Moskito island to be exact. You smart asses can jazz it up my input and enter it. http://www.bvibeacon.com/1/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=266:branson-lemurs-are-coming —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.51.127.188 (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point (in the grand scheme of things), I think this topic qualifies more as trivia. Depending on how things develop, I was thinking about noting something small about on the Lemur article.  I don't think each species article needs this information unless a major re-introduction project gets underway for individual species. –  VisionHolder  « talk » 14:56, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on behavior section
The Wikipedia entry on the Ring-tailed lemur is a very well organized article with a variety of information on the species and seems to be complete as it is recognized as a “Featured Article.” This includes geographic information, anatomy, and evolution. There is also some information about the species’ behavior including social systems and communication. While the behavior section includes information about social ranks and fighting, more should be included about kin recognition and altruistic and spiteful behaviors which is the focus of chapter 11. For example, are the “sleeping parties” that stay together organized by kin relationships? My group could contribute to this section. The sections on communication and reproduction appear to be very complete. Looking at the talk sections, it seems as though the last major revisions to the article were done in 2008. Relating to our area of interest, there seems to be some conflict as to whether the “Behavior” section should be instead renamed to “Natural History.” Before the article was moved into the Featured Article category, there were some issues with the pictures that illustrate the article which were revised. Additionally all the links had to be changed to blue and the books that were cited needed page references.E.middlebrook (talk) 19:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback. First of all, what is "chapter 11"?  The rest of Wikipedia is not taking your class, nor does it have access to your textbooks.  ;-)  I admit that this article is a work-in-progress.  It was the first article I re-vamped (in 2008) and my first featured article.  Most of the issues you raised are on my list of things to do.  Because this is a featured article and receives relatively high-traffic (for a non-entertainment article), and because you are working through an Ambassador Program project, I would suggest using the talk pages to suggest specific changes so that we can discuss them and polish them up.  (For example, post something like the following on the talk pages: "We suggest that paragraph X in section Z be re-worded to read as follows..." Of course, include your citations.)  When things look good to everyone, then I will encourage you to post the changes to the article.
 * In regards to the formatting of references, I encourage you to use the same format I have recently started using on the other lemuriform articles I've written (for consistency). This involves the use of Sfn—see Archaeoindris or Slow loris for examples.  This will allow you to include specific page numbers in the citation.  If you have questions or need help, just ask.  I had plans to re-vamp the references on this article to use this format, but haven't had time.  Assistance with this would be greatly appreciated.
 * In regards to the section names, "Behavior" follows the guidelines for WikiProject:Primates. See WikiProject Primates/Article format for more details.  I originally tried using the section title "Natural history" several years ago, but the consensus was against it.
 * By the way, I'm a "retired" online ambassador. If you want me to join up with your project, just let me know. –  Maky  « talk » 20:10, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation
The ring-tailed lemur is highly recognized for its long, pied tail. This article mentions briefly that ring-tailed lemurs are vocal creatures and issue alarm calls to one another. However, the article doesn’t identify these alarm calls as being cooperative, which is something that I would have done. Similarly, the author mentions alloparenting but fails to elaborate on how this advantages the giver and not just the recipient. The cooperative value of alarm calls and alloparenting needs to be further explained. Moreover, ring-tailed lemurs exhibit high cognition and tool usage, which creates more potential areas for identifying cooperation. Perhaps a specialized toolmaker might make tools for other members in his troop? Are the lemurs, because of their high cognition, able to ascertain the relatedness between themselves and another lemur? Marklxb (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Very interesting questions, but do you have sources? If I didn't elaborate in the article, it was probably because I didn't have a source.  (On Wikipedia, you can't offer your own conjecture.  You can only summarize reliable sources.)  I'm not saying that the sources don't exist, but if you can find them, I will gladly work with you to incorporate the material and enhance the article.  Regarding tool use, I am very familiar with that literature, so unless I've missed something, then I'm certain that there is little that can be said for cooperation... aside from maybe one reference I can send to you.  Lemurs are not tool makers, and the "tool use" is poorly understood at best (and has never been observed in the wild).  Some of your questions seem more appropriate for apes.  Good luck finding reliable sources, though!  –  Maky  « talk » 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Commentary on Cooperation 2
Female Philopatry

Male ring-tailed lemurs leave the troop upon sexual maturation in search of a new group. Females, on the other hand, remain in the troop or home range for life and welcome in new, unrelated adult males periodically. Known as female philopatry, this means that in any observed group of ring-tailed lemurs, all the females are kin and all the mature males are outsiders who have been naturalized into the group. This explains the strong alliances that closely-related females share with each other. While male ring-tailed lemurs do enjoy the benefits of occasional partnership, fully fledged alliances are only found in females. In addition to females remaining in their natal group, females are also dominant amongst ring-tailed lemurs. They enjoy feeding priority and do not receive any aggression from males, who in turn maintain a spatial distance from female members.


 * Very good. I've made a few fixes above. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alarm Calls

Ring-tailed lemurs are highly prized for their vocal ability and they use it in cooperation. Alarm calls, issued at the sight of predators, can be accompanied by or substituted for silent body signals. The type of predator will determine the kind of alarm call issued. For example, avian predators will warrant a different range of vocalizations than those emitted in response to terrestrial predators. Because ring-tailed lemurs are semi-arboreal and spend an equal amount of time in the trees and on the ground, specialized alarm calls may have evolved to accommodate for environmental variability. Because alarm calls are issued more often when infants are present, they may have evolved as a method to reduce infant mortality.


