Talk:Tapanuli orangutan

Please don't think you need to move this article to Tapanuli orangutan. That name was coined by the same authors who described Pongo tapanuliensis and is not any (putative) native or common name. Speciate (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

According to the article Common name, "Sometimes common names are created by authorities on one particular subject, in an attempt to make it possible for members of the general public . . . to be able to refer to one particular species of organism without needing to be able to memorise or pronounce the Latinized scientific name." The proposed common name "Tapanuli orangutan" seems to fit with this and has been latched onto by the news media covering the discovery of the species (it produces far more results in a Google search than the scientific name). 72.44.103.182 (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Currently GoogleSearch gives "Tapanuli orangutan" = 5,600 and "pongo tapanuliensis" = 6,420. ... from where I am in UK, anyway, not that this means anything, not that we kowtow to Google, just sayin'. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's odd, because where I am (Michigan, US) I get 96,400 results for "Tapanuli orangutan" and 4,890 for "Pongo tapanuliensis". 72.44.103.182 (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

So, how does one decide what's real? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:59, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

If you look at the Current Biology article, you will see that not all the authors are credited as the binomial authorities. They are given as Nurcahyo, Meijaard, Nowak, Fredriksson & Groves. Speciate (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems that the Current Biology article on this species disagrees with other sources on the divergence times of the Sumatran and Bornean orangutans. Please be careful on how you integrate these sources. Speciate (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The article (and hype about the species) says this is the first new species of great ape identified since the bonobo in the twenties, yet the recognition of the Sumatran and Bornean orangutans as separate species apparently didn't take place until 1996, which seems to throw the bonobo assertion into doubt, if not into the realm of "fake news". --Haruo (talk) 12:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's in the source. Looks like there's a bit of confusion between sub-species "promotion" and wholly new species. Probably best to remove this statement altogether. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 12:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Look at the classification dates under the other currently recognized great ape species: Gorilla gorilla, 1847; Gorilla beringei, 1903; Pan troglodytes, 1776, Pan paniscus, 1929, Pongo pygmaeus, 1760, Pongo abelii, 1827. A simple and truthful statement that the most recent of those is 1929 is not hype or "fake news". This really is a big deal. WolfmanSF (talk) 17:30, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

@WolfmanSF: Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii have been known for ages, but they were considered as two subspecies of one species until 1996. So the truth is a bit fuzzy here. See Orangutan#History_of_orangutan_taxonomy. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 17:46, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I disagree. The statement that it "represents the first extant species of great ape to be described since the bonobo in 1929" concerns only dates of description, those values I just gave, not any of the other possibly complicated events in the classification history of the taxa concerned. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A related comment. The statement in note-1 of the article that

"Pongo pygmaeus and Pongo abelii were described in 1760 and 1827, respectively, originally as subspecies..."

is incorrect. Both were originally described as species and this status has never changed for P. pygmaeus (although a range of other taxa, including abelii, have at times been included as subspecies or synonyms of it; in the former case, the nominotypical subspecies is obviously pygmaeus; briefly it was suggested that the valid name was satyrus instead of pygmaeus). When the two were described, the concept of subspecies was not widely accepted and species was the default position. Both morio and wurmbii, now regarded as subspecies of P. pygmaeus, were also originally described as species. The taxonomic history for abelii is rather complex. First described as a species (Lesson 1827, Manuel de Mammologie), it was then placed under P. pygmaeus (first as a synonym, then as a subspecies following Groves & Hulthuis 1985, but relied heavily on earlier publications by Röhrer-Ertl), only to be "re-elevated" to species status in 1996 (Xu & Arnason, but only became widely accepted after Groves 2001). I've modified the note slightly to remove the main factual issue, but if someone can come up with a better version please do change it. I've not updated the History of orangutan taxonomy linked above, but it needs an overhaul too RN1970 (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Some of this information has been added to Orangutan#History_of_orangutan_taxonomy, but you might to add more. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:06, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

All things considered, this is a bit too nebulous for the lead. This isn't a necessary piece of information - it's a "fact" purported by some news sources that, on inspection, needs a lot of caveats. I suggest we simply cut everything from "and represents the first extant species..." onwards, footnote and all. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The statement relates only to the original dates of description of taxa currently recognized as species. There's no ambiguity in the comparison. All the other complications related to taxonomic histories (which are typically quite complicated) are of little relevance here. I think the statement should remain in the lead as it stands. WolfmanSF (talk) 20:02, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Don't you think the lead is a little tautological? I edited the lead a little but it still sounds tautological. It is probably not necessary as there is a link to the main article for curious readers and it is suggested by the context. Achat1234 (talk) 07:03, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, not completely following you. The statement that it "represents the first extant species of great ape to be described since the bonobo" is, in my view, an appropriate way of emphasizing the significance of the discovery. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This note is now longer than the rest of the lead. Fundamentally it is not a fact about the subject of the article, but rather an discussion of the bonobo and other orangutan species. It definitely doesn't belong in the lead and probably not in the article at all. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 11:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

A whole 13 minutes there? That was a little rapid? Is no discussion permitted about that? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Of course. Feel free to discuss it here. I decided to WP:IAR in this case as it seemed fairly open and shut, and I thought it important to have the "correct" name on the article while it's linked from the main page, as well as getting rid of the RM tag which is a distraction for readers. If you can convince me I'm wrong, I'll happily reopen the discussion. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

For the record I can give you the full reasons why I think the move made sense:

1. WP:CONSISTENCY, in particular with the naming of other orangutans such as Sumatran orangutan and Bornean orangutan.
2. WP:COMMONNAME - almost all ordinary sources I can see are calling it "Tapanuli orangutan" as the main name.[1][2][3]
3. WP:NCFAUNA, which advises us to stick with common name, and specifically says "For well known animals, this will normally be the vernacular name", unless "the most common name in English, or the veracity of that most common name, is so disputed in reliable sources that it cannot be neutrally ascertained". I guess this isn't completely "well known" yet, as it's only been in the news for two days, but there seems no doubt as to what the common name is in English despite that.

I'd be interested to hear any arguments as to why we should keep it at the Latin name. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:28, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Seems legit. Consistency with Sumatran orangutan and Bornean orangutan sells it for me. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm glad we have a clear exposition of reasons, which seem perfectly sound. It looks like consistency trumps scientific fidelity across all three articles. It also seems that GoogleSearch has now swung heavily in favour of the "common name"... even from where I am in UK, anyway, not that this means anything, not that we kowtow to Google, just sayin', etc. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It shouldn't have been changed. I am disappointed. Speciate (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is what Nater et al. have to say about the male long call of P. tapanuliensis: compared to that of P. abelii: "The male long call has a higher maximum frequency range of the roar pulse type (>800 versus <747 Hz) with a higher “shape” (>952 versus <934 Hz/s)." Compared to that of P. pygmaeus, "the male long call has a longer duration (>111 versus <90 s) with a greater number of pulses (>52 versus <45 pulses), and is delivered at a greater rate (>0.82 versus <0.79 pulses per 20 s)." So, no single characteristic is claimed to be unique to the calls of P. tapanuliensis. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The current description about their calls with these details is slightly confusing and not too cohesive. So what if we keep the description simpler and add these details in a note? Achat1234 (talk) 12:33, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, just ignore my previous reply. I have simplified the concerned paragraph while keeping the described details. Achat1234 (talk) 14:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The authors of the original article estimated the area at 1000 km². Their estimate may be accurate to ±200 km² (but I doubt it). This gives a range of 309 to 463 mi². Therefore, 400 mi² is an appropriate conversion. Using too much accuracy when converting is distracting and technically wrong.

The template "convert" attempts to use an appropriate accuracy (by default) but its results are often too precise. It has many options to get the appropriate accuracy.

They also stated, "... at elevations from 300 to 1,300 m (984 to 4,265 ft)." Does anyone think they know them to the nearest meter?User-duck (talk) 21:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Absolutely correct. I've restored the use of {{convert}}}, forcing the coversions to 1 significant figure, the same precision as the original figures. Anything more is false precision. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 22:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Heeding the concerns of this discussion, I have changed the significant figures of their distribution range to account for the values used to estimate the distribution area and changed the significant figure value to get a rounded value of about 390 sq mi. I have also changed the significant figure of their elevation range to account for any differences on either side of the values. So it is not precise and accounts for small differences. Achat1234 (talk) 08:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did not find mention of a "wildlife trade" threat in the cited articles. I believe the comment should be removed.User-duck (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

It is not given in the smaller news references but it is given in the primary reference. Here is an excerpt from the study about the threats to the Tapanuli orangutans. "Due to the rugged terrain, external threats have been primarily limited to road construction, illegal clearing of forests, hunting, killings during crop conflict, and trade in orangutans." Achat1234 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

The Wikipedia "Author citation (zoology)" article states: "In zoological nomenclature, author citation refers to listing the person (or team) who first makes a scientific name of a taxon available. This is done in a scientific publication while fulfilling the formal requirements under the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature." (I added bold for emphasis)

The binomial name and authority is clearly stated in the Current Biology article (under Systematics) as "Pongo tapanuliensis sp. nov. Nurcahyo, Meijaard, Nowak, Fredriksson & Groves."

Why these five people are the authority is not explained in the article.

The Template:Speciesbox documentation states that "authority" is the "binomial authority". Authority by itself is somewhat ambiguous and maybe this is causing misunderstandings.

A "Note" was added "to explain the authors in-charge of the binomial classification for novice readers." It fails to do this.User-duck (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You also have to keep in mind that most novice readers will not know what a species authority is. So if we mention the term, then we will also have to explain what it is and that will lengthen and complicate the note. Achat1234 (talk) 08:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

You added the note "to explain ..." The note does not explain why these article authors are the binomial authority. "To explain" is one of the purposes of wikilinks, which you removed from the note.User-duck (talk) 16:26, 18 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if the part about the holotype specimen of the Tapanuli orangutan being stored in the Zoological Museum of Bogor is needed. The section "Discovery and naming" is about how the species was described and this small detail does not fit with the rest of the paragraph cohesively. Achat1234 (talk) 08:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Maybe move to the description section, as a holotype is essentially the description of the species. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 10:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well if you think the said sentence is okay where it is, we can keep it there. Achat1234 (talk) 12:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Personally I'm OK with it. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 16:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Okay. Achat1234 (talk) 17:33, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/120588639/0 They are now Critically Endangered according to the IUCN Red List. Should this be added to the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaleoMatt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Thank you PaleoMatt for highlighting this and providing the link. I have added this to the article. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 23:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply