Talk:Potto

message: I don't have time to go through it right at the moment, but a PhD thesis on the taxonomy of Perodicticus has recently been published on the web. It looks like it has some information in it that might be helpful to this article. Just thought I'd mention it in case someone else has a chance to get to it before I do. Perodicticus 22:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New research on taxonomy 

message: :Image:GEvelynHutchinson.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:GEvelynHutchinson.jpg

message: I don't know how many people  bother looking at this site but hey, I was just at a prosimians conference, and have heard that the three subspecies have been upgraded to full species.  I'm currently doing work on ibeanus, and just to mention that pottos are not necessarily as slow as everyone tends to make out, they can certainly get around as and when they wish (much like the loris, which I was working on in 2006).  Raggs —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.49.77.71 (talk • contribs).
:Neat. When the work is published, put a pointer to it here and we'll update the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first-hand knowledge is not relevant. When the work is published and you can cite your verifiable sources, you can add the information.  - UtherSRG (talk) 11:24, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Again, it does not matter what you know. What matters is what you can cite so others can verify it. But while you are awaiting publication, how about [ creating an account]? - UtherSRG (talk) 11:21, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: elevation

message: There is doubt about the identity of the animal depicted by the black-and-white drawing, which seems to be a copy (flipped to be sure) of a colour drawing/painting purportedly showing a Calabar angwantibo. Please check the file on the right. Dogo (talk) 00:04, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: While the images are indeed quite similar, I believe this is due to the fact that the two animals are very similar and that the images were created by the same author. Looking close, you can see that there are some differences between the images. Note the shape of the ears, the shape of the gap above the feet, and the angle of the arm. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I can hardly believe that you are serious. Do you really mean that those "differences" have any taxonomic significance, especially between animals that belong to different genera? You must be joking. Even if both drawings were made by the same author and he decided to give them exactly the same posture and to place them on branches with practically the same shape, he would at least have clearly shown the tail of the potto to distinguish it from the angwantibo. It does not make sense to make two drawings that nobody can clearly differentiate, and then label them with different species names. Consequently, I am 99% certain that the black-and-white drawing is a copy made by another author, who for some reason called it a potto (if the original was in fact labeled "golden potto", one could not even blame the copier too much). The differences you see, are simply copying errors. Dogo (talk) 21:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: How much would you like to bet? The Potto image was used on the cover of the O'reilly GNU Make book.. They are both 19th century lithographs. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure what this proves. This "Make book" clearly uses clipart. I would have to see the original lithographs with proof of authorship before I consider changing my position. Maybe some other people could also contribute to this discussion. Dogo (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

text: Well, that is a useful contribution in my view. So, based on my findings and those of Maky, I propose to the authors of this article that they remove the drawing that we have discussed here, unless any of them comes up with another, but very convincing, argument. Dogo (talk) 22:32, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the article's edit history, I would have to say that this article came together piecemeal, like so many other Start- and Stub-class articles on Wiki.  For now, I'm going to remove the image, although I am more than open to discussing it if UtherSRG or anyone else disagrees. – Maky « talk » 22:54, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't object to the image being removed. I only objected to the claim that it was a bogus image. Cheers! - UtherSRG (talk) 07:20, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you don't object to the removal of the image. However, I never used the word bogus and didn't imply it either. Bogus suggests intent. The point I wanted to make was that this image most likely depicted an angwantibo. The mislabelling could have been relatively innocent. Dogo (talk) 22:34, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image Potto.png 

message: The article currently reads: "The potto moves slowly and carefully, always gripping a branch with at least two limbs. It is also quiet and avoids predators using crypsis."  clicking on the link for "crypsis" yields this definition: "crypsis is the ability of an organism to avoid observation or detection by other organisms."  So the sentence basically means that it avoids detection by the ability to avoid detection.  This is not very informative.  A clarification of which methods of crypsis it uses would be far more useful.  Also later the article says that it has no natural predators b/c the predators do not climb trees.  What is correct? -- InspectorTiger (talk) 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  crypsis 

message: The last two sentences of this article present information without a proper referenceMsbaggott (talk) 05:05, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: There is not a satisfactory description of predation on the potto in this article, and references for natural predation bushmeat hunting are missing. Humans, many raptor and owl species, and chimpanzees are the principal predators of the potto. Oates, J.F. 1984. The niche of the potto, Perodicticus potto. International Journal of Primatology. Vol. 5(1), 51-61.Msbaggott (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Is something preventing you from editing the article yourself? Perodicticus (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predation Problems 

message: The potto is said to have a "strong" territory. Was this phrase meant to say "large" territory or was the author referring to the fact that a male's territory is strongly defended against same-sex intruders?RooneyRee (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Behavior and Ecology