Talk:Archaeoindris

message: Someone has added that Archaeonidris was "the largest native mammal to have evolved on Madagascar". Is this true? David Sher (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply took this information from the Malagasy fauna page.  That's a reasonably well-referenced page, although that specific piece of information has no footnote attached.  The only plausible alternate contender are the (also extinct) Malagasy Hippopotamuses. - Atarr (talk) 19:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And now that I look at it further, it seems likely that the Hippopotomuses were larger.  I think this was just someone adding in misinformation.  Sorry for spreading it. I'll revise it to largest primate. - Atarr (talk) 05:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it was the largest primate that ever existed. I will revise the wording. David Sher 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm pretty sure that would be gigantopithecus, so no. - Atarr (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the size of gigantopithecus is debated - if it was only six feet tall, it would not be larger than archaeoindris. Also, archeoindris was a primitive primate, related to lemurs. I'm not sure if your wording is better. David Sher (talk) 21:52, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest native mammal to have evolved on Madagascar 

message: I removed a broken link but felt like leaving the URL.  Is that okay?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 01:00, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the link can't be repaired, it's fine to just delete it.  I've taken care of it.  Thanks. – Maky « talk » 01:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken link 

message: At the end of the lead, it says "it was still extant when humans arrived on the west coast of Madagascar". If this means "when humans arrived on Madagascar (btw they arrived on the west coast)", I think it is mistaken. If it means "when humans first spread around Madagascar and reached the west coast", I fail to see the relevance of the west coast to a creature that lived in the central highlands. Maproom (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It meant that humans first settled the west coast, and at that time, Archaeoindris was still around.  I've removed the mention of the west coast from the lead to improve clarity. – Maky « talk » 14:55, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of west coast 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Archaeoindris. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060909200755/http://home.gwu.edu/~brich/publications/2002-Jungers%20et%20al.pdf to http://home.gwu.edu/~brich/publications/2002-Jungers%20et%20al.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I don't know the length for the humerus or the femur. Does anyone here know?Gorilla beringei (talk) 20:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Size of humerus/femur 

message: The article's intro states that the lemur was "still extant when humans first arrived on Madagascar" and provides a link.  The linked article says that humans arrived c. 1,200 years ago, meaning c. 800 CE.  But the intro also says the lemur probably went extinct c. 350 BCE, meaning about 1,150 years before humans arrived. This needs to be cleared up, but I lack the requisite knowledge. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 00:43, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anthropogenic extinction?