Talk:Semnopithecus

Description[edit]

This sentence: "Hanuman langurs are largely gray, with a black face, which is thought to relate to Hanuman, a monkey warrior from the Ramayana who burnt his hands and face trying to rescue Rama's wife. "

I can find nothing online that corroborates that reference. The Hanuman main article does not support it. There are mentions of Hanuman, the deity, being sentenced to having his tail burnt as punishment. Other (not so reliable) sources have Hanuman burning his face in the sun. Anyone got a source? --Rosetta1207 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It took me awhile, but I've found one. I'll add it to the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:40, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perfect. Thanks! --Rosetta1207 (talk) 16:52, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be re-written? This is the description section about the monkey - not a section to describe religious myths about the origin of it. Can we move it elsewhere to a Myths/Trivia/Cultures section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.168.65.239 (talk) 13:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Why is American spellings used? Note:

the monkey is not found in America.
the earliest bearing if the article did not use Amercian spelling (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gray_langur&oldid=2622920) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.247.153.83 (talk • contribs) 15:35, February 21, 2016 (UTC)

I would agree with this. There are lots of non US references for grey langur.

You try to make a cogent change to improve readability and it just gets reverted, with no cogent explanation. No wonder Wikipedia is losing editors:

Wikipedia:Why is Wikipedia losing contributors - Thinking about remedies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.45.172.114 (talk • contribs) 09:08, February 1, 2019 (UTC)

Please sign your talk page posts.

We don't need both "gray langur "and "grey langur" int the article. We assume readers understand either. Both are acceptable English spellings, but "grey" is most common in the UK and "gray" is most common in the US.

The article was originally created by user:Jimfbleak in 2004 as Grey langur but was moved to Gray langur by user:UtherSRG three months later. It seems a bit odd. There is no particular to associate this article with the US, so I don't know why it was changed. Both of those editors are still active, so let's see what they have to say. Meters (talk) 09:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care about which spelling is used. What I care about is consistency of spelling used in title and rest of page. But imo, it's ridiculous to war over whether gray and grey are different or same colours, or whether there are people anywhere who don't understand this is one and the same. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant policies are Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English and Wikipedia:Article titles#National varieties of English. The article was started by me with BE spelling, the species has no connection with North America, and the countries of the Indian subcontinent. I'm surprised that the article was moved, apparently against policy, by an experienced admin like UtherSRG rather than the more usual US editor "correcting" the spelling. Unless he has a compelling reason, it should clearly revert to BE Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue discussing the spelling of colour names, lets bypass this altogether and move this page to Hanuman langur!! A name used anyway in most of listed refs, apart from Latin name. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Title name[edit]

The reason the page was moved was the consensus at WP:MAMMAL and WP:PRIMATE to use common names from Groves' MSW3. Although he does not give a common name for the genus, all the species are given as "X gray langur." Rlendog (talk) 14:11, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for solving this riddle!!!! -- BhagyaMani (talk) 14:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, it was a consensus to align with MSW3. And I believe Groves is Australian... - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was. No langurs there either, :) -- BhagyaMani (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to the title of the article, I'm not sure "gray langur" (or even "grey langur") is ideal at this point, but I think Hanuman langur is less ideal. The taxonomy in this article (and the related species articles) is not up to date. With the addition of the purple=faced and Nilgiri langur into this genus (which now seems to be universally accepted), the genus doesn't only include the "gray" langurs anymore. Now that S. entellus and S. dussumieri have been redefined (S. dussumieri not being considered valid anymore), "Hanuman langur" seems to be restricted to only S. entellis at this point, which of course was once the only recognized species in this genus, and not more generally. Looking at some of the sources that have been discussed at WP:MAMMAL and WP:PRIMATE as being more up-to-date than MSW3:

ITIS] gives a common name for the genus, which is "Indian langurs." That actually seems most accurate now, but I don't think I have seen this in widespread use as a common name. As to the species, the gray-colored species are generally given multiple common names - as both gray langurs and as sacred langurs (and for S. entellus, Hanuman langur too), with the exception of S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur." ITIS is US-based, which could explain the use of "gray" rather than "grey" but I have not seen "grey" used in any major source.
Mammal Diversity Database doesn't give a common name for the genus, but all the species they give common names for use "gray langur."
Handbook to the Mammals of the World (2013) generally uses the name "sacred langur" for the gray-colored species, except for S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur."
All the World's Primates (2016) also generally uses the name "sacred langur" for the gray-colored species, except for S. priam, which is just called "tufted gray langur." They also give the name "Hanuman" for S. entellus, which they refer to in the title as "Bengal (Hanuman) gray langur." Rlendog (talk) 01:42, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points. In some of the text, Handbook to the Mammals of the World uses the term "Hanuman langurs" to refer to Semnopithecus collectively. However, it is not clear whether they are referring to the entire genus or just to the species that used to be in S. entellus, and from the context the latter seems more likely. Similarly, All the World's Primates uses the term "gray langurs" to refer collectively to the genus, but again it is not clear they are referring to the entire genus or just the former S. entellus species (i.e., excluding the purple-faced and Nilgiri langurs).Rlendog (talk) 22:25, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the recent discussion at WT:PRIMATES about naming in general, I am thinking that this page should be moved to "Indian langur" since that is the name given by ITIS, and even though ITIS is the only source that seems to use it, it also seems to be the only one that unambiguously provides a common name to the genus Semnopithecus in light of the includes of the purple-faced and Nilgiri langurs. Or we could just name this page Semnopithecus.Rlendog (talk) 20:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree to base name in title on ITIS, and thus disregard all other sources. If you think a page move is necessary at all, then it should be to the generic name Semnopithecus. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 22:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert at this as Rlendog seems to be, but here's my two cents. In Indian English, British English, or Commonwealth English, the common name would be spelled "Grey langur," not "gray langur.'" On its langur page, MSW3 (Groves) refers a few times to Pocock's 1928 articles in the Journal of the BNHS. I don't have online access to JBNHS, though I could check it in the library in the coming days, but in Pocock's, Fauna of British India, Including Ceylon and Burma, Volume I, published in March 1939, in which they are described between pages 83 and 119, (Semnopithecus starting page 88), they are simply called Langurs, or Indian langurs. However, Pocock was able to use the expression "Indian langur" at a time, before 1947, when India broadly meant South Asia (and included Nepal, Pakistan, Bangladesh, in addition to India, but not Ceylon (Sri Lanka)). Today using India to mean South Asia would be problematic. (As is to be expected, Pockock never commits the cardinal sin of spelling grey "gray" (see page 92).) As for other names, "Hanuman" is the name of a deity in Hinduism; I doubt that is is commonly used any more, especially in today's more sensitive times. "Sacred" would be an even less frequently used common name. As for Groves, he is inconsistent, preferring his native Australian spelling for the Eastern/Western Grey Kangaroo but denying the same charity to the fellow-Commonwealthian Indian Langur, for Commonwealth English, too, spells, gray "grey." From my perspective, there are two options for names: "Grey langur," or "Langur, South Asia." Neither aligns with MSW3. So might as well go with "Grey Langur." Yes, people will attempt now and then to change the spelling, but so what, they attempt at least once a month at the Indus Valley Civilisation. Fowler&fowler «Talk» 01:52, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your 2 cents, which I enjoyed reading :) !! I too checked Pocock's account y'day to see whether referring to the common name he used would be a solution. And I fully agree with your opinion re using 'Hanuman', 'Sacred' or 'Indian'. But I think the only solution re the spelling of grey/gray, which seems to be a problem, is to use Semnopithecus as title. Latin names are used in lots of other pages on genera, see e.g.Vulpes, Felis, Prionailurus, Herpestes, Zosterops. -- BhagyaMani (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am certainly no expert, although I have access to a number of resources. I would be on board with Semnopithecus, especially since 2 of the species now included have never been referred to as "gray" or "grey" langurs as far as I know. I am not so sure about the objection to "Indian langur" though. I think that every single species has at least part of its range within the country of India or Sri Lanka. Since Sri Lanka is part of the Indian subcontinent, "Indian" is not inherently wrong in that context. I don't think that any non-Semnopithecus langurs occur in India or have much if any range within any Indian subcontinent countries. And apparently there is historic precedent for "Indian langur" (even though it didn't quite mean the same thing then) and at least some current practice by ITIS and as a descriptive term by other sources. I don't think "Langur, South Asia" works at all since the comma makes it awkward and I don't think it would meet the definition of a common name, either in the way it is traditionally used for animals or within WP:COMMMONNAME. Rlendog (talk) 14:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 18 December 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 22:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gray langur → Semnopithecus – Per the above discussion and recent Google Scholar results, although a majority of the species are referred to as grey langurs, there are two species that are not referred to as such, so there is no defined common name for the entire genus according to recent research. Therefore, it would be most appropriate to move the page to Semnopithecus, and a disambiguation page should be created for "Gray langur." PrimalMustelid (talk) 14:33, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Primates has been notified of this discussion. UtherSRG (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - Using the genus name is most