# Talk:Philippine slow loris

I don't understand why the picture I posted was removed by Maky.  Here is confirmation that the picture I took was definitely a Bornean slow loris.  Please compare: http://news.mongabay.com/2011/0717-slowloris-pod.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.86.143.145 (talk) 14:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC) 

@Maky: et al, there's something that's been bugging me since the Bornean slow loris (Nycticebus menagensis) species complex was split into four species (N. menagensis, N. borneanus, N. bancanus and N. kayan) earlier this year, but I've kept quiet about it, because without a WP:RS to back up my concern, it falls into the realm of WP:OR. That concern, simply put, is "which of the four new species retained the common name 'Bornean slow loris'?"  The paper by Munds, Nekaris & Ford (2013) was silent on the topic, so WP continues to call N. menagensis the "Bornean slow loris", as it was before. Intuitively and logically, however, it only makes sense for that name to be assigned to N. borneanus. This dissonance is exacerbated by WP's convention of naming articles after a species' common name, rather than its scientific name.

I decided to pose the following question in an email to Anna Nekaris: "Hi Anna, I was wondering if you can clear up a question about N. menagensis and common names: Until last year, I understand that the 'collective group' was commonly called the 'Bornean slow loris'. Since identifying N. kayan and promoting N. borneanus and N. bancanus (congrats by the way), I've seen you use the name 'Philippine' slow loris a couple of times. Does 'Philippine' in this context refer to the 'new' N. menagensis? And, is it now more appropriate to limit the common name 'Bornean slow loris' as being specific to N. borneanus? Finally, have common names begun to emerge for the others, like 'Kayan' and 'Bangkan' (is that a word?) slow loris?"
To which she replied:"This was a problem in the original paper... we are working on a follow-up paper with many more localities that have emerged since the first paper was published, also Red Listing the species. Weirdly enough, the Philippine slow loris was always the name of N. menegensis, but only was never called that [on the IUCN Red List] since Philippines was the smallest part of their range. So when the chance arose, I re-grasped the name! Bornean slow loris was always the name Osman Hill gave to borneanus. So that needs to stand. Sadly we did not give [N.] kayan a name, but the media did... as for the loris from Banka, it still needs to emerge, and I would actually suggest Sody's slow loris [...] no one has seen that one alive for many many years, and [...] colleagues working on Banka and Belitung for oil palm conversion for the last pittance of trees there report not a single slow loris... so that could be the most Endangered of all our slow lorises... remains to be seen. (emphasis added)
I recognize that technically, my reporting of a personal communication isn't exactly a "reliable, secondary source", but we've clearly got it wrong.  We should be able to independently confirm the "Osman Hill" statement. The paper that she mentions is due for release from PLOS One shortly, but I think we have a bit of reorganization to do first...  Thoughts?   —Grollτech (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I found the passage in Osman Hill (1953), pg 162: (h) N. c. borneanus  Lyon, 1906.*   Bornean Slow Loris      Vernacular names: Dusun, tandaiandong; Sennah; sesir (Banks)      Type locality: Sakaiam River, Sanggan district, West Borneo.  Type specimen in United States National Museum.
 —Grollτech (talk) 01:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't say that we have it wrong.  Keep in mind that Osman Hill didn't even mention N. c. menagensis, and the only species he gave a type locality of Borneo for was N. c. borneanus.  Later, in 2001, Groves listed N. borneanus as a synonym for N. menagensis... so we can't assume everyone's talking about the two different species without reading in depth how they are making their distinctions.  Anyway, that's for the experts to do.
Clearly there are more sources that support this common name to scientific name pairing than those you mention.  And, no, there is no agreement from the field because most researchers don't use vernacular names... and many don't care what you call them as long as you agree on the scientific name.  Here, clearly the mixed localities and confusion over species has resulted in a hodgepodge of not only vernacular names, but also the scientific.  If anything, you're making a good case for renaming the articles to the scientific names, not switching the contents of the articles around.  I think quite clearly that the literature (particularly that by Nekaris) demonstrates that vernacular names are not used or agreed upon.  And yes, Nekaris and I discussed vernacular names and this whole mess on multiple occasions.  – Maky « talk » 04:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
@Maky: I would support using the scientific name as the article name in this case.  For cryptic taxa like the slow loris, we can expect further differentiation of its unsettled taxonomy.  I don't feel that we need to "switch content around" very much at all. But when a species complex is formally differentiated into multiple species, we, as encyclopedic editors, must determine how to "parcel out" the content of the original article into the several resulting articles.  Some of it will apply to all of them, and some will be specific to a single article, whether original or new. The "common vernacular name" that once applied to the entire complex cannot apply to the four resulting species going forward. But in the absence of new evidence, we have so far "chosen to do nothing", arbitrarily leaving the name with the original article.  I think it could be argued that that arbitrary choice could be considered original synthesis.
We can (and should) recognize, however, that not all sources carry equal weight; they need to be interpreted in light of their historical context, and also in light of new scientific developments. So when you say, "Clearly there are more sources that support this common name to scientific name pairing than those you mention", that's fair enough, but it's important to distinguish their relative significance. I submit to you that each source that supports such a pairing is based on taxonomy that is now obsolete.
One excellent historical point of reference is from 1912, in "A Review of Primates: Lemuroidea, Daubentonia to Indris; Anthropoidea, Seniocebus to Saimiri" (1912).  Most notably, that source enumerates both the scientific and vernacular names of the various species as they were known at that time, including:

