Talk:Evolution of lemurs/GA1

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sasata (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I've signed up for this review. I'll boldly copyedit the easy stuff as I read through it, and bring the other stuff up here. Will probably take a few days to complete, because it's so nice outside! Sasata (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Take your time. I really appreciate the review. Keep in mind that I will take this article to FA (as well as several others that have yet to be written) before I take Lemur to FA. Therefore, I appreciate a very thorough review to facilitate a smooth FAC run. – VisionHolder « talk » 21:35, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks great so far! Here my comments for the first section (lead will be done last)

• Please clarify what a basal primate is in the second sentence. Then the next sentence mentions the confusion with ancestral primates: is this the same as a basal primate?
• "The closest living relatives of primates are the extinct plesiadapiforms" so are they living or extinct?
• maybe it should be mentioned that Darwinius maxillae is Adaptiformes
• Might be worthwhile to include a pic of a toothcomb, as this feature is referred to frequently later on
• "More recently comparative studies of the cytochrome b gene have shown that lemurs descended from lorisiform (loris-like) primates." I think this might fly over many people's heads; it would be worthwhile to invest a sentence or two to briefly explain why and how this gene is used to assess phylogenetic differences in closely related species

I'm not sure if I know the answer to this. I understand the implications more than the techniques themselves. If I'm lucky, maybe one of my sources will talk about it... – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Just a suggestion for FAC, as perhaps this point will come up again. If you look at refs 10-19 in Andriaholinirina et al., 2006, you will probably find something citable in there. Incidentally, looking at the reference list for that paper, it seems that J. Pastorini has done quite a bit of research with molecular phylogenetics/phylogeography of lemurs, but I don't see any of his work being cited in this article. If this were FAC, I'd bring that up :) Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Roughly half of the references you mentioned from that paper were freely accessible, and each of those simply mentioned using the technique, but did not mention why. Again, all of the literature I've seen just assumes that people know why. As for J. Pastorini, I will probably be citing her more in the family and genus articles. There are two issues with her works: First, they are more dated than the more recent publications that either affirm or deny her findings. Since the newer studies tried to be more inclusive, either by using a large number of species or a large number of individuals, I would consider the more recent work to be more reliable. Second, some of her studies do not appear to be currently supported. For example, her paper of sifakas favored merging subspecies that are now considered to be distinct species today.

Since I will be taking this article straight to FAC following this review, please advise on how I should continue. Personally, I feel this explanation of cytochrome b analysis should be covered on the cytochrome b article (which it is not), not in this article. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:17, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I'll leave the editorial decisions up to you. Chances are likely no-one will even bring it up at FAC. If you're interested, there's more info here and here, for example. Sasata (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• "If adapids were the ancestors of both lemurs and lorises, the split would have predated the early Eocene, which would be supported by molecular phylogenetic studies,[11] which show that lemurs split from lorises approximately 62 to 65 Ma[14] (up from previous estimates of 47 and >54 Ma)." Suggest splitting this big sentence in two, which will remove a repetitive "which", and give the reader a mental pause to reflect on this piece of scientific evidence.
• "Madagascar fossil sites are restricted to only five windows…" This should be instead the adjective form of Madagascar, correct? (perhaps better to reword to avoid having to use that potentially unfamiliar word)
• "There is a huge temporal gap in the fossil record from the Late Cretaceous to the Late Pleistocene in Madagascar due to the presence marine rocks during these times at all known fossil sites." Perhaps the dates should be included? Also, I'm not getting why the presence of marine rocks at all fossil sites leads to a temporal gap in the fossil record.

Ironically, I just met Dr. E.L. Simons (a famous researcher in primate evolution) today and got to ask that question. From what he said, the island of Madagascar has slowly been tipping up (out of the ocean) along the west coast. These are the only Eocene or Miocene sediment layers known in Madagascar, and surveys have shown only marine fossils. Otherwise, the rest of the island seems to lack fossil beds. (If no sediment accumulates, fossils and fossil beds do not form. This is actually the norm for most regions of the planet, and partly explains why we will never know all the life forms that have existed on this planet.) Honestly, I'm not sure where to get references for all this basic stuff, if it's needed. Let me know how you want me to proceed. – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere, sometime, someone must have written a book or review article on paleogeography of Madagascar that could be used as a source. I do think the article should be expanded a bit to clarify this basic stuff (like you did above), it's useful background info that helps the reader understand the story. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "However, this is unlikely since the only seamounts (along the Davie Ridge) would have been too small in a such a wide channel." Why are they too small? Is there known to be a minimum size limit before seamounts can be colonized?

