From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Primates (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.


I think the genus article Vervet monkey and species article Vervet Monkey need less similar names. Joestynes 08:20, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I debated when creating the articles, but figured I'd wait and see if there were any complaints. So now I've moved the genus article to the scientific name. I'll make a note on the species page that the term can also refer to mambers of the entire genus. - UtherSRG 10:05, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
I think, the Vervet monkey should now redirect to Vervet Monkey instead of here. It is too confusing.пан Бостон-Київський 15:14, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
I actually edited the Vervet Monkey page with a reference to a scientific paper I read about. Then I searched Wikipedia for "Vervet monkey" to show someone what I did and got directed to this Chlorocebus page. I was confused as heck. --Noumenon

alarm call[edit]

One thing is for sure: thisarticle definitely needs a section on the legendary vervet monkey alarm calls. I say legendary, because just about everyone writing on the evolution of language is bound to mention these calls. Ariosto 05:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

So why aren't you writing about it? - UtherSRG (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
To be sure, I do mention them in my papers. But as a non-expert, I wouldn't dare to write anything authoritative (and I take Wiki to be an authoritative source) on them. Regards, Ariosto 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Be bold and add something here. If you have a citation for it, which you must if you've put it into a paper, then you should most certainly feel free to put that information here. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone has made a brief nod to the call in the Vervet Monkey article. ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ 19:50, 29 August 2006 (UTC)


Shouldn't this page be combined with the vervet page? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arges86 (talkcontribs).

No. One is a genus article, the other is a species article. I'll leave it to the reader to learn which is which. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)


What, no mention of HIV here?


Shouldn't this page redirect to either Vervet monkey or Green monkey? Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Use of Dubious sources[edit]

In the section regarding its use as a vaccine, the source is a canned spiel which has been copied verbatim to hundreds of websites and even had a YouTube video made of it. This would not be so bad if it weren't for the fact that underneath all the FUD, a patent is not evidence of use. Now, none of what i just said is reason for challenging this source, as it seems possible that monkeys could be used as hosts for vaccines, but i dispute the use of such a terrible source when many better sources could have been used. why don't I do it? because frankly, i can't find a reliable source to back up that claim, but i leave it to someone else who can provide a peer-reviewed and verifiable source that evidences use and not just a proposed use, especially since the article claims that this procedure is done this way. As for the "weasel-words" tag, the use of potentially polarizing statements like killing animals must be done with the greatest of care to insure that the reader does not interpret the statement beyond the reality. in other words, simply saying "This is done by infecting living monkeys, letting the infection 'incubate,' killing the monkey, then harvesting the tissue" without explaining that such a method (if it actually exists, see my previous source challenge) if it exists would likely only use them as an initial host to incubate viral antibodies after which the culture medium would likely NOT be monkeys, but instead would be eggs or bacteria (as has been the method for all other current vaccines simply because these methods are less expensive and much more amenable to mass production). the point is that if someone has evidence of this killing of chlorocebus from a reliable source, please also provide full accounting of the monkeys killed and whether they are used to prepare the mass of vaccines or whether a different culture host is used. Barring evidence of this, i think this link and the questionable wording should be removed as it is too easy to misread Skaaii (talk) 21:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've cut the POV material. Not only was it POV, but it was incorrect, flagrantly misquoting the patent. The procedure covered by the patent (dating from the 1990s, so irrelevant to the production of today's H1N1/09 vaccines, which are cultured in eggs) is specifically stated to be (my emphasis):
(i) producing said virus using a cell line isolated from the kidney of an African Green Monkey, which cell line is substantially free of viable adventitious microbial agents and is able to support the growth of rotaviruses, astroviruses, enteroviruses, polioviruses, respiratory viruses, and hepatitis A viruses, by a method comprising:
(a) inoculating said cell line with an inoculum of said virus;
(b) incubating said inoculated cell line to permit proliferation of said virus; and
(c) harvesting the virus resulting from step (c); and
(ii) preparing a vaccine from the harvested virus.
Clearly, it's the cell culture, not the animal from which it's derived, that is infected with the virus. No infecting the monkey or killing the monkey (you can get kidney samples easily enough with surgery, and these animals are expensive, never mind the ethical problems). So out it goes. Kay Dekker (talk) 00:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Genus & species names[edit]

A lot of the previous comments seem to arise because the terms vervet and green monkey are being used both for the genus and two of the species. I've edited so that the genus is consistently referred to as Chlorocebus, while the vervet and green terms are used only (a) for the species (b) when quoting sources or their titles that use them in this way. However, the section on Use in scientific research and vaccine production still needs attention. One of its references doesn't saying anything relevant to the claim; the other you have to pay to view. --Stfg (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)