Talk:Blond capuchin

WikiProject Primates (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Rename the scientific name?

According to Marcelo M. de Oliveira und Alfredo Langguth: Rediscovery of Marcgrave's Capuchin Monkey and Designation of a Neotype for Simia flavia Schreber 1774 (Primates, Cebidae). In: Boletim do Museu Nacional 523 (2006), S. 1-16 PDF and IUCN Entry the species should be renamed Cebus flavius. Regards --80.108.59.151 (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2008 (UTC) (de:Benutzer:Bradypus)

Perhaps, but not yet. We should wait for a secondary source that is noted for taxonomy to support the notion. There are several changes when you look at the IUCN, but many primatologists don't like the changes they made. We should wait for something more official. - UtherSRG (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Anthony B. Rylands and Russell A. Mittermeier's “The diversity of the New World primates (Platyrrhini): An annotated taxonomy”, in South american primates: Comparative perspectives in the study of behavior, ecology, and conservation, ed. by Paul A. Garber et al. (2009, ISBN 978-0-387-78704-6, pp. 3–54) insisted, “Cebus queirozi, recently described in Pontes, Marta and Asfora (2006) is evidently a junior synonym of C. flavius, or, as argued by Oliveira and Langguth (2006), unavailable for lack of a registered type specimen” (p. 37, bold added). The necessity to rename this species' specific name is supported by their chapter. (Moreover, although this is something of my own, I heard the name of C. flavius in an academic talk on the observation of them in their wild habitat, not on the mere taxonomic study.) So I also propose renaming their scientific name. --Shaxshan (talk) 08:28, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Oops! Just now I noticed this citation is the same as in the IUCN entry! Rylands and Mittermeier are the evaluators. However, I still propose the above-mentioned. --Shaxshan (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
↑Jump back a section
Last modified on 13 February 2013, at 13:23