Science now appears to be gradually returning from the detour initiated by Osman Hill in the 1950s Pocock in 1939.  As best as I can tell, menagensis was never associated to "Bornean slow loris" until 2001, and that was only a by-product of Groves' attempt to "untangle the spaghetti".  In fact, as recently as 1992, Timm & Birney wrote a paper entitled Systematic notes on the Philippine slow loris, Nycticebus coucang menagensis (Lydekker, 1893) (Primates: Lorisidae), in which they reviewed and confirmed that, "Following the revision by Groves (1971), which regards menagensis as a subspecies of N. coucang, the correct scientific name of the Philippine slow loris is Nycticebus coucang menagensis (Lydekker, 1893)."
I would thus argue that it is indeed wrong for an encyclopedia to uniquely and exclusively assign "Bornean slow loris" to N. menagensis, to the detriment of N. borneanus – and it seems that a leading authority on the subject agrees.  As an aside, also check out this soon-to-be-released slow loris identification guide (in Japanese), posted by Nekaris' "Little Fireface Project" a little over a week ago.  While hardly a reliable source, it does give us valuable insight into some emerging common names (plus a hint or two of other things to come – I can't wait to see the English version).
I think we can both agree that this particular article is all about N. menagensis (Lydekker, 1893), the very pale, lightly-colored slow loris with the low-contrast face mask.  I think we also both agree that the vernacular name is not at all the focus of this article.  So yes, by all means, let's rename this article as "Nycticebus menagensis".  It would then be appropriate to say that N. menagensis is also known as the "Philippine slow loris" or "Bornean slow loris" (a vernacular name that applied, albeit briefly, to the entire species complex that is indiginous to Borneo).
I would further argue that "Bornean slow loris" should redirect to Nycticebus borneanus, with a hatnote on that page saying something to the effect of, "'Bornean slow loris' redirects here. That name may also refer to Nycticebus menagensis."  Thoughts?    —Grollτech (talk) 01:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Grolltech: Resuming this old discussion, I'd be in favor of using the scientific names for all the loris articles.  However, I feel that the common names might best point to a disambiguation page listing each scientific name it had been associated with.  It's either that or we use disambiguation links at the top of the articles, as you mentioned.  However, with these renames, every slow loris article (including Slow loris and Conservation of slow lorises will need to be reviewed and have all common names replaced with scientific names—a task I do not have time for.  If you're up for this, you have my blessing.  (P.S. – You might also run it by Ucucha, too.)  – Maky « talk » 19:50, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I broadly agree with both of you: it makes general sense to call N. menagensis the Philippine slow loris and N. borneanus the Bornean slow loris, but making that decision here is basically original research, so for now it's best to use the scientific names. Ucucha (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Also, interesting that Nekaris's message implies that N. bancanus is only on Banka, as the 2013 paper says it is also in southwestern mainland Borneo. Ucucha (talk) 00:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Excellent, it sounds like we have consensus to name the article using the scientific name.  Time is tight for me as well, which is why I didn't propose renaming all of the pages, including the Sunda, Pygmy, etc., as they aren't as unsettled.  The key point of confusion here arises between menagensis and borneanus; bancanus and kayan are also implicated, but to a much lesser degree.  Of those four articles, three of them are already named after the scientific name.  I see little value in expanding the scope of this effort beyond the confines of this conflict. 
I know that this decision approaches the boundaries of original research, as I initially indicated, but given the two secondary sources (Elliot 1912, Timm & Birney 1992), backed up by the "primary source" communication above, I'm beginning to believe that our arbitrary linkage of N. menagensis to "Bornean slow loris" to the exclusion of N. borneanus – which was verifiably accurate for 12 years in the recent past, but is no longer so – is now far closer to original research. 
I'll start with renaming this page Nycticebus menagensis (after first evaluating all of the many references and redirects).  I think Maky's suggestion of a disambiguation page also makes sense.  Next, what do you think of hatnotes like the ones below, per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT and WP:2DABS ("If a disambiguation page is needed, but one of the other topics is of particular interest, then it may be appropriate to link to it explicitly as well as linking to the disambiguation page."):
Proposed hatnote for the N. menagensis, N. bancanus and N. kayan pages:

