Talk:Animal testing on non-human primates

message: Why does this topic need a separate article from what is contained in the Animal Testing article?--Hatch68 04:59, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to be a viable subarticle to the animal testing article, though it would benefit from a summary paragraph there. GeeJo (t)⁄(c) • 10:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Animal testing page is getting very long. Once this page is viable, I'm going to go back and summarize it on Animal testing instead of what's there at the moment. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: November 2006

message: This article has just been started, and still needs to be balanced with some sections on the opposite POV e.g. history of using primates, key research projects and the results, why some scientists say primates are still needed in animal testing.  SlimVirgin (talk) 09:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely.  There needs to be coverage of leading primate research facilities and experimental programmes outside (presumably in front of) the poorly-named "Allegations" section.  I can do some behavioural labs next time I get a chunk of time, but I don't know anything about drugs or medical research.--Jaibe 09:58, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  We may also want to add a section "impact of the animal rights movement".  Primate labs have gotten a lot more humane due to animal rights, but I also know of cases where legitimate university labs were shut down, leading all the neuroscientists to leave a university in protest, and for the animals to be sent to medical labs.--Jaibe 10:00, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  "I also know of cases where legitimate university labs were shut down, leading all the neuroscientists to leave a university in protest..." Really? This sounds more like urban myth than reality. Rbogle 17:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: It really doesn't matter. Any editing for POV is immediately reverted by a Wikipedia editor with an animal rights bias. Just look through the history of changes in the last month. I won't say it is a lost cause, but when an editor is bound and determined to exert their biased POV on an article, there is not a lot you can do. I run a primate testing laboratory in the USA. I cannot find a single referenced example of a primate from a zoo, circus, or animal trainer being transferred into a testing lab in the last 9 years, yet the introduction claims it as truth. I read that in the intro and thought it must be a myth. The reference in the intro says it with regard to chimps (from an animal activist web site), but does not offer ANY specifics. Further, when I add a reference on the number of purpose bred animals increasing in proportion (which DEFINITELY fits the reality that someone in my position sees in addition to being referencable), it is similarly reverted because the trend may not fit in the UK, which does a tiny fraction of the primate testing in the USA. After a point, it becomes hard to AGF. --Animalresearcher 01:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the article

message: One section seems NOTABLY lacking, and that's the current state of the search for alternatives to primate-based models.
Antagonists will say that there's no search because alternatives are not possible; proponents will say abolition now.  However, we do talk about the 3 Rs in Europe and elsewhere, and there ought (I say) to be some empirically verifiable history of (a) the search FOR nonhuman research alternatives to the use of NHPs AND (b) a chart of which NHP uses do not currently HAVE feasible alternatives (so that those HUMANE researchers CAN at least chart out the status of the morally obligatory project of replacements development.
Many charts and lists of 'alternatives' focus on models for toxicology testing, which is besides the point, I believe.
  MaynardClark (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: State of the search for alternatives to primate-based models

