Talk:Tarsier

message: The following was removed from the article:
to commit  when they are removed from their original habitat.''
Does anyone have any source info for this? - UtherSRG 20:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I found this, http://www.szgdocent.org/pp/p-tarsir.htm V 10:37, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It says soething not quite the same as what was in the article. I'll massage that site's info into the article. Thanks. - UtherSRG 16:00, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed "Some are extremely traumatised by captivity, killing themselves by banging their heads against the cage."  The wording isn't exactly the same as the source, so I don't know where we'd stand with copyright, but it's closer than my English teacher would have let me get away with.  Also, is this article really a stub anymore?  --anon 04:34, 26 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:   

message: I don't think we should place the Tarsiidae, Tarsiiformes and tarsiers on the same page. The Tarsiiformes does also contain the (big!) extinct family Omomyidae, and Tarsiidae also contains a few extinct genera, so that these taxa aren't the same. Ucucha See Mammal Taxonomy 04:41, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: I am removing the sentance "However, they are not primates, and are not to be confused with the Pygmy Marmoset, a small primate native to South America which is generally regarded by experts as inferior." as it contradicts the Tarsier's classification as a Primate.24.45.188.201 09:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tarsiers are Primates

message: I don't see the size in the article. How big are they? 128.252.107.160 06:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Size?

message: Their heads seem to be gigantic compared to their body size.
Is there any info ranking them in brain volume to body weight in comparison to other mammals? Any information on their intelligence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.151.253 (talk) 08:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head Size 

message: Quote from Yahoo main page:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – On a misty mountaintop on the Indonesian island of Sulawesi, scientists for the first time in more than eight decades have observed a living pygmy tarsier, one of the planet's smallest and rarest primates. Over a two-month period, the scientists used nets to trap three furry, mouse-sized pygmy tarsiers -- two males and one female -- on Mt. Rore Katimbo in Lore Lindu National Park in central Sulawesi, the researchers said on Tuesday. They spotted a fourth one that got away.
The tarsiers, which some scientists believed were extinct, may not have been overly thrilled to be found. One of them chomped Sharon Gursky-Doyen, a Texas A&M University professor of anthropology who took part in the expedition.
"I'm the only person in the world to ever be bitten by a pygmy tarsier," Gursky-Doyen said in a telephone interview.
"My assistant was trying to hold him still while I was attaching a radio collar around its neck. It's very hard to hold them because they can turn their heads around 180 degrees. As I'm trying to close the radio collar, he turned his head and nipped my finger. And I yanked it and I was bleeding." The collars were being attached so the tarsiers' movements could be tracked. Tarsiers are unusual primates -- the mammalian group that includes lemurs, monkeys, apes and people. The handful of tarsier species live on various Asian islands.
As their name indicates, pygmy tarsiers are small -- weighing about 2 ounces (50 grammes). They have large eyes and large ears, and they have been described as looking a bit like one of the creatures in the 1984 Hollywood movie "Gremlins." They are nocturnal insectivores and are unusual among primates in that they have claws rather than finger nails. They had not been seen alive by scientists since 1921. In 2000, Indonesian scientists who were trapping rats in the Sulawesi highlands accidentally trapped and killed a pygmy tarsier.
"Until that time, everyone really didn't believe that they existed because people had been going out looking for them for decades and nobody had seen them or heard them," Gursky-Doyen said. Her group observed the first live pygmy tarsier in August at an elevation of about 6,900 feet.
"Everything was covered in moss and the clouds are right at the top of that mountain. It's always very, very foggy, very, very dense. It's cold up there. When you're one degree from the equator, you expect to be hot. You don't expect to be shivering most of the time. That's what we were doing.”  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.195.249 (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tarsier's are not gone for good 

message: Any IPA experts wanna help with the pronunciation? The best I can do is . WDavis1911 (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation 

message: Six months is a very long time for such a small animal; I can't think of any parallel. I notice there is no reference. Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gestation 

