User talk:CJjensen01

Great Contributions

Dr. Jensen,

You had some great additions to this aticle. Uther seems to be power tripping and has a little too much free time. Good revisions; Illegitimi non carborundum. CarettaCarettaLVR (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Piliocolobus vs Procolobus

Neither the IUCN nor the ITIS are taxonomic authorities. IUCN is an authority on conservation. ITIS is very outdated. the canonical listing of mammal species is MSW3. I am in frequent communication with the author of the primate section of MSW3 and await his response verifying that Procolobus only contains verus and all other taxa formerly regarded as species in Procolobus are still in Piliocolobus. I've been dealing with editing primate articles on Wikipedia for some seven or so years, and am quite familiar with all of the extant taxa. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback! I understand, however in the taxonomy box on the page, Piliocolobus kirkii was sited by saying that "Gray, 1868" was the source. Gray actually classifies it as Procolobus which is also indicated on the IUCN. I too have been in contact with a researcher in Tanzania from Oxford who completed her PhD thesis on the monkey and I had asked her what it should be classified as, given the confusion, and she said it is in fact Procolobus. This explains why so many peer reviewed articles on ISI Web of Knowledge classify the monkey as in the Procolobus genus.

The ISIT updates its information and has Procolobus as the valid classification. It was last updated in 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CJjensen01 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

You seem to know very little of taxonomy and taxonomic nomenclature. "Gray" is not the source, but the author of the species description. John Edward Gray initially placed the kirkii species in the Procolobus genus. Later, the species was moved to the Piliocolobus genus. Gray is still the author of the description. I await Colin Groves's decision on the placement. Note the Piliocolobus and Procolobus articles. There are several species at play here. Your friend may be knowledgable about this one species, but may be ignorant about changes in taxonomy over the last few years.

BTW... ITIS record for Procolobus has not been updated since 1999.

Also, please keep your reply here. It's easier to follow when the discussion is all in one place. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The researcher is Katarzyna Nowak and many of her publications are available on the web. I highly doubt she is ignorant on the matter given that she is in Tanzania now and continues her research at this very moment. And regarding Gray, why is "Gray, 1868" written after Piliocolobus kirkii if that is not what he had described it as? That doesn't seem to be a proper representation of his work. And should not be there if you are siting Groves instead on this matter. I have myself been to Zanzibar to see this monkey and am quite aware of its classification. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJjensen01 (talk • contribs)

Like I said, you know very little about taxonomic specification. Again: the "Gray, 1868" denotes the original description of the species. The description includes what the species looks like, where it lives, and how it is different from other species. The description is assigned a name, in this case kirkii, and this name is assigned to a genus (originally Procolobus). No matter what changes occur in taxonomy, the original author remains, and so the taxonomic authority is carried along. the original taxonomic listing was: Procolobus kirkii, Gray 1868. the current listing is Piliocolobus kirkii (Gray, 1868). Note the parenthesis. These indicate that the author did not use "Piliocolubus kirkii", but that kirkii was moved in some fashion. You should become more familiar with these notions if you are going to edit biological or taxonomical articles on Wikipedia, or if you are to do any writing about biology taxonomy anywhere, really.

As for Dr. Nowak, her list of publications is indeed impressive. However, not a single one deals with taxonomy. She may know a great deal about the biology and behavior of the Zanzibar Red Colobus, but she hasn't written anything about taxonomy; indeed, taxonomy has very little to do with her work. - UtherSRG (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

PS. Please sign your "talk" page edits with ~~~~. Thanks! - UtherSRG (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Ok sounds good! I am a biology major with an organismic emphasis so I am aware of genus and species and as so, do know about taxonomy. What I did not understand (which now I do) was why "Gray, 1868" was placed there because it implies (if one is not wikipedia-savvy), that he described it as such. But now that I understand the "Wikipedia" explanation behind it, I won't say any more regarding that exact confusion.

The idea behind this is just to put what is correct out there. My original goal was to show the other side thereby (hopefully) clearing up confusion for some reader who is interested in this animal, given that much literature describes it being one way and another. If Procolobus is not correct than that is quite fine! I just appreciate both sides. Thanks for the discussion, it is indeed important. CJjensen01 (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not just the Wikipedia way, that's the ICZN standard! Look through any listing of species, such as MSW3... check it out online at http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3 - UtherSRG (talk) 03:53, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi I was just wondering why you removed the Subfamily from the taxonomy box. If there is something that I am not aware of please let me know! The reason I added it was because it does in fact belong to Colobinae and as so, that information should be provided to the reader. Other primates have subfamilies listed as well and even in the text of this article I have mentioned at one point that it belongs to the subfamily and therefore I believe it warrants being said in the box. I reviewed the WP:PRIM and I didn't find any reason as to why it should not be listed. Thanks! CJjensen01 (talk) 06:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The general rule of thumb is only the major ranks (kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genus, species) down one level above the article's topic, and then minor ranks from there down to the article topic. Special articles get special treatment, such as multiple minor but higher ranks named for the subject. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

ZRC

Awesome job on expanding this article, BTW. :) When you think you are done, lemme know and I'll submit it for quality assessment. I think it's up to a "B" now. It'd be great to get it to "GA" or "FA"! :) - UtherSRG (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, see my "huh" comment on the ZRC talk page. - UtherSRG (talk) 06:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Just fixed it thanks! yeah, it didn't make much sense! Also, I think I am done with the edit! CJjensen01 (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Deforestationzanzibar.png

Thank you for uploading File:Deforestationzanzibar.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 02:39, 15 April 2010 (UTC)