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)

Scope, terminology, and taxonomy issues

I have posted a suggestion for handling strepsirrhine taxonomy on the WikiProject Primate talk page: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates#Opinions needed: Infraorders within Strepsirrhini. If anyone is monitoring this page, I would appreciate some feedback. The issues raised there have a significant impact on the scope and terminology used in this article, as well as other key strepsirrhine articles. At the end of the week, I plan to start on the re-write of this article, and I hope to have these issues settled by then. – Maky ^« talk » 16:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• You imply that Altiatlasius is from the Early Eocene; it's Paleocene.

Good catch. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• " Although no fossils of extant primates groups—lemuriforms, tarsiers, or simians—are known from this time": what does "this time" mean? There are certainly Eocene tarsiers and strepsirrhines, and it looks like the azibiids may even date back to the Early Eocene.

I was following my sources and not thinking. I'm also trying to stick to secondary sources with this article... but it's proving to be more hassle than it's worth given all the dated statements, confused terminology, and muddled taxonomy. Anyway, I'm changing "no fossils" to "few fossils" and specifying the Early to Middle Eocene. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Much of what you say about sivaladapids is no longer true. As far as I know, they are the only (not "one of the only") adapiforms to survive past the Eocene. About half of the known genera, not "only a few", date to the Eocene, and with the discovery of Guangxilemur in the Oligocene of Pakistan there is no longer a 20 Ma gap in their fossil record.

The sivaladapid material is very tricky. Not only are there newer finds, as you say, but some sivaladapids are now being reclassified as relatives of eosimiiforms. I'm having a hard time keeping it straight and finding up-to-date secondary sources. (I think I read that they found an Oligocene omomyiform in Europe, but I haven't seen anything about Adapiforms in Europe or North America from that time.) For now, I'll change the statement "one of the only" to "one of the few" and delete the part about the "20 Ma gap". Can you name any other specific statements that are inaccurate as well as some recent examples that I can look up? – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• If tarsiers and galagos were classified together until 1898, why did Flower separate them in 1883? I'm not actually familiar with the history of this suggested relationship.

I'm using two different sources that tell very different taxonomic histories. Schwartz didn't say much about Flower's motivations. I think it all revolves around the issues already discussed in the article: many anatomical similarities, depending on what you choose to look at. The point is that people were pairing the tarsiers with various "prosimian" groups during this time. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The paragraph about the numbers of r's in the name is perhaps better placed under "Etymology".

You know, I had started to make that edit probably three times in the last two days, but always thought twice about it and hit "Cancel". This is enough of a reason for me to now hit "Save page". – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "1970s, 1980s, and early 2000s"—not the 1990s?

One source from 2003 mentions the debate at its peak during the 1970s and 1980s, and another source from 2002 mentions it as a recently revived dispute. No sources from the last 4 years mention it as an ongoing debate. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "Tarsiers are either placed in the suborder Haplorhini with the simians or in the suborder Prosimii with the strepsirrhines." Or distinct from both in Simiolemuriformes, as I think Gingerich has suggested.

You know, I had never heard of that. The name alone makes me want to cry in the shower. <shiver> Anyway, I tweaked the sentence in question to mention that these are the most common alternatives, and then mentioned Simiolemuriformes further down where the suggested relationship between adapiforms and simians is discussed. Thanks for enlightening me! – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• The footnote about the toothcomb has a stray quotation mark; was the entire sentence meant to be a quote?

Not a quote—good catch. Fixed. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "except where it has been lost in at least one species." I assume that refers to the aye-aye, but I'd say it has modified not lost its toothcomb.

Good point. And I changed it to read "family", not "species" since Daubentonia had two species. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "a third taxonomic arrangement with three suborders is sometimes used: Prosimii, Tarsiiformes, and Anthropoidea": so Prosimii is used to exclude tarsiers?

I guess... That's what the source said. It doesn't make sense to me because the same people go on to use the term "prosimian" to refer to tarsiers as well. I think these individuals were so passionate about keeping tarsiers out of Haplorhini and also about continuing the use of the term prosimian that when they were backed into a corner, they proposed the trichotomy preserve all that they knew and loved. But good luck finding a source that says that. Personally, I like the trichotomy for taxonomy as well... though I favor using Strepsirrhini, Tarsiiformes (or some variant), and Simiiformes/Anthropoidea, while acknowledging that tarsiers are more closely related to simians, even if only slightly. But Strepsirrhini/Haplorhini works for me, too. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "this view is dated since plesiadapiforms are generally excluded from the order": are they? Many paleontologists still place them within Primates.

I was going by the source. This one is very tricky. From the literature, it looks like Plesiadapiformes is polyphyletic (some related to primates, others related to colugos), but no one has officially broken the group up. That makes it very difficult to even choose a taxonomy for use on Wiki—there are no formal choices, just a bunch of opinions. But this statement does conflict with other elements of the article. I've removed it and tweaked the sentence. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• Is there a reason you cite our paper as 2011/2012? It was definitely published in 2012.

The front cover of the issue explicitly reads: "Volume 16, 2011/12". I wish they had not done that... I'd like to see how other people are citing articles from that issue. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

• "As a result, one of these groups to be identified as cercamoniines, which were allied with the notharctids": this sentence is ungrammatical, and I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say.

I saw that when you were doing your review, but didn't want to cause an edit conflict. It should be fixed now. – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Ucucha (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the review! I'm glad you didn't uncover any larger issues. If you think of anything else, let me know. Otherwise I will return to my work on the last two sections "Anatomy" and "Behavior". – Maky ^« talk » 22:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Nose illustration?

Great article! I'm not familiar with these animals, and I'm having a hard time imagining "comma-shaped nostrils". Is there a clear closeup of a strepsirrhine nose which could be used to illustrate the "Etymology'" section? 65.112.10.251 (talk) 21:57, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

There are illustrations of the nose further down in the article. – Maky ^« talk » 07:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

meaning not clear

in section "Unclear origins", fourth paragraph, the sentence

The early primates include both nocturnal and diurnal small-bodied species

is not clear to me; does the adjective "small-bodied" refer only to "diurnal" or to both "nocturnal" and "diurnal"?

another unclear one: 2.2, paragraph 4

"Although plesiadapiforms were closely related to primates, they may represent a paraphyletic group from which primates may or may not have directly evolved,[26] and some genera may have been more closely related to colugos,[c] which are thought to be more closely related to primates."27]

Calypso