Talk:Miss Waldron's red colobus

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name of this species

The authoritative sources I cite, including Professor W. Scott McGraw, list the name as "Miss Waldron's red colobus" and the trinomial name as Procolobus badius waldroni. (Note that in a Google search, there are over 10,000 entries for "Miss Waldron's Red Colobus" and exactly 1 for "Miss Waldrone's Red Colobus."

Why was this changed, and what are the reasons for doing so? MaxVeers 21:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Groves, C. P. (2005). Wilson, D. E.; Reeder, D. M. (eds.). Mammal Species of the World: A Taxonomic and Geographic Reference (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 169. ISBN 0-801-88221-4. OCLC 62265494. and IUCN Redlist for waldronae vs waldroni. I'm not sure where I got Waldrone vs Waldron from, but I'm willing to conceed that point. - UtherSRG (talk) 02:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we concur on the common name, but the scientific name continues to be a problem. I don't have access to the Groves source, but the IUCN lists the genus as Procolobus, not Piliocolobus. The same site lists both waldronae and waldroni as the subspecies. The bottom line here is inconsistency. Is this worth mentioning in the article? MaxVeers 03:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several Procolobus species have, in the last few years, been moved to Piliocolobus. IUCN is not a source for taxonomic info, but is a good backup. MSW3 is the latest and greatest. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Threatened habitat

I have removed text that said:

In mid-2008, it became known that Unilever had acquired logging rights to the Tanoé Forest and was preparing to cut it down for oil palm plantations.^[1]

Most of the web articles that referred to it in May 2008 were poor translations with incomplete information. It was not Unilever but a supplier; a month later the Tanoé Swamps Forest website published a statement saying that actually Unilever had intervened and stopped the errant company from logging, and the environmental organisation was attempting to get the Ivorian government to legally protect the forest. Ephebi (talk) 21:06, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Wolzer, Chris (2008-05-28). "Tanoé Swamps Forest destruction by Unilever". Retrieved 2008-06-24.

[Wolzer2008-1] Wolzer, Chris (2008-05-28). "Tanoé Swamps Forest destruction by Unilever". Retrieved 2008-06-24.

[1]