message: I reverted Animalresearcher's recent edit because the source does indeed say that NHPs in labs are taken from zoos, circuses, and animal trainers, as well as being wild-caught and purpose bred. It's also misleading to say, as AR wrote, that "purpose-bred primates are increasing in prevalence relative to wild-caught," because it gives the impression that there are more purpose bred than wild caught, or that the former is catching up with the latter, and that's not true, so far as I know. One of the sources AR himself supplied says:
:"There does not appear to have been any noticeable decrease in the number of primates imported into the EU for research and testing. Most users of old-world primates (about 90% of which need to be imported) report an increase in animal use. In the UK (Europe's main primate user), a survey of user establishments3 found that the number of old-world primates used, and thus imported, has increased by about 50% during 1994-5, at the height of the airline campaign.
:"There does not appear to be a significant problem with the supply of the marmoset, the main type of new world monkey used in research and testing in the EU. Most sources confirm that we already breed enough to meet the EU requirement although it may be important to take steps to co-ordinate supply and demand. However, the majority of the primates used in the EU are old-world animals and we currently only breed about 10% of the numbers used." "The supply and use of primates in the EU",  European Biomedical Research Association.
SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 19:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I provided sources that said the former (purpose-bred) were increasing in number relative to wild-caught, and in addition to being sourced, this point fits well with first-hand impressions. There have been changes in the USA that make it very hard to import primates, and the breeding colony sizes have increased dramatically in the past few years to compensate (part of the NCRR plans). But furthermore, the citation that animals are taken from "zoos" or "animal trainers" is from an agenda-driven site Project R&R. That might be OK, if they provided evidence that animals were actually ever taken from zoos or trainers. It is just stated without source. I searched in vain to find other sources to validate this statement, but I could not.  Given the agenda driven nature of the information, and the lack of validation from any other sources, I do not consider it a reliable indicator of current primate procurement. Also, this obviously POV statement occurs in the introduction which is supposed to reflect the content of the article. If you were to find and source reliable information on the current transfer of transfer of primates from zoos and animal trainers to animal testing I would find those statements in the introduction appropriate. As it sits now they do not either reflect the article, or valid sourced information on the current state of primate testing, and that should be fixed. If they are not fixed I will remove them, again, in the near future, feel free to discuss here also. --Animalresearcher 12:04, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Further research http://www.primate.wisc.edu/wprc/history.html shows that there was a collaborative zoo/research center agreement with some drama between Wisconsin Primate Center and The Vilas Zoo. However, that ended 9 years ago and there are no longer Primate Center primates at the zoo. Other than that, I could not find any source on primates in testing laboratories coming from animal trainers or zoos... Still looking... --Animalresearcher 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

text:  As a second point, this reference was omitted http://www.researchtraining.org/moduletext.asp?intModuleID=816#lesson10587 which explains the reasons why wild-caught primates are decreasing in prevalence relative to purpose-bred in the USA (whose primate testing dwarfs that of the EU and UK). Importation has become more difficult/costly, and more laboratories are interested in specific pathogen free animals (SPF), which almost only come from purpose-bred facilities. It may also be of interest that recently established primate breeders in multiple places in the USA are now providing 5000+ primates per year for testing - very nearly all purpose bred. These breeders did not exist ten years ago. Alphagenesis, Primate Products, and a third in California, are all very large now. I think all of this will change in another 10 years, because China is setting up very massive primate testing facilities. But for now, there are good sources to support that purpose-bred animals are increasing in numbers relative to wild-caught. I would like even more to find a reference on the absolute numbers, but the USA regulations do not tabulate animal source. --Animalresearcher 15:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: My revert

message: A further explanation of a revert that will certainly be reverted, again, by Slimvirgin. The use of chimpanzees in US laboratory research uses roughly 1700 animals. The National Research Council finds a need for only 600 of them (according to IDA). http://www.idausa.org/facts/chimpresearch.html  There has been a surplus of chimps for over 15 years because they are not euthanized if not needed, and because they were thought to be a promising model for AIDS (but Rhesus are now used instead). The point, is that US researchers have acquired no new chimps have been acquired from the wild or zoos or circuses or animal trainers in well over a decade. And, for 11 years, they have not bred chimps in captivity for the simple reason that there are more chimps than the US researchers know what to do with in captivity already. There are citable examples of US primate centers providing "foster" sanctuary for chimps en route from personal owners to wildlife sanctuaries as well. So when the New England anti-vivisection society says that chimps are taken from the wild, zoos, circuses, or animal trainers, the reliability of the information is extremely dubious, extremely dated AT BEST. And the NEAVS provides no citation for its information, it just simply states it. REPEATING SOMEONE ELSE'S UNSUBSTANTIATED SLANDER is not a good policy for an encyclopedia, and it is the reason for my revert. --Animalresearcher (talk) 17:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this. NHPs (from the US, at least), cannot be taken from the wild, from zoos, circuses, etc. The source provided for this statement is wrong and not a credible source. The EU and other countries do allow for wild-caught NHPs, but not in the US. We should make this distinction. I have corrected the statement, and removed the releasechimps.org link, which is clearly a biased site. Propoganda should not be pushed on the wiki. We need to publish the truth. Chaldor (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No chimps from zoos, circuses, or animal trainers

message: If you look at the sections by country, the first is all about chimps in the USA (and not other NHPs). The second contains extensive citations from an HSUS analysis which is USA specific on chimp and monkey use. It needs to be broken out if UK is to have its own section (which is fine by me). But currently the section, as you ported it here from the Animal Testing page, refers to monkey use in the UK and USA, so I changed the section title to reflect that. Simply reverting the change so that the section is still mislabelled is silly.
Also, I suspect the SIV use of macaques is somewhat misleading, because behavioral pharmacological experiments use about 40 times more primates than other granted experiments, which creates a bias in the HSUS study. So, I changed the citation to reflect their analysis - they looked at grant narratives in CRISP, and papers published on PubMed (for chimps). For Rhesus they looked only at grant narratives on CRISP (which is also troublesome because there is no requirement to mention an animal species in the CRISP narrative, so many researchers avoid mentioning if they use NHPs, the actual number of grants is definitely higher).--Animalresearcher (talk) 09:02, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Would you please add material, but stop removing it? Length is not an issue. If you dispute what the sources say, please outline it point by point instead of posting long explanations, because it makes the material much harder to get through. SlimVirgin (talk)(contribs) 09:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I restored the LEAD section, once again, to better summarize the content of the page, and moved the Weatherall/BUAV issue down the page.  --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

text:  Also, the point about the Conlee study is that she summarized US use by two means. First, she scanned grant narratives in the NIH CRISP archive. These grant narratives generally do not contain the number of animals per grant. For example, suppose I have a grant to perform electrophysiological studies in awake monkeys. I may use 2 animals per year. My colleague may perform behavioral pharmacology, and use 100 monkeys per year. We each have one grant in the CRISP archive. So, Conlee would summarize that there is one grant for cognitive/physiological studies, and one grant for behavioral pharmacology studies. However, there are 50 times as many animals used in behavioral pharmacology. The point is that the attribution to the Conlee study needs to reflect that she surveyed numbers of grants for types of use and species, and not numbers of animals. These can be wildly different as toxicology type studies typically use dozens of animals per year, while physiological studies use less than 5 per grant. --Animalresearcher 
(talk) 19:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  As a followup to that, I added another reference which notes that toxicology testing in the USA is largely private and contracted. Therefore the analysis of use in the USA would not reflect it, since for monkeys it only queried grant awards, and only from NIH. This leaves open the possibility (a near certainty in my mind) that toxicology use is also the dominant use in the USA, and that this use would be overlooked by the methodology in the Conlee study. --Animalresearcher (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: UK section

message: :Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 04:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:BUAVCambridge2.jpg

message: 69.128.162.67 (talk) 21:41, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that this is a page for discussion of the content and editing of the associated page and is not a forum for general opinions on animal testing. Wikipedia talk pages are not general bulletin boards or forums for opinions on topics. They are for discussion of editing and formatting of reliable third party sources on the subject matter of the page. This is a page on non-human primate testing. Chimps are a non-human primate and have been, and are currently, the subject of testing, so reliable sources about them are included here, as are reliable sources about the ethical debate about using them (and associated bans and ongoing proposals).--Animalresearcher (talk) 00:06, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Primate testing 

message: I tagged this article NPOV because it is quite biased in its discussion of NHP research. There is little to no discussion about the actual contributions and benefits of NHP research in this article. If there was no benefit to society, why would it exist? We need to address this. We need to provide clear examples of what direct benefits have resulted from animal research. Ideally, this page should be built to discuss all aspects surrounding NHP research. It needs to both clearly elaborate the benefits and contributions NHP research has made to science/medicine, and additionally, it needs to clearly and concisely state the issues and concerns (animal rights, moral and ethical issues) surrounding NHP research. Anything short of this is a biased article. I hope to work on this with the help of the community in the coming weeks/months. Chaldor (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this occurs through the organizaton? There is a section on notable studies that highlights several high impact studies using non-human primates, and the most common uses of primates in testing are also mentioned. I am all in favor of even more, though, but I suspect that the fault is at least partly in the page layout and not in the content. --Animalresearcher (talk) 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I think you are right. This article may need a reorganization of its structure to make it appear more balanced. In referring to the animal testing, which I feel is more balanced, there is an entire section (as opposed to subsections) devoted to the types of research that animals are used in. I'm not sure if it makes sense to have the "modes of restraint" subsection within the same section as the aids/DBS section. We need a better section title than just "uses", and break up these big sections to make the article flow better. Chaldor (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: *I broke up the usage section a bit to make the flow more sensible. I think there might still need to be a bit more shuffling around Chaldor (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I've merged it before with the section on Bans, and feel the content is more appropriate there. Also, I feel its first sentence is placed there specifically to lead the reader (ie: POV), and should be deleted. I think if you look over the edit history you will find Slimvirgin opposed and reverted most of these changes. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I could see it working if this section was merged with the bans section, however there would have to be references provided that illustrate the reason for the bans is some recognition/questioning of legal status of NHPs. Otherwise, I think the discussion of legal status is inappropriate in this article and best suited in the primate section (as it is now). If we can find sources (or if the sources currently provided for bans/legal status...I haven't looked through them yet) have banning of NHP research motivated by legal status arguments as opposed to "it's just wrong," then I would strongly support merging these two sections. Regardless, this section should not stand on its own, as it is out of place. Chaldor (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bans are, by definition, changes in legal status, and also changes in individual rights. These two sub-headings are exactly the same, EXCEPT that one discusses theoretical and un-instantiated legal changes, and the other discusses already passed legal changes.  --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I can agree with this. There doesn't need to be two sections discussing such a similar topic. These should be merged and recombed for relevance. Chaldor (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

text: There are notable differences in NHP use in testing compared to other non-human animals. Specifically, there is an enormous body of literature on environmental enrichment and handling, and its impact on the animals. Whereas I think the restraint section was introduced specifically to highlight suffering of animals in testing, the more general issue of work on environmental enrichment and handling of NHPs is pretty valid and interesting, and a significant issue that those of us who work with NHPs deal with on a regular basis. I would be in favor of expanding/altering the restraint section along those lines. What do you think?--Animalresearcher (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I agree with that. The techniques for handling used in NHP research are significantly different than those for other type of animals. It would make sense to put the methods of restraint section into a larger, more general section titled "Handling" or something like that. It would make it far more neutral than simply pointing out the problems with restraint and offering a few alternatives (that are not always appropriate given the experimental context). I think the concept of enrichment deserves its own section. It is one of those very non-intuitive concepts that is mandated by NHP regulations that does have a huge body of literature associated with it. It is sadly overlooked by many people on the other side of the debate, but is one of the fundamental tools in maintaining NHP health and happiness. Chaldor (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV: July 2008 

message: *Is this section necessary in this article? The text is nearly a duplicate of what is present in Primate#Legal status. This page is supposed to discuss NHP research, but I feel the legal status section fails to do any of this. I think it should be removed from the article given the presence of this discussion in the more relevant primate page. Chaldor (talk) 10:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've merged it before with the section on Bans, and feel the content is more appropriate there. Also, I feel its first sentence is placed there specifically to lead the reader (ie: POV), and should be deleted. I think if you look over the edit history you will find Slimvirgin opposed and reverted most of these changes. --Animalresearcher (talk) 13:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I could see it working if this section was merged with the bans section, however there would have to be references provided that illustrate the reason for the bans is some recognition/questioning of legal status of NHPs. Otherwise, I think the discussion of legal status is inappropriate in this article and best suited in the primate section (as it is now). If we can find sources (or if the sources currently provided for bans/legal status...I haven't looked through them yet) have banning of NHP research motivated by legal status arguments as opposed to "it's just wrong," then I would strongly support merging these two sections. Regardless, this section should not stand on its own, as it is out of place. Chaldor (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The bans are, by definition, changes in legal status, and also changes in individual rights. These two sub-headings are exactly the same, EXCEPT that one discusses theoretical and un-instantiated legal changes, and the other discusses already passed legal changes.  --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I can agree with this. There doesn't need to be two sections discussing such a similar topic. These should be merged and recombed for relevance. Chaldor (talk) 07:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Legal status section

message: *The "methods of restraint" section discusses it as a "one of the disadvantages of using NHPs". The section itself is a bit onesided, but it doesn't list any of the other disadvantages of NHP use, nor does it clearly state any of the advantages. I think it would be nice to build up a section that illustrates the pros & cons (and move this higher up in the article) and have the "methods of restraint" section as one of the cons. It seems like it's just floating on it's own right now. Chaldor (talk) 23:50, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There are notable differences in NHP use in testing compared to other non-human animals. Specifically, there is an enormous body of literature on environmental enrichment and handling, and its impact on the animals. Whereas I think the restraint section was introduced specifically to highlight suffering of animals in testing, the more general issue of work on environmental enrichment and handling of NHPs is pretty valid and interesting, and a significant issue that those of us who work with NHPs deal with on a regular basis. I would be in favor of expanding/altering the restraint section along those lines. What do you think?--Animalresearcher (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

text: *I agree with that. The techniques for handling used in NHP research are significantly different than those for other type of animals. It would make sense to put the methods of restraint section into a larger, more general section titled "Handling" or something like that. It would make it far more neutral than simply pointing out the problems with restraint and offering a few alternatives (that are not always appropriate given the experimental context). I think the concept of enrichment deserves its own section. It is one of those very non-intuitive concepts that is mandated by NHP regulations that does have a huge body of literature associated with it. It is sadly overlooked by many people on the other side of the debate, but is one of the fundamental tools in maintaining NHP health and happiness. Chaldor (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Pros & Cons section?

message: The image :Image:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here.  In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page.  Please check
:* That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
:* That this article is linked to from the image description page.
This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Image copyright problem with Image:Pitofdespair-Harlow.jpg

message: The EU proposal to ban all primate experiments should be covered in detail here. See Talk:Animal testing#Globalize. Xasodfuih (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  EU debate 

message: Hey, I was wondering if it would be possible to find some more neutral photos to balance the article? The ones here are mostly from very old research centres or unusual circumstances where covert filming has taken place. Abergabe (talk) 15:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you and would strongly support doing that. Perhaps at Commons? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality of Photos

message: I think it would be proper to move the section Animal testing on non-human primates#Chimpanzees in the U.S. from its current position as a subsection under Animal testing on non-human primates#Use to a new position as a subsection under Animal testing on non-human primates#Species and numbers used.  I would further suggest revision of the section title to simply "Chimpanzees" commensurate with proposed addition of content related to EU ban in 2010.  The following is a proposed revision to the section:
:The use of chimpanzees in medical research was banned outright by the European Union in 2010.  Though the use of chimpanzees continues in the United States , this use has come under renewed scrutiny as a result of an NIH request to the IOM to craft an informed opinion on their continued use.
:The current full "Chimpanzees in the U.S." section would subsequently be provided as a subsection of the new "Chimpanzees" subsection", retitled as "Chimpanzee use in the United States".
There are two drivers behind this request.  First, to (eventually) globalize the treatment of the use of chimpanzees in research in the article and second to keep the "Use" section devoted to specifics on the methodologies used in testing on non-human primates, regardless of where they are used.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:04, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed revisions (related to chimpanzee information) 

message: Ban Chimp Testing; Why it is time to end invasive biomedical research on chimpanzees by The Editors of Scientific American September 30, 2011.
Excerpt ...   97.87.29.188 (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Primate cognition  99.190.80.8 (talk) 05:18, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Resource in [[SciAm]] 

message: *U.S. Will Not Finance New Research on Chimps by James Gorman published December 15, 2011, excerpt ... 
*Report Urges Curbs on Chimp Use for Research 15.December.2011 by Katherine Hobson  99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NYT]] & [[WSJ]] resources 

message: It seems to me like this article is kind of primarily focused on the testing being morally wrong, and it seems to try and build an argument to say it is, it just seems biased and needs to be balanced out.Nex Carnifex (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would tend to agree with you. It's an artifact of a lot of pro-animal rights editing in Wikipedia's early days. Please feel free to WP:BEBOLD and fix anything you'd like. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bias? 

message: The usage and topic of  and  is under discussion, see talk:monkey test -- 70.51.46.195 (talk) 06:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: "Monkey test" and "monkey testing"

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Ape research. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 May 2#Ape research until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 23:15, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Ape research" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Primate research and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 5#Primate research until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 05:43, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Primate research" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]