Talk:Kipunji

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Primates (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Africa / Tanzania (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania.
 


Redirect[edit]

Another article. I redirected Kipunji to this article after coming across this sentence. "The other research group, led by Tim Davenport of the New-York-based Wildlife Conservation Society, had been searching the area for many months after hunters spoke of seeing a strange animal known locally as the Kipunji. They finally spotted the monkey last year." [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wk muriithi (talkcontribs) 23:59, 19 May 2005‎

Interwiki[edit]

Please don't remove again the Interwiki to de:Mangaben. That's the german article which deals with Lophocebus kipunji, in the section de:Mangaben#Arten. The different Wikipedias are not required to have the same level of granularity, and so it is not the case that the Interwiki-Links are an 1:1 relation. --Pjacobi 12:16, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

But that's not correct. It's ok that the different wikis have different granularity, but one expects that by using interwiki links you'll get roughly the same level of information and that a return trip is appropriate. The mangabey article interwikis to de:mangaben, which interwikis back to mangabey. Even interwiki linking to the arten section would be incorrect since it talks about several different species, not jsut this species. - UtherSRG 12:39, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
From: Wikipedia:Interlanguage links: Interlanguage links are links from an article in one Wikipedia language to the same subject. de:Mangaben links to the best fitting article on de.wikipedia on the subject of Lophocebus kipunji. --Pjacobi 14:30, 2005 May 20 (UTC)

capitalization[edit]

Please do not move this article to the uncapitalized name. All primate species articles are capitalized. See WP:PRIM, which follows the reasonaing of WP:BIRD. - UtherSRG 17:23, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

authority[edit]

If you look at the Science'' article of 20 May 2005, you will note that the proper designation for this new species, in complete accord with the Rules of the International Union for Zoological Nomenclature, is: Lophocebus kipunji Ehardt et al. 2005. This is differentfrom the authorship of the article (Jones et al. 2005) because the authorities for the name are not equivalent to the authorship of the article, either in order of authorship (which reflects expertise in the naming; hence Ehardt is the first listed authority), or in the number of authorities for the name (not all authors of the publication had the expertise to contribute to the taxonomic classification and naming of the new species). - some anon

So be bold and fix it. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The ITIS Report lists the authority as "Jones et al., 2005". Kaldari 19:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That's true. The article gives "Lophocebus kipunji Jones and some others, new species", even though Ehardt et al. are the authors of the article. Ucucha (talk) 12:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Genus[edit]

It has been assigned to a new genus - Rungwecebus kipunji - the first new primate genus for 83 years, according to [2] -- ALoan (Talk) 18:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Sweet! I'll edit the article and links to it shortly. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Note that it's only the first new primate genus for one year (Hoolock was the last). However, that was only a new name, the latest truly new genus was the 1996 Pseudopotto.

According to [3], it is now called kipunji, not highland mangabey, so the article title should change accordingly. zafiroblue05 | Talk 00:42, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake - I should have said monkey genus, not primate genus.[4] [5] Would the 83-year claim then be correct? Has a new monkey genus been discovered since Allenopithecus in 1923? -- ALoan (Talk) 18:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The genus Hoolock has been described in 2005, but the species was described in 1834. Callibella was described in 2003 and discovered in I think 1999, but its validity is doubtful, since it's sometimes considered part of Callicebus. By the way, Allenopithecus nigroviridis itself was described in 1907, though the genus is from 1923. Callimico was discovered in 1904 and described in 1912. Ucucha (talk) 18:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Kipunji. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:29, 11 December 2017 (UTC)