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:
   1. Lesser bushbaby (Galago)
   2. Aye-aye (Daubentonia madagascariensis)
2. Animal Diversity Web on information pages for:
   1. toothcomb and toilet claw
   2. Tarsius tarsier
   3. Family Lorisidae
   4. Family Lemuridae
   5. Family Galagidae
   6. Euoticus elegantulus
   7. Family Cheirogaleidae
3. "Animal", DK Publishing, Smithsonian Institution, ISBN: 978-0756616342
4. "The Encyclopedia of Animals: A Complete Visual Guide" ISBN: 978-0520244061
5. 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)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Ring-tailed Lemur/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

• Some problems below.

1. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

• Yes

1. It is broad in its coverage.

• Yes

1. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

• Yes

1. It is stable.

• Yes

1. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

• Some problems below.

1. Overall:

• Hold

The article is very nearly GA. I made some edits myself. Just a few items remain to be fixed:

• All images used are on Commons but the selection in this article is wanting. Can anyone find a usable photo showing this species' eyeshine?
  • Use images without "credit" annotations.
  • Use an image in the infobox that show this species' distinctive feature, its ringed tail.
    • An image cropped from Image:Lemur walking.jpg would be good. --Una Smith (talk) 14:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

• In the lead final paragraph, mention the zoos and other facilities (including Duke Lemur Center and Berenty Reserve) most involved in conserving this species.

• The taxonomy section is confusing, in that it mentions lemurs are included with tarsiers among prosimians but does not mention that tarsiers are excluded from Strepsirrhini. Furthermore, the above are tangents. Delete these and other tangents. Just say this species is in the genus Lemur, and explain the major circumscriptions of Lemur. Avoid the temptation to treat a new taxonomy as a "true at last" taxonomy.

• twenty-five to twenty-seven black and white transverse stripes and always begins with a white stripe and ends with a black one are contradictory. The second quote requires that there be an even number of rings, half white, half black. Correct this paragraph.

Once these are done, please ping my talk page. --Una Smith (talk) 13:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The requested changes have been made to the best of my ability. The changes are as follows:

1. Image credit annotations removed by uploading new versions of the files.
2. Taxobox image was replaced per your suggestion.
3. Lead final paragraph mentions facilities involved in its conservation.
4. Taxonomy section completely re-written both per your suggestion, plus to conform with WikiProject Primates Article format
5. New subsection on tail included, along with a clarrification about the stripes.

I do not know of any images showing the reflective nature of their tapetum lucidum, and I don't feel it should be a requirement since all lemurs have it. (Consequently, we'd need a photo showing it for every lemur species.) However, I will try to find a photo showing a lemur's reflective eyes for the Lemur or Strepsirrhini page.

I have also added a photo of a Ring-tailed Lemur handstand for scent-marking. Hopefully, that will enrich the visual content of the page sufficiently.

- Visionholder (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Is good. PASS Congratulations. --Una Smith (talk) 02:03, 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 Wikipedia: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:<quote>As for the Ring-tailed Lemur, it is currently thought that it may share closer affinities to the bamboo lemurs of the genus Hapalemur.</quote> 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)

Y Done 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)