 * "Highly prized"? This makes it sound like people go out and hunt them or take them as pets because of their calls.  Please reword.  Otherwise, very good.  I'm eager to see the sources. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Optimal Group Size

A constant cost of group membership across almost all species is competition for food resources. Because ring-tailed lemurs live in troops (except for the occasional roaming adult male) its members must constantly evaluate the net benefits and costs from remaining in that group. In lemurs, when food was scarce, cortisol levels rise in the brain causing group members to be more susceptible to disease through immuno-suppression, poor growth and weight gain, and reduced reproductive success. For ring-tailed lemurs, optimal group size is directly proportional to the stores of food available at the time. The optimal troop size for a group of lemurs will be one that minimizes the cortisol levels that have been observed to increase when food becomes scarce, which is a membership of 9-19 animal (a range centered around the average for ring-tailed lemurs). Groups outside of this range consistently have females with higher cortisol levels, which is indicative of undue stress.


 * I don't think the first sentence is needed. It seems redundant with the second sentence.  "In lemurs, when food was scarce"... is that all lemurs, or just the ring-tailed lemur?  "Undue stress"—how is it "undue"?  Otherwise I tweaked the wording in a few places. –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Alloparental Care

Alloparenting (caring for offspring other than one's own), which is seen in many communal species, is universally exhibited by ring-tailed lemurs, regardless of sex or rank. Whereas most animals become alloparents through manipulation or kin selection, some male ring-tailed lemurs have been found to groom and play with infants with whom they share no blood relation. Yet it has been found that the male alloparent will have had previous copulations with the infant’s mother, and even sired the infant’s half-sibling. Infanticide in ring-tailed lemurs is rare, and a birth in one year does not affect reproductive success in subsequent years. Marklxb (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I made quite a few structural fixes. Also, if the reproductive success discussed at the end referring to males, females, or both? –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The writing is very good. As I said, I made a few fixes.  We will, of course, need to see your references and confirm that it covers what you have written.  Now here's the wonderfully tricky part about editing already developed articles on Wikipedia: incorporating the information into the existing structure of the article!  The article needs to flow, so we can't just plop this stuff in without regard to what's already written.  (This is one of the reasons I prefer to re-write under-developed articles.  I just replace everything.)  I can try to help with this (once we've verified the sources) sometime this week, if time permits.  But again, good job.  –  Maky  « talk » 06:32, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Categories
The reason we placed the two genera categories on this article is because this article acts as both the page for the species and genus. (It is monotypic.) This has also been done for the FA False potto and Potto. – Maky  « talk » 18:09, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, I think that practice is wrong. WP:RCAT spells out instructions for "Redirects whose target title is incompatible with the category" which support keeping common names out of taxonomic categories, even where that means categorizing redirects rather than articles. There's also discussion on the subject at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. Compare also with List of mammal genera, which consists only of Latin genus names. Surely they shouldn't be replaced with English species names, even in the case of monotypy. --BDD (talk) 18:19, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's fine... as long as the genus gets added to its category in some fashion. However, you only removed it from this article without adding it to the redirect.  Thank you for sharing the discussion you linked above—I had not been aware of it.  But at this point, I don't feel the proper solution is to remove the genus Lemur from the category listings completely.  Since you seem to be the only one pushing for conformity here, I suggest making all the appropriate changes.  In honesty, if you had added the categories to the genus redirect (as well as supplying a edit description), I might not have reverted you.  But thank you for your efforts in resolving this confusing situation. –  Maky  « talk » 20:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for understanding. I do intend to get to similar cases in the future. I'll take care of the potto and false potto cases since you've brought them to my attention. I would've added the categories to the redirect, but they're already expressed at Lemur (genus). That would be the redirect to tag, correct, given that Lemur itself isn't about a genus? --BDD (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not being clear—yes, I wanted it on the genus redirect, not on Lemur. Also, sorry for not noticing that it was already there. –  Maky  « talk » 23:32, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Queries
Hi, ... just a couple of queries while I'm here ... Not big issues, just sample queries. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 12:49, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) I'm unsure if "female dominant" should be hyphenated?  It is also female dominant, a trait common among lemurs.
 * 2) These numbers seem quite precise-- should they be expressed as averages. or are lemurs really that precise?   Established males transfer every 3.5 years,[32] although young males may transfer every 1.4 years.
 * 3) Uncited at "During the mating season, males wave their scented tails ... "
 * 4) cite, synth?  "therefore, interfering with this natural cycle could significantly impact the gene pool."


 * I don't think I've ever seen "female dominant" hyphenated in the literature. Otherwise everything else should be fixed. –  Maky  « talk » 00:49, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Maky ... all the best to you, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:52, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Ring-tailed lemur. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailyllama.com/news/2002/llama143.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/10/981012073550.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/a-lemurs-tale-introduction/2306/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.xavier.edu/occ/documents/Humanitas_32.1.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420175602/http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.pdf to http://www.duke.edu/web/mind/level2/faculty/liz/Publications/Merritt%2C%20MacLean%2C%20Jaffe%20and%20Brannon%20%282007%29.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) 16:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Ring-tailed lemur. 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/20110726221826/http://www.lemurreserve.org/ringtailedlemur.html to http://www.lemurreserve.org/ringtailedlemur.html
 * Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/5vKSlRiBi?url=http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html to https://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/inthewild/cleese.html

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) 11:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ring-tailed lemur. 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://www.webcitation.org/6Vml3xYbr?url=http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm to http://www.ovguide.com/tv/lemur_street.htm

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) 12:35, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Adithmetic?
Stop thus article needs some fat sources Lexein (talk) 18:06, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta).jpg scheduled for POTD
Hello! This is to let editors know that the featured picture File:Ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta).jpg, which is used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for June 26, 2021. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2021-06-26. 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! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)