Talk:Squirrel monkey

message: Since "Totenkopf" usually just means "skull" in German (though it's literal meaning is indeed dead person's head) wouldn't "skull monkey" be a betetter translation? If no one has a better idea I'll change this at some point soon. --Millard73 21:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death's head monkey 

message: Can somebody get an image of a single monkey? That second set of eyes is really disconcerting, especially in the small picture. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Alph Tech STUART (talk • contribs) 14:53, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New picture 

message: I have some really good pictures of squirrel monkeys that I took in Costa Rica (Corcovado National Park) this past April.  They are better than the those currently being used for the article, if whoever is in charge of this page is interested in using them.66.233.50.127 23:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, do you know which species of squirrel monkey they are? We could use some diversity in the species pictures. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: The pictures I have are of the black-crowned Central American Squirrel Monkey (Saimiri oerstedii oerstedii)...66.233.50.127 17:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pictures 

message: The human brain mass to body mass ratio is 1:53 (1.9 %), rather than 1:35 (2.9 %). --Anshelm '77 12:40, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brainy typo 

message: Several taxa in this genus were originally described as species (the whole idea about subspecies, and thus trinomials, is relatively new, only gaining widespread use some ~100 years ago). So, from around the turn of the century up until the 1970s, numerous taxa that previously had been considered separate species were merged (often with few or no arguments being presented for the change), and the resulting taxonomy generally recognized. The idea of considering oerstedii conspecific with a widespread S. sciureus (i.e. only one Squirrel Monkey) was further supported by the late Philip Hershkovitz (1972) - one of the "big guys" in the taxonomy of Neotropical mammals (especially primates) in the 70s, 80s & 90s, and of particular importance in this genus, as it also was him who presented the arguments for the multiple-species split in his article in the American Journal of Primatology in 1984. This article (although some of its conclusions later have been contradicted by hybridization, DNA, physiology, etc) has formed the basis for MSW3, with the only major deviation being S. vanzolinii, described in 1985, and thus not conclusively treated in Hershkovitz, 1984. Thus, if checking MSW3 for S. oerstedii, the ref. also cited for the sentence in the wiki article, you will see that the "big year" was 1984, not only for the South American taxa, but also for the Central American S. oerstedii. This is also noted in the the popular (but in general good) The Pictorial Guide to the Living Primates (Rowe, 1996), where the following quote can be found in the taxonomic section for S. oerstedii: "Elevated from a subspecies of S. sciureus in 1984". The major deviation has actually been between the South American split (sciureus-ustus-boliviensis-vanzolini) versus the Central American-South American split (oerstedii-sciureus) post-1984, as the latter has been almost entirely agreed upon since Hershkovitz, 1984, while the split into multiple South American species has been contested against to various degrees by various authors (see especially Costello, Dickinson, Rosenberger, Boinski & Szalay, 1993, which presented arguments for only recognizing a Central American and a South American species). • Rabo³ • 23:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 1984 seems to be a key date, since that is when Hershkovitz reversed himself.  But actually I think the situation before 1984 was a bit more muddled than Groves or Rowe state.  I can recall my old mammal encyclopedia (which I can't site since it is buried somewhere in my parents attic) when I was growing up in the 1970s showing the C.A. and S.A. squirrel monkey as separate species.  From the Cebine chapter in Primates in Perspective: "Historically, the genus was divided into only 2 species based on geographical distribution: S. oerstediiin Central America and S. sciureus in South America.  In some [emphasis added] accounts, S. oerstedii is listed as an offshoot of S. sciureus that was thought to have been introduced to Central America by humans in pre-Colimbian times (Herkovitz 1969; c.f. Cropp and Boinski 2000, Costello et al. 1993).  The taxonomy chapter of New Perspectives in the Study of Mesoamerican Primates (coauthored by Colin Groves) indicates that Cabrera (1958) and Thorington (1985) considered S. oerstedii as a subspecies of S. scireus but not Hill (1960) or Hershkovitz (1984), who rather recognized the 2 subspecies of S. oerstedii.  It also discusses Hershkovitz' belief in 1969 that S. oerstedii was introduced by humans into Central America, but does not address the pre-1984 taxonomy situation (at least as regards to whether S. oerstedii is a subspecies) further.  So all in all the situation appears to have been quite muddled until at least 1984, and even later (i.e., until Cropp and Boinski's DNA analysis in 2000).  But I agree that 1984 is a key date, and so the more general wording may well be appropriate, esp. with the word "generally" incorporated. Rlendog (talk) 00:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another relevant reference: A Complete Guide to Monkeys Apes and Other Primates, by Michael Kavanagh, p. 84 on Squirrel Monkeys:"Although they are widespread in South America in almost every conceivable type of forest, and well known in Europe, Japan and North America as pets and laboratory animals, there is still no agreement as to the correct number of species...For simplicity they may all be thought of as belonging to a single species, although many zoologists would want to separate a red-backed Central American form from those that occur in South America itself."  While I don't often use this book as a reference because of its age, it may be particularly relevant to this discussion since it was published in 1983 - a year before Hershkovitz' revision.  So, taking this in combination with the above (esp. Hill from 1960) it appears that while all the South American squirrel monkeys were generally considered a single species, there was no general agreement as to whether the Central American squirrel monkey was part of that species or a separate species.  That said, I am not sure how best to reflect this nuance in an apppropriately pithy fashion into the taxonomy section of this article. Rlendog (talk) 19:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  pre/post-1984 taxonomy 

message: I deleted the section on color vision.  Paragraph talked about spider monkeys, not squirrel monkeys.  One reference was a bad link, and the other had valid data about squirrel monkeys' vision chromosomes that would have been an odd random one-sentence fact if left.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.250.6 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted before seeing the above argument for its deletion, but upon checking I have left the section. First, dead links among references is not an argument in itself for deleting sections; at least not unless attempts have been made to revive the link (see WP:BADLINK for possible solutions). In any case it appears the link is not dead presently. Secondly, everything in the section was supported by references. While true that the first reference mainly is about spider monkeys, note that the gene is the same also involved in squirrel monkeys, and they do mention that color vison in squirrel monkeys has been extensively studied as a stand-in for human ailments. The remaining sentences are all supported by the other reference, though it is only quoted at the end of the final sentence and in one case the wiki article mistakenly said "spider monkey" rather than "squirrel monkey" (I've corrected this). Though potentially confusing (and can be problematic if people edit sentences without knowing that a later reference also is valid there), the "several sentences for one reference" can sometimes be seen on wiki. 212.10.95.14 (talk) 19:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vision 

message: The article on squirrel monkeys is very short and has significant room for improvement. The lead of the article is quite short and needs to contain more information. Once again, there is no section on anatomy though there is a section on evolutionary history. The section on behavior needs to be greatly expanded to include topics such as social structures and reproduction. As of right now the only subsection that it contains is one on color vision which might fit better in the section on evolutionary history or in the needed section of anatomy and physiology. One could also add to the article a section on geography or the habitat of the species. Pictures should be added throughout the article. This article has been given the category of a “Start,” which I am presuming to mean that much work needs to be done. There is some discussion on the talk section though it does not specifically address how to move this article forward towards a higher category, and most of it is from 2007. Someone posted that the color vision section included actually pertains to spider monkeys as opposed to squirrel monkeys though this subsection still exists in the article which seems to be problematic. E.middlebrook (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thoughts on expanding article