Talk:Strepsirrhini

Modern perspective

This article needs to be rewritten, IMHO, with Strepsirhini as the primary topic and prosimian a minor subtopic, and then renamed. - UtherSRG 05:19, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Scratch that. I think we should have two articles. Since my comment above has received no feedback, I'm going to ask on ToL for how best to do the split. - UtherSRG 15:13, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm wondering if prosimian should be moved to strepsirrhini, then both of them editted into correct form, or just edit them both for the split. It would be nice to keep the edit history on both, but that's not possible. (We should have a "split" page routine similar to "move" page.) - UtherSRG 15:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Clarify?

Coming here from Peer Review, as a stranger to the subject. This sentence was unclear to me: "However, the Aye-aye is considered an outgroup in this clade and is given its own infraorder (Chiromyiformes), although alternatively it is seen as a sister to all of the other strepsirrhines." Could it be made clearer -- is there a dispute about the Aye-aye's placement, and if so, is one view more dominant, or is the debate ongoing? — Catherine\^talk 03:17, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, some scientists consider it the outgroup - least related group - of the Lemuriformes, but still closer related than the Loriformes. Others consider it the outgroup of all the rest of the strepsirrhine infraorders (but still closer related than the Tarsiers and the rest of the haplorrhines). Neither is more dominant, and Groves in the upcoming Mammal Species of the World (2005) says of the Aye-aye:

Retained as an infraorder (i.e. of equal status to Lemuriformes and Loriformes) by Groves (1989:65, 74-78; 2001c), because it does not certainly form a clade with other Malagasy [Lemuriformes] taxa.

So even the experts don't know yet what to do and there's not clear majority opinion. The uncertainty is again shown in the later section, Strepsirrhini#Classification and evolution. I'll attempt to craft better language to show the uncertainty. - UtherSRG 12:35, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I've rewritten and rearranged some of the text to clarify the uncertainty of the Aye-aye's placement. Better? - UtherSRG July 1, 2005 16:18 (UTC)

Yes, much clearer now. Thank you! — Catherine\^talk 22:20, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Aye-aye and lemur articles say aye-ayes are lemurs

The aye-aye article currently opens by saying "The Aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis) is a lemur native to Madagascar..." and the lemur article contains the line "lemurs like the noturnal aye-aye are..." From this article, the primate article, and the discussion here, it seems that the situation is rather more complex. Hopefully someone knowledgable will make appropriate corrections. -81.79.241.179 22:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Strepsirrhini vs. Strepsirhini

In some recent edits, someone changed Strepsirrhini to Strepsirhini, insisting that there was only one "r". Having not been a user when the decision was originally made to use two r's, I looked around in all my books and discovered a mix of the two spellings. I then checked Groves, the authority on nomenclature, and two r's are used there. Therefore I reverted the edits. Strepsirhini (with one "r") already has a redirect page (in English). –Visionholder (talk) 16:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Name of the pictured Propithecus

I noticed that someone changed the caption from 'Propithecus verreauxi' to 'Propithecus coquereli'. The photo's File page has 'verreauxi', and a brief web search turned up numerous references to and pictures of 'Propithecus verreauxi coquereli'. Looks like our lemur (though I'm no lemur myself; they could be very very different). I'm going on a flyer and adding 'verreauxi' back in. Eleven even (talk) 06:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Then again, no I'm not. Coquerel's Sifaka has "a distinctive patch of white fur along the bridge of the nose", clearly visible in the photo. Verreaux's Sifaka doesn't. Eleven even (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Terpsimbrotos compound

Thank you very much for this enlightening bit of Homeric lore. I know that to know this information you must be able to read Homer in Greek. I've read big chunks of him myself, and would like to read it all before I die. That and NT in Grrek. I am now going to break your heart. Homeric Greek is an early form of Greek and things happen there that do not happen subsequently. Where terpsimbrotos might be an instance of a genuine verbal compound rather than a formation from the abstract noun terpsis, strepsirhine cannot possibly be. The classical Greeks used abstract nouns in their compounding. But, this is not even classical Greek, it is New Latin. In fact, as the box proclaims, the taxonomic innovator is "Geoffroy" and Google (lucky us) has made it possible to read the original publication, which is just a catalog of "Strepsirrhini." Greek rho used to get the double Latin r. By that Geoffroy meant "sinueuses", evidently following the "twisted" meaning of strepsis, a noun. This is a noun compound. Webby's 3rd New International makes it so. There was never any action of twisting that reulted in the shape of the nose, as though some god went and tweaked the little fellow by the nose, the same way that Zeus takes such delight in generating thunderstorms. I'm modifying the text. Again I apologize and I find your learning creditable though not here applicable. Bonjour.Dave (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Visionholder

Thanks for your recent cleanup of my edits. You did insert the word "therefore." That word usually indicates that a conclusion is to follow. There is no argument preceding; the statement is not a conclusion but an additional fact. So, I'm taking out the therefore. Ciao.Dave (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I don't know why you removed the comment about the Tarsiers, as the group is paraphyletic, but I'll take your word for it unless later I find a good reason for putting it back.Dave (talk) 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PS - I just understood your comment - sorry. It shall stand. I'll be doing an edit looking for obvious things - If I don't find any I won't change anything. Instead I'll be getting on to things that need more work. Adios amigo.Dave (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Reply now out-dated, but here it goes: Thanks for catching the grammatical error. I was in a hurry and didn't read as carefully as I should have. As for the comment about tarsiers, it implied that they are strepsirrhines... ones without a wet nose or rhinarium. Tarsiers are haplorrhine primates, and it is because of them that the strepsirrhine / haplorrhine division was drawn. (It used to be prosimian (Prosimii) / simian (Anthropoidea), with prosimians including all strepsirrhines and the tarsiers. Now tarsiers have shifted over to join the simians in Haplorrhini. Not everyone (including myself) agrees with this division, but that's how it currently stands. –Visionholder (talk) 18:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggested merge

Strong Oppose: I would like to know why this merge was suggested in the first place. (You should always put a note on the talk page.) Depending on the taxonomy you choose, Strepsirrhini consists of either Lorisiformes and Lemuriformes or just Lemuriformes. If you consider fossil primates, the merge makes even less since. Although all living strepsirrhines fall within the lemur/loris clade, most fossil strepsirrhines do not. There is no reason to merge this article with Lorisiformes from a hierarchical perspective. If the concern is that both articles are somewhat closely related and both are stubs, that will sort itself out in time. (Someday I plan to re-write one or both of these articles, and I'm sure other editors may eventually contribute.) – VisionHolder « talk » 11:45, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course the decision was the second one. I put it in an aproach to synthesize it, because there was almost no development in the Lorisifromes article since it was created in the 2005. For me, that little information can be easily merged with Strepsirrhini.--Diucón (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping to get the next WP:Mammals collaborative project to take on Slow Loris, and if that happens, I will try to add some highlights about Lorisiformes while we're at it. I'll also try—over the next few months—to create a very basic Strepsirrhine article. Sorry... I have so many things planned, but not enough time. If only I didn't work two jobs just to keep myself afloat while I wait for a real job to open up in my profession... – VisionHolder « talk » 14:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

All rigth, no problem. I hope you get time then, you have done a real nice work with the lemurs and allies. :-)--Diucón (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I plan to keep working on it until all the lemurs (and possibly others) are done. If that takes years, then so be it. Best, – VisionHolder « talk » 18:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)