The Mozambique Channel is quite vast, and the odds of a rafting animal landing on something as tiny as one of these seamounts (when exposed) is very remote. It is much more likely that a rafting animal would have traveled the whole distance once rather than part-way to a pin-prick of an island, then again (at another time) to Madagascar. Having flown over the Mozambique Channel, maybe this feels much more obvious than it sounds... – VisionHolder « talk » 22:44, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense when you explain it like that. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Initially argued based on similarities in behavior and molar morphology," awkward construction
• "Still, some anthropologists continue to support cheirogaleid/lorisiform relationship." missing word somewhere
• "Monkeys evolved during the Oligocene (approximately 30 Ma), and it is commonly accepted that their intelligence, aggression, and deceptiveness gave them the advantage in exploiting the environment over the earlier lemur-like primates, ultimately driving them to extinction." clarify that this happened in places other than Madagascar
• Both of those maps could be bigger

I've addressed many of these points, so please review. There are a few that I have not addressed, but I've run out of time and will either address them or discuss them here when I get back. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

section "Distribution and diversity":

• It would be useful to mention how far away from Madagascar the Comoro Islands are

I've looked around, and I can't find this number. Even the Wiki article for the Comoro Islands don't mention it. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

About 500 km from Island to closest Malagasy coastline according to Google maps, but I guess that's original research :) Sasata (talk)

• "Molecular studies on E. f. fulvus (from the mainland) and E. f. mayottensis (from the Comoro Islands) have supported this assumption by showing no genetic differences between the two populations." Does f. mean form, as in Eulemer fulvus forma fulvus? I don't think you should assume the readers will know that. How do the populations differ, BTW?

They have only very slight coloration differences, and they may be even more similar to the northern populations on the mainland. I plan to go into this in more detail on the Common Brown Lemur page eventually. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I was more worried about a reader not knowing what the f. meant. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• How does a smaller relative brain size help the lemur respond to limited, seasonal resources?

A brain is an energy-expensive organ, so a smaller brain reduces energy needs. I tried to find a way to add this in, but failed. Every attempt I made both broke up the continuity of the list and created a need for a citation that I don't have. My source for the list (as it stands now) doesn't go into detail because it assumes the reader understands that brains are energy-hogs. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's that common-knowledge it might be in a basic biology/mammalogy text; still think this would be good to find a cite for (for FAC, at least). Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Secondarily, extreme resource limitations and seasonal breeding are thought to have resulted in three other relatively common lemur traits: female dominance, sexual monomorphism, and male-male competition for mates involving low levels of agonism, such as sperm competition." This interesting sentence leaves me with more questions. (i) Would really like to hear more how female dominance is a natural outcome of a resource-restricted environment. (will you be blue-linking that female dominance article ;-) ) (ii) Maybe I don't get out enough, but I don't know what sexual monomorphism is. (iii) Also unclear about the concept of low-level agonism.

I don't plan to write a female dominance page because I can only approach it from the perspective of lemur research. I will address it in more detail on an upcoming "Lemur behavior" article, though. Anyway, I've changed the link to just point to Dominance hierarchy since that appears to be the commonly accepted place to point that topic to now. I hope monomorphism and agonism are more clear now. If not, let me know. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• "…has taken a significant toll, not only on lemur populations, but also on their diversity." Perhaps this might be better to clarify like "…not only on the size of lemur populations"?

I've addressed this section to the best of my ability. Your comments and suggestions are welcome. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Taxonomy section

• I'm thinking that links to family and genera should be included in this section, but the terms have been used in previous sections (and not linked there), so I'll let you decide
• "Since the first taxonomic classification of lemurs in 1758 by Carl Linnaeus," would be cool to find an online link for this

Google Books only offers the 1756 edition, which does not mention lemurs. The 1758 edition is not available. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Try this, Lemur starts on page 29. That website is a fantastic resource for finding historical documents related to early taxonomy. Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "Up until Richard Owen published a definitive anatomical study in 1866," any chance of a cite to this publication?
• "bizarre morphological traits" bizarre doesn't seem encyclopedic to me; "unusual" is better, but is there another way to word this to let the traits speak for themselves?

