Talk:Subfossil lemur/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Ucucha 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• In the lead, is the parenthesized "B.P." necessary, or even correct? As you know, 500 BP is 560 years ago.

  Thanks. I've been meaning to remove that. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  In the body, you do mention 500 BP, though, so perhaps this should be changed to "around 1450 CE" or something like that.

  The source explicitly states: "Radiocarbon dates associated with extinct lemurs range from around 26,000 yr B.P. to around 500 yr B.P." Given the experience previous discussed between us, with Simons (one of the coauthors) confusing the definition of B.P., and given that I haven't heard back from Dr. Godfrey in half a week since I questioned her about this, I'm not sure if I feel comfortable deviating from the sources at this time. Ultimately, though, I do favor converting everything to CE... but not until I know how to interpret each source. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I understand. The problem is that the article is now contradicting itself, though: it says "500 years ago" in the lead and at one place in the body, but "500 years BP" somewhere else in the body. Ucucha 06:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I honestly don't know how to give you a satisfactory answer. Until the authors reply, which they may not, we're stuck guessing. The body cites the source verbatim for the dates. But you also think using "BP" in the lead is unnecessary. I've given an approximation instead, assuming the authors correctly used BP in the source (which I don't think Simons did). That's the best that I can think of. Any specific suggestions? – VisionHolder « talk » 19:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "confused assemblages of bones"—does that refer to the misallocations of bones to the wrong animals? If so, it's not very clear.

  I liked your wording better. Changed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• You said you had deleted the sentence about gallery forests, but it's still there.

  LMAO! I removed it on my sandbox copy of the article accidentally. It's gone now... for real, this time. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "structurally defended resources" is opaque language; perhaps add examples?

  Done. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Why does only one of the plant genera listed have its family given?

  Actually, there were two: Cedrelopsis and Uncarina. The genera didn't have articles, so I provided a link to the families instead (so that people could at least find something about them). I've now created stubs for the species and removed the family links. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Since most giant subfossil lemurs have been shown to share the many of the unique traits of their living counterparts, and not those of monkeys, the energy frugality hypothesis seems to best explain both living and extinct lemur adaptations."—might it be better to explicitly attribute this to the person who wrote it, to avoid the impression that it is Wikipedia that is choosing the best hypothesis?

  Done. If you think it can be worded better, go for it. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• The "Extinct giant lemurs" paragraph says all extinct lemurs were diurnal, but further down you mention D. robusta as an exception.

  Done.

• "sloth lemurs exhibited slower movements of lorises and sloths."—not "than lorises and sloths"?

  The former, not the latter. I've removed the "-er" since it's not a comparison. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I changed the headings in the "Types" subsection to reduce redundancy; feel free to revert if you disagree.

  Looks good. No complaints. Thanks. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "Dental wear analysis has shed little light on this dietary mystery, suggesting that monkey lemurs had a more eclectic diet, while using tough seeds as a fall-back food item."—this reads like it did shed light on the mystery.

  Changed "little light" to "some light". We know more than we did, but I wouldn't claim that we have anything conclusive. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 16:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

• Would it be good to include some of the other exotic early theories about subfossil lemurs? I recall some were also identified as apes.

  I'll have to go back and review the literature. I thought I had covered the stories from Godfrey's sources, particularly the "aquatic Palaeopropithecus". Was there a specific source you had in mind? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Hadropithecus was thought to be an ape—it's in the article, but I may have put it in myself. Anyway, it's perhaps better not to mention all the weird theories in this summary article. Ucucha 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Let's save that for the genus article. I still need to clean that up, and I plan to run that through FAC soon. I'll be sure to mention it there. For now, I think the story of the "aquatic Palaeopropithecus" should tell enough about the confusion of the time for such a lengthy and general article. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• What is the seventeenth species (in addition to the fourteen identified around 1900 and the two explicitly mentioned in the "Research" section)?

  Good catch! It's been added. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "The subfossil sites are clustered together geographically and are recent in age, mostly dating between 2,500 and 1,000 years old, with a few spanning back to the last Ice Age, approximately 10,000 years ago."—that doesn't agree with the 26000 BP radiocarbon date on Megaladapis.

  I'm not sure what those sources meant, and I wrote to Dr. Godfrey about it. I thought that maybe the 26000 BP radiocarbon date had been thrown out or something, but apparently it's still alive and well. I'm still pondering how best to handle this. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Never mind. I went back to the source and discovered I had misread it. The sentence should be clearer now, and inclusive of the 26,000 year date. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't understand the dating for the Palaeopropithecus bone with cut marks: 321 +/- 43 BCE would be 364–278 BCE, not 362–311.

  I probably converted this incorrectly, but the source reads "2325 ± 43 B.P. (2366–2315 cal yr B.P.)". I have reinstated the exact wording from the article, though I cannot explain the mathematical discrepancy. It might have to do with one range being calibrated, and the other not?? – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Perhaps, I don't know either. Ucucha 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I will email the author tomorrow, after my current Tuesday-night alcohol buzz wears off. Apart from that, I can only go by my sources. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  Dr. David Burney has replied and has promised to address these dating issues for me in a couple of days. Knowing how live goes for professors, I'm going to give him a couple of weeks. Either way, there is hope that we'll resolve these dating issues relatively soon. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• "As recently as the early 1600s, dwindling populations of subfossil lemurs may have persisted in coastal regions where tree-cutting and uncontrolled fires."—missing a verb.

  Oops! I had to go back to the source to properly complete that sentence. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• File:Extinctions Africa Austrailia NAmerica Madagascar.gif lacks a source.
• In File:Subfossil lemur C14 ranges.svg, the names of the genera are a little too small to be legible.

  I'll work on creating a new image shortly. Otherwise, let me know how best to proceed with File:Extinctions Africa Austrailia NAmerica Madagascar.gif. If it ultimately needs to be removed, I'll do so. However, I'll probably need to find something to replace it if that's the case. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think a source from 1989 is ideal either for this kind of image, as much has been discovered since then. (Such as three new species of subfossil lemurs.) Ucucha 05:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I don't think the new species of subfossil lemur affect this illustration. In fact, I think the article mostly supports the Madagascar portion—a rapid die-off (followed by a slow recovery as new megafauna are introduced to the island). Again, tomorrow I'll email Martin and Burney and see what they have to say. As I said, I'll remove the illustration if needed. – VisionHolder « talk » 06:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Ucucha 17:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the thorough review! I'll try to take a look at things tomorrow and try to fix them up. A quick note about the graphics (last 2 comments): A "source" for File:Extinctions Africa Austrailia NAmerica Madagascar.gif is given as "(after Martin, 1989)" under the "Summary" section. I've already tried emailing the file's creator to see if he could provide the data and full citation for the image so that I could recreate it as a SVG file, but haven't heard back yet. Are you heading to the library anytime soon? Maybe there's a table in there that you can copy ... if you don't mind. I assume the full citation is as follows:

• Martin P. S. (1989). Prehistoric overkill: A global model. In Quaternary extinctions: A prehistoric revolution (ed. P.S. Martin and R.G. Klein). Tucson, AZ: Univ. Arizona Press. pp. 354–404. ISBN 0-8165-1100-4.

As for my SVG file, would you recommend enlarging the size within the article or adjusting the SVG itself? – VisionHolder « talk » 18:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd noticed the "Martin, 1989" mention, but that's so vague that it can hardly be called a source. However, the citation you mention is plausible, and I'll take a look to see whether I can find the book.

Do what you think is best with the image. I think it'd be better to change the SVG, though. Ucucha 18:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The book is not in the library here, though it is supposed to be. I might ask a librarian when I get a chance, or find some other way to the chapter. Ucucha 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I got a reply from the creator of the image, and I learned that he created it in Photoshop by duplicating an illustration he saw in the book. (I've asked for the page number and illustration number, but no reply yet.) I don't know how that kind of thing works in terms of copyrights. Anyway, he also gave me email addresses for Burney and Martin, so I may contact them and see if I can find what the illustration was based on. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• (butting in) - The diversity of subfossil lemur communities was higher than that of present-day lemur communities, ranging as high as 20 or more species, compared to 10 to 12 species today. - does this mean per ecosystem or locality? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. It's per locality. I'll be sure to address this when I make the necessary changes for the comments above. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:34, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll hold off tinkering until you guys are fnished. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to make additional comments at any time. Ucucha 15:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, feel free to make additional comments. I'll try to work on it all tonight, so best to get it out of the way now. – VisionHolder « talk » 16:18, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• As a group, the lemurs of Madagascar are extremely diverse, having evolved in isolation and radiated over the past 40 to 60 million years to fill many ecological niches normally occupied by other primates. - was it just primates or do they occupy any niches of, say, marsupials or rodents? Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

  I think the source was comparing lemurs to other primates, so they did not go into that. To make things simple, should I just remove "normally occupied by other primates"? Since it's a general statement about lemurs, the comparison (specifically) may not be appropriate for this article. – VisionHolder « talk » 20:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm, interesting. I am not a mammalologist so am a relative neophyte about furry critters. I am guessing they could occupy niches by non-primates elsewhere so I'm thinking it'd be a good idea not to assume they were primates if it isn't specified in the source. Ucucha may have an opinion on this. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think we should go with what the source says. In my opinion, claims like this are always somewhat arguable—niches in one place are rarely exactly the same as those in another. However, the nonvolant mammal fauna of Madagascar probably contains proportionally more primates than anywhere else (I don't have the numbers right now), which suggests that the lemurs do occupy a broader range of niches than primates in general do. Ucucha 06:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am now passing this article; all issues that are left are the doubtful datings that we can't do much about. Ucucha 06:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)