Talk:Colugo

message: What rainforests specifically do the colugos live in?
In Asia.61.230.72.211 12:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Rainforest?

message: [http://www.colugos.com/flying-lemur.html Flying Lemur Called Another
Close Relative Of Humans] - a 2002 article, which claims that based on mitochondrial DNA studies, colugos should be classed as primates, and are actually quite closely related to humans (not as close as apes, but closer than other primates). 
Has this been accepted? Is there an officially correct answer as to which order colugos belong in?
Singkong2005 14:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They are related to Primates but a separate order from Primates.Rlendog (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See also here: http://www.science.psu.edu/news-and-events/2007-news/Miller10-2007.htm. I added a fact-tag in the article where this is discussed, haven't got time to search further. Jalwikip (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently it is not so clearcut. Some recent molecular studies have found colugos to be closer to treeshrews, to the exclusion of primates (see review in ). A few molecular studies have even recovered colugos within Primates, sister to Anthropoidea (as the original poster here says), but that is probably in error, as other lines of evidence don't support that placement. The book Classification of Mammals by McKenna and Bell (1997) actually classified colugos as primates, but placed all classic primates together in a suborder Euprimates. Ucucha 13:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Actually primates? 

message: What's the source for two genera of flying lemurs?  I've always seen both species categorized as Cynocephalus.  (This is what ITIS has, as well).  If we're going to change that, we should at least cite the source. john k 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed, 2005. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not listed at Mammal Species of the World On-Line :- http://nmnhgoph.si.edu/cgi-bin/wdb/msw/names/query Yosri 11:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read more carefully. The online database is from 2nd edition (1993). (See here.) You can download the data they are using to build the new database with at the same link. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Obviously this discussion is old but I added a reference with the direct MSW3 link to the family with the two genera listed, for clarity/easy finding if more people wonder about it. Could possibly be done in a smoother way but I'm short of time at the moment.Herzleid (talk) 21:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  two genera? 

message: How do you think about adding this commons image:  CE (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Imho you don't have to ask, just go ahead and add it. Jalwikip (talk) 09:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Better image - but same as used on species page. ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:21, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons image 

message: I plan to move both Sunda flying lemur and Philippine flying lemur to their respective colugo names within 24 hours. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:30, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be in favor of moving all of these articles to titles with the word "colugo", not the outdated "flying lemur". – Maky « talk » 13:51, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the move, and it got reverted. I've made formal requests now. Please support on the two species' talk pages. - UtherSRG (talk) 07:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  moves 

message: File:Dermoptera - toothcomb 01.jpg
Since the "highly distinctive" teeth are discussed, perhaps this image would make a good addition to the article; but I am unsure if, where, or how you might like to place it.
Btw, I agree that the photo (above, from 2 years ago -lol) is better; the one currently used shows a Colugo which is too well camouflaged. I went ahead and changed it, "per consensus" (3 of 3 since 2009?). ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 22:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything looks fine, though you might make the caption on the toothcomb more general rather than listing an old genus name that's now obviously a synonym. – Maky « talk » 23:48, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Toothcomb  

message: This is a "new" discovery (from a few years ago):
Scientists discovered that what was once considered a single species living on two separate islands is actually two separate species. "Read all about it:" ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:00, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, they didn't name these new species in the article, so someone will have to go digging to see if that's been done yet (and whether or not its been upheld).  For now, all we can note is that two new species may have been found in 2008 and cite that source. – Maky « talk » 23:56, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Yes, we know that there is actually more than one species of Sunda colugo; however, the split hasn't been formalized anywhere as far as I'm aware, and we don't know what the various species should be called. Ucucha (talk) 00:13, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And recent reviews (, the Red List) still recognize a single species. The molecular study you cite provides evidence that the population on Java, Borneo, and the Malay Peninsula represent distinct species, which would be G. variegatus, G. borneanus, and G. peninsulae. However, the Sumatra population (temminckii) is unstudied and conceivably could represent another species, and chances are the population in Vietnam and Laos is also distinct (it would be an unnamed species). This is definitely something that merits discussion in our articles, but for now we can keep the list of species as it stands. Ucucha (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Just found another phylogenetic paper (), and it looks like things may be far more complicated; some Pen Malaysian sequences clustered with Bornean ones (perhaps suggesting sympatric cryptic diversity) and there are six major clades that could conceivably be separate species. Clearly we don't know much yet about the real diversity of Sunda colugos. Ucucha (talk) 00:52, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How come I never manage to find simple problems to fix?  I'm afraid I'll have to leave it to you kind folks to work this one out. ~Good luck, ~E 74.60.29.141 (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the world of "mammals-that-are-almost-like-us-but-not-quite-simian-enough-to-merit-serious-research-by-a-lot-of-people".  ;-)  This is why I devote myself to lemuriforms and monitor treeshrew and colugo articles, but not simian articles.  If only we knew more about these amazing mammals, and the academic community actually spent time studying them (rather than assuming they know everything already and communicating their out-dated misconceptions to the public.)  I'm not jaded... really.  – Maky « talk » 03:23, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Related story with amazing photo (almost certainly not WP usable): PHOTO IN THE NEWS: New Flying Lemur Species Announced -National Geographic (2008) ~Eric F 74.60.29.141 (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New! 

message: Yes, the two extant species make up the Cenycephalidae, but according to the scheme at the bottom of the page there are other extinct species in the order Dermoptera. --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 13:05, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  yes Cynocephalidae, but Dermoptera? 

message: The article “Philippine eagle” does not support the notion that colugos make up ~90% of said eagle's diet.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagle 

message: Since the "Philippine flying lemur" and "Sunda flying lemur" are commonly known as "flying lemurs" and have "flying lemur" in their common names, why not make the title into "flying lemur" instead of "colugo"? The title is confusing. Jaspergeli (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Change the title into "Flying lemur" 

message: Article doesn't state if they are nocturnal or diurnal. Looks like something that would be nocturnal but since it glides maybe it's diurnal. Jason Quinn (talk) 04:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The article states that they are nocturnal, although no specific reference for this is given. Anaxial (talk) 19:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I missed that. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nocturnal or diurnal?  

message: It seems to very very much be a convergent evolution of the sugar glider. Should maybe be mentioned RainbowCardboard (talk) 09:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention convergent evolution?