Talk:List of lemuroids

This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Primates High‑importance High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Madagascar Mid‑importance 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Madagascar (assessed as High-importance). Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It seems there is a new specie of

The official description has not been published yet. According to Conservation International (pers. comm.), a film crew accompanies the research team for part of the research, and then leaked the discovery. Until the description is formally covered, nothing can be listed on this page. And even then, support is needed from the rest of the research community. Don't worry... I'm waiting for the publication and will handle it once it hits the press. – 

 talk » 15:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, I agree with you that is necessary a description and formal publication to include the species in the article. I only was asking because in the article there is a (commented, not visible) section called "Unconfirmed species" that I believed that I was for these cases, before his official assertion. Sorry. Greetings, --Furado (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That section is for species that, while formally described, have not been included in review listings (like the book Lemurs of Madagascar). Ucucha 17:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I will revive that section once the formal description of this fork-marked lemur species is published. – 

 talk » 22:30, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

But seriously, man. 250 refs! Stunning work! Thumbs up. TCO (talk) 02:54, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I missed this comment. Thank you! I took up this project to answer the most confusing question in lemur studies: How many species of lemur are there? Given that all the sources varied widely, I felt that a list article would be the best way to address the problem.

Actually, the

tiglons and ligers, both of which can reproduce. Anyway, I don't foresee there being any agreement over the species problem anytime in the near future. That's why the number of lemur species cannot be fixed, and varies based on which lemur expert you talk to. Yes, there are political motivators, but that politics is about conversation... and lemurs are in a hell of a lot of trouble right now. But keep in mind that these researchers are not by-passing science to push for new species to protect forests. Instead, they are choosing a perfectly acceptable definition of "species" (based on genetics) with the intent of emphasizing the important diversity of life in Madagascar. I suggest watching the Madagascar

documentary by the BBC for a better appreciation of the issue.

Keep in mind that in some cases, these lemur species have diverged genetically about 6 to 9 million years ago—greater than the distance between humans and the rest of the great apes. However, you can also argue that morphologically, they are nearly identical and capable of interbreeding. So which view is right? The answer is probably both of them. Personally, I suspect someday the term "species" will have to become a defunct term, replaced by grades in genetic and morphological divergence. – 

 talk » 17:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply

]

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090205163701/http://primate-sg.org/PDF/PC23.new.microcebus.V3.pdf to http://www.primate-sg.org/PDF/PC23.new.microcebus.V3.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 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) 15:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per this error report there seems to be up to four different figures for the number of species/subspecies, and per the recent IUCN memo (linked in that error report) the conservation status of many species appears to have changed too. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 09:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2010, there were 101 species plus subspecies recognized. In 2014, there were 113 species plus subspecies recognized and 105 species recognized. As of July 2020, there are 107 species recognized. None of this should appear to be contradictory, unless you are not aware that the number of species and subspecies recognized changes over time. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but as a non-expert reader it did appear contradictory because the list appeared to refer to the same thing with different values. And the conservation status per the July 2020 update didn't appear to be reflected either. It's not personal, it's just good to make sure we're not confusing our readers with potential conflicting and certainly outdated material on the main page. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 19:28, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm still active if and when this heads back to the main page, and receive advance notice, I can try to bring the numbers and discussion up to date beforehand. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, it's usually only the nominator of the FLC who gets notification. Also, most lists and articles heading to the main page are listed days (sometimes more) in advance. We can't cover every base. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 20:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I'll put Maky's talk page on my watch list. WolfmanSF (talk) 04:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw all of this, so sorry for the delayed response. I have not been an active editor for years, and since I stepped away, it looks like people have being doing the usual "casual Wiki edits" by simply updating numbers and moving on without sources. Honestly, there is little chance that you'll find a reliable secondary source that will confirm the latest numbers. In the past, I used to go with primary sources because that's how the lemur research community informally worked. As far as I know, the IUCN hasn't put out an updated version of Lemurs of Madagascar, what I call the "lemur bible," in years. Depending on what sources you're happy with, this will not be an easy one to solve. There is always a strong push to identify new species to merit new conservation measures, so the numbers change all the time. I might also find myself up against editors paid by the Lemur Conservation Foundation to maintain this and other lemur articles related to their organization and work. Anyway, just @ me and I can try to help figure this out. But if new sources are needed, I will probably need help procuring them. – Maky ^« talk » 10:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The Rambling Man and WolfmanSF: In case you missed my reply above. – Maky ^« talk » 08:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Maky: I saw it, thanks. The very sad backstory here is the increasing proportion of EN and CR categorizations over time. I hate to think about extrapolating that forward very far. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The truth is that lemurs are screwed. Most of them will go extinct, thanks in large part to what conservation really stands for. Conservation is about using most of the resources and setting some aside. But when our entire civilization is fundamentally built on the concept of continual growth, in a world where resources are finite, conservation will always fail. Madagascar is just a microcosm of what's happening on the entire globe. When Madagascar fails, the rest of civilization will be close behind. Nothing in civilization is sustainable, despite all of greenwash BS advertised on TV by corporations and conservation groups. Civilized humans don't even know what sustainability is. Civilized humanity is stuck in its own ecological trap and isn't intelligent enough to see it or act on the fact. Interestingly, because civilization is fundamentally unsustainable, this is the Great Filter discussed in astrobiology. No single intelligent, civilized species will ever overcome this, no matter how inventive they are.

Anyway, let me know how you want to proceed with this list. – Maky ^« talk » 01:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Growth might not continue indefinitely, if demographers are correct. Of course, that by itself won't necessarily help the lemurs. At any rate, I have already updated the status of recently re-evaluated species, and will work on updating the discussion of conservation status at some point. I think the IUCN website is an adequate source if suiitable secondary sources are lacking. A new MSW edition is overdue. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have more thoughts on the growth issue, but this isn't the place for that. Email me through Wiki if it interests you. Otherwise, just ping me if you need my help here. – Maky ^« talk » 16:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]