message: Rather than starting a potential edit war, I want to start a discussion about the "Cultural references" section and the mention of the O'Reily books in the article.  I agree with Anaxial that the content should be removed, per WP:Trivia.  Just because a drawing of the animal (in general) is used on a book cover, it has no relevance to an article about a biological taxon.  "Cultural References" sections should primarily focus on the local culture around which the animal is found.  Western cultural references should be highly relevant to the species, such as bringing the animal to people's attention.  A good example of a "Cultural references" section can be found at Lemur.  Now if O'Reilly and Associates discussed the plight of the tarsier inside the front cover and also used proceeds from the book sales to support tarsier conservation, that might be different. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This isn't trivia, it's not just a random image on a book cover, it is relevant here.  This book is in it's 7th edition and is a well known technical book, one of O'Reilly's most successful so much so that the company has adopted this tarsier image as a company logo.  Many people come to know of the tarsier through this book cover.  O'Reilly's use of animals, especially this one, has been well noted.  It's featured in "The best of technology writing 2006" By Brendan I. Koerner as well as O'Reilly Media's wikipedia page.  That particular tarsier sketch has been celebrated in other publications as well such as Make Magazine and Sys admin: the journal for UNIX system administrators, Volume 9. --RadioFan (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unsurprisingly, I agree with Visionholder. If "many people come to know of the tarsier through this image", that should be mentioned in the article, supported by a specific citation to that effect - I'd agree that that could be relevant. That the tarsier is used as the company logo might also be relevant, since the company is probably more notable than an individual book cover. That the book and image are mentioned in sources on laser cutters and technology writing does not seem to me to be relevant, however - if they were mentioned in sources on biology, conservation, or something else relevant to tarsiers specifically, that would be a different matter. Anaxial (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You mention that its use as the company logo is relavant and the rest is not.  So are you supporting inclusion of this information or supporting removal? --RadioFan (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm saying a more or less bald statement amounting to "an image of this animal once appeared on a book" does not belong here - and that's what we have now. However, with further information added to support why this is notable (especially "many people know of the tarsier through this book cover", if that can be supported by refs) it may well become relevant, and be worthy of inclusion. That it appeared on a cover isn't notable of itself, that this particular picture has raised awareness of the animal in the west probably is. It's all about context. Does that sound a reasonable compromise? Anaxial (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Anaxial said it perfectly.  I completely agree.  RadioFan, please find a source to support the claims you are making here and include them in the article.  I would value its addition.  But as it stands, the material currently falls under the label of "trivia". – VisionHolder « talk » 21:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There are sources in the article, was there a particular claim or source you had a problem with?--RadioFan (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The main problem is not with the sources as such, but that the article text doesn't state why the cover is notable. Having said that, the sources in the article merely confirm that the cover exists; what I'd like to see are sources (and, ideally, not primary ones) that confirm the picture has raised awareness of the animal in the west. Anaxial (talk) 21:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I see your point and have updated the article to emphasis the use of the tarsier image in the company logo and include a variety of references supporting this.  I'd include the logo in the article as well but that would likely run a-fowl of fair use for that image.--RadioFan (talk) 22:26, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

text: I'm beginning to favor Erik's view, and support removing the content altogether.  However, at this point I don't want to get involved in an edit war. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted Erik's good faith edit per the existing consensus, but now that there's a revived discussion here it may be that the consensus will change, and I don't intend to get into an edit war, either. Anaxial (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia and the O'Reilly books 

message: Here are the links posted by an anonymous user:
* The Tarsier Hears
* 
Unfortunately, the original post was a copyright violation. – VisionHolder « talk » 02:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Hearing

message: What are the threats to Tarsiers? The reasons for the decline/endangerment of its population? Are there any updates on its conservation efforts in 2015/2016? Nicole2793 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conservation 

message: While "the assignment of the Eocene and Miocene fossils to the genus is questionable" may be perfectly correct, its inclusion in this article amounts to a rather snide, isolated comment. I suggest something along the lines of "XXX and YYY have suggested that the assignment of the Eocene and Miocene fossils to the genus is uncertain" would be more straightforward and therefore better. Dratman (talk) 00:48, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "the assignment of the Eocene and Miocene fossils to the genus is questionable" is weasely 

message: — Assignment last updated by Drashone (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Mammalogy