 
Proposed hatnote for the N. borneanus page:

 
Turning now to a matter that is definitely original research: Ucucha, I think Dr. Nekaris was hinting that N. bancanus, or at least the Banka population, may possibly be extinct. That's why I'm looking forward to the English version of the Japanese identification guide, because bancanus appears not at the bottom, but in what seems like a sidenote at the top of the page. It also seems to indicate that we'll soon be hearing about the restoration of N. hilleri to species status.  —Grollτech (talk) 13:18, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fine with those hatnotes.  Thanks!  – Maky « talk » 19:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
@Maky: and @Ucucha: (and anyone else): I still haven't gotten to renaming the pages as I had promised, but as I was preparing to do so, I noticed that ITIS has since weighed in on this topic with names, as listed below (emphasis added):
Nycticebus bancanus Lyon, 1906 – Bangka Slow Loris
Nycticebus bengalensis (Lacépède, 1800) – Bengal Slow Loris
Nycticebus borneanus Lyon, 1906 – Bornean Slow Loris
Nycticebus coucang (Boddaert, 1785) – Sunda Slow Loris, Slow Loris
Nycticebus javanicus É. Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, 1812 – Javan Slow Loris
Nycticebus kayan Munds, Nekaris and Ford, 2013 – Kayan River Slow Loris
Nycticebus menagensis Lydekker, 1893 – Philippine Slow Loris
Nycticebus pygmaeus Bonhote, 1907 – Pygmy Slow Loris
In that light, I though I'd circle the wagons one more time, to inquire whether we still have consensus to rename those pages with the scientific names, or whether we should use the "common" names presented by ITIS?  —grolltech(talk) 14:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing to look into this! In general, I'm hesitant to use "common names" that sound like they were just made in order to add English words to every entry in a list of names, as opposed to names that are actually used by people studying and talking about the animals. I think these ITIS names probably fall into the former category for now. They're also pretty reasonable names though, so it seems likely that they'll be used more often. Ucucha (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)