Talk:Crab-eating macaque

message: FYI, there sure ain't much on this fella out there in internet land.  All I can find is lots of neuroscience experiments, and this: .
I don't know why you found it difficult to find external sources. A google search reveals this, and this, both of which have a lot of good info. Arjuna (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Arjuna, thank you for your concern of my mis-information. I have read alot on the subject but I admit I can always learn more. I ran your search and opened the first hit. http:// www.indopacific.org/macaca.asp. Here they discuss a report on New Guinea. They have identified that there are 6 troops of macaaques in New Guinea. That is a small population. Some conservationists have tried to argue to me that there are 70,000 macaques on the island, and I just very much dislike such overemphasis and alarm on these issues and simply seek to stop those kind of statements from happening. It is why I want fair explanations in places like this wikipedia blog. Many people overescalate the problem and it is largely because people look at reports like this and don't pass on the information the data really shows.  Rather they just blankedly state fascicularis is a serious extinction threat in non-native habitats. If there are only six troops on new guinea, it is not a serious extinction threat. Additionally, the problem is compounded by the fact humans have isolated these forest areas, and this is probably what really makes the macaque become damaging. Furthermore, they have no baseline data before the macaques were there, which is a confound in their results. Aside from that, the report says the likelihood of them getting out of their isolated forest "islands" is small, although over the long-term they maybe could start to colonize other areas. Therefore, this particular case is not a big threat. Keep the problem contained, remove the monkeys, the threat of this problem is removed Mgumert 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mgmert, if people tried to convince you there were that many macaques on the island then they were mis-informed and would have benefited from reading the IPCA report to establish the facts. The reality of the threat from alien invasive M. fascicularis to native fauna is serious enough to not require exaggeration. I think if you read the report carefully yourself, however, the picture that is presented is not nearly as optimistic as you seem to think. First of all, your use of the term "extinction threat" is not used in the scientific community as it is a bit melodramatic and imprecise; "biodiversity threat" is more commonly used and gets the point across. Extinction is not a term usually bandied about until a particular species is truly nearing such a threshold, by which time it is often too late. So using the term "extinction threat" is a strawman argument. No, the IPCA report does not say that because that term is not a useful tool in understanding the role of the species in New Guinea. If you have read the report in its entirety, the report makes a very clear and scientifically sound documentation of the threat to native species by macaques. The facilitation of this threat by human agency (creating new potential habitat by degrading adjacent forest areas) is important, but you are missing the point: those forests and the species within them have the capacity to recover as long as no additional pressures (viz. macaques) are introduced, and secondary forest creates a new vector for further macaque colonization of new areas. This is precisely why the New Guinea macaques ARE a very serious biodiversity threat. As to whether the lack of baseline (pre-macaque arrival) data compromises results, the answer is no. Obviously it would be ideal in any situation to have a strong baseline, but for most areas of the world outside of Europe and the U.S. it does usually not exist --this is particularly so in New Guinea. Fortunately, then, it is not scientifically required since a hypothesis can be tested with alternative methods. The report authors carried out "double-blind" survey tests of four forest habitat plots, with and without macaques, in both secondary and primary (a proxy for pre-macaque baseline data) forests. Their results were robust (i.e. statistically significant) that macaques negataively impact the native fauna. Case closed. Hope this helps. Arjuna 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mgmert, well, we see the issue differently. First of all, however, I already made my point about terminology, so that is a dead letter as far as I'm concerned, and hopefully on that we can agree. Second, we need to put another issue to rest: if someone has glanced at the IPCA report and come away with the notion that there are 70,000 macaques "taking over Papua", then they are not credible and should be either advised appropriately or discounted. That they have chosen to remain ill-informed is unfortunate but doesn't change the fact that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk. Why you have trouble acknowledging what the report indicates is quite baffling; because they are not immediately causing extinction in isolation from other factors such as deforestation, etc. simply makes no sense whatsoever. The threat that the IPCA report documents is not simply that regarding their immediate presence in the Jayapura area, but the fact that they are highly ecologically adaptable and thus have the potential to colonize adjacent forests at any time, at which point their impact becomes far greater and the problem un-manageable. By any definition, this is a "very serious" risk, as is acknowledged by the report's statement that "Given the probable consequences of the [Jayapura] macaques becoming invasive, immediate implementation of...a program to mitigate the above mentioned threats is therefore of the highest priority." (p. 7) How this can be read in any way other than that the report concludes that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk is completely inexplicable. The only such examples I know of similar mis-readings of the conclusions in a scientific report are those found in the Bush White House regarding climate change. You're certainly welcome to provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise, I wish you good luck in convincing credible scientists that macaques are something other than a very serious biodiversity risk in areas where they are non-native species. Arjuna 21:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mgumert, that sounds generally reasonable. I agree that the invasive discussion could (mostly) go into another section (some mention, as with its role in research etc. should go in the intro however), since it is quite reasonable -- even necessary -- as you point out, to discuss the species in its other contexts. In terms of the invasive discussion, we still disagree on how to characterize the degree of threat, but for now let's go back and forth on how to improve the article more generally. On an unrelated note, please remember to "sign" your name by adding four "~"s at the end of your talk contribution. Cheers. Arjuna 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Mgumert, agreed -- I think I understand where you're coming from better now. Nggak, aku orang bule tapi udah lama di Indonesia, dan suka ceritera Mahabarata aja. Cheers, Arjuna 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Threats

message: http://www.nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/indonesia/images/fishing_lg.jpg
Is that worthy of putting in the article?  Ratattuta (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fishing

message: Could we have a map?  Or at least more discription than "Southeast asia"?  I am ok with the island description to the south.  But how far north do they go?  Do they cover all of Indochina?  Any of China proper?  Burma? Bangladesh, Andamans, India, Ceylon?  etc?  72.82.57.163 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is the range? 

message: I have replaced the taxobox image with a better quality one which also had greater encyclopedic value as it was showing more than just the head. Please discuss any changes here before making them--Muhammad(talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox image 

message: We should include something about Reston Ebolavirus --76.67.96.180 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reston Ebola Virus 

message: Please note - the photograph of this species is Wrong. It is of a bonnet macaque (M. Radiata). Can this please be updated?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.13 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photograph 

message: I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to "[Name] Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).
Would you please take a look at that here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins
And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called "[Name] Macaque" traditionally.
(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Wikipedia article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Wikipedia is a problem.)
Thanks!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killer Dolphins 

message: I have added a sourced behavior section with a lot of the data that is out there on social behaviors. This page could use some updating in other areas as well. There needs to be a lot more sources for the claims being made. I also would like to recommend that we re-name the page "long-tailed macaque." This is the more common name and has more primary source data (even though it is the same species, searching for "crab-eating macaque" yields fewer results than "long-tailed macaque."  I addressed the monkey as a long-tailed macaque throughout.Katims90 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior updated and suggestions 

message: Katims90, great job on your additions to the article. It was very well-written and informative, and I only had to make a few minor grammatical changes. There's one thing I think you could expand upon or clarify. The experiment you talked about in the second paragraph of "Kin Altruism and Spite" was a little confusing. When I first read your description of the study, I thought spite was inferred based on the fact that most females did not preferentially share food with their kin, so there was a decrease in giver benefit and also a decrease in kin benefit (they don't get the food). But then in the next sentence you said that "spite fueled feeding kin preferentially." How does this work, since I thought the result from this particular experiment was that kin was actually NOT fed preferentially? I also didn't understand the significance of the sentence "This is due to the observation that food was given to kin for a significantly longer period of time than needed," so if you expanded a little more about that, or just work to clarify the experiment a bit more, it would make your contribution even better!
Ihyuan (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Peer Review

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Crab-eating macaque. 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/20130828032238/http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_289.htm to http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_289.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928024123/http://www.offthefence.com/detail/island-of-the-monkey-god/1093564/ to http://www.offthefence.com/detail/island-of-the-monkey-god/1093564/
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) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Are there images of the highest quality that show a full body of the animal? Can somebody do it? Esagurton (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request for changing the main image 

message: In the section Reproduction this sentence appears:
"Here they play together, forming crucial bonds that may help them when they leave their natal group."
But it is entirely unclear what the word "here" refers to.
I hope that someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. 2601:200:C000:1A0:ED6E:E25D:FE94:D2A6 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that refers to being on the periphery, since that's what the previous sentence talks about. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear sentence