I removed "bizarre" all-together. I'm not sure what you have in mind for rewording. I think when the traits are listed, they already speak for themselves. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

• "In 2008, Russell Mittermeier, Colin Groves, and others reversed this taxonomic ruling by grouping the family Daubentoniidae within the infraorder Lemuriformes." What was their justification for doing so?

According to personal communication with Groves, it was mostly due to popular opinion. (It doesn't affect phylogeny. Since it's basal, Groves wanted it in its own infraorder, while others preferred to see it listed under Lemuriformes.) The source itself is very ambiguous and does not explain. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• why not show a cladogram based on Orlando et al. as well? I'd like to be able to visually compare between the two current competing phylogenies

Because, honestly, the authors of the Orlando paper are in the process of publishing papers that conform more to the Horvath phylogeny. Last I heard, it's not out yet, but I didn't want to introduce a cladogram that was quickly going to become dated. Or, at least, that's how I remember the reasoning. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• "However, ruffed lemurs were reassigned to the genus Varecia in 1962," source?
• "… the brown lemurs were moved to the genus Eulemur in 1988." source?
• "In 1997, Prolemur had been considered a synonym for Hapalemur." "had been" implies that it once was, but is no more… is that true?

Yes, it is no longer a synonym. Sorry, I thought the previous sentence explained that sufficiently. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• "When described in 1839, the Fork-marked lemurs were initially placed in the genus Lemur with the Ring-tailed Lemur." cite
• "the Giant Mouse Lemur was moved to its own genus, Mirza, in 1985" cite
• "The Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur was first placed in the genus Cheirogaleus (dwarf lemurs) in 1875" cite
• "However, this approach could backfire if used excessively, ultimately hurting conservation efforts." Need a source for this

I'm working on this one. I've emailed a few people who would be mostly like to know where this opinion has been published. I can tell you, though, that it is a noteworthy opinion. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• most of the of suggested citations requests aren't necessary for GAN, because the secondary source already given covers the sourcing, but I think they're a nice touch (especially if you can find an online source) and it will make the article even more useful for future readers

I'll try to address both sections tomorrow when I have more time. However, some of the citation requests for this section should not be issues. For example, the citation for the Hairy-eared Dwarf Lemur statement is at the end of its 2-sentence paragraph. And most of the others I quickly glanced at were in the same boat. – VisionHolder « talk » 14:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay... so with the citation requests, you want the original source? Why isn't the secondary source sufficient? I guess I'm confused about that. Otherwise, I've done my best to address your concerns and I'm open for comments, suggestions, and more feedback. – VisionHolder « talk » 18:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The secondary source is sufficient, feel free to ignore my suggestion. I personally like to see citations to the original papers, under the assumption that it makes the article somewhat more academically rigorous, and it will help future students in their research. For example, if I want to verify or have more details about why the Giant Mouse Lemur was moved to its own genus, Mirza, I have to first hunt down the citation in the secondary source before I know what the primary source is. YMMV Sasata (talk) 04:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind changing the sources as you suggest. I understand and respect your reasoning. However, I prefer not to for the same reason I do not cite the original work for the "Binomial name" section in the taxobox. Just because a paper describes a new species, promotes it to species status, or removes its species status, that does not mean the new taxonomic status is final. Other authors will publish their opinions within the coming years either in favor or against. For that reason, I prefer to cite a highly reputable secondary source that confirms the findings and references the original work. I think I discussed this with Ucucha during the Babakotia GAC or FAC. Alternatively, I could cite both. – VisionHolder « talk » 12:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Please be clear, I am not asking you to change any sources. The inclusion of primary sources would be in addition to the secondary sources that are already cited, and would be included as a convenience to the reader. For example, in the current Porbeagle FAC, I asked the nominator to include a link to the protologue, because it was readily available, and it links the 18th century taxonomy with the current Wikipedia article. One of the things this article does is describe the evolution of lemur, but it could also help show the evolution of our understanding by following the development of ideas and theories in the literature, and giving the reader easier access to the primary studies. Ok, that's all I'll say about that. I'll wrap up the GAR later today; it clearly meets the GA requirements, and my other suggestions are mostly food for thought. Sasata (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think I've done all I can do here, good luck at the FAC! Sasata (talk) 15:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Well written, complies with MoS.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c(OR):

   Well-cited to reliable sources.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   Yes.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   All images appropriately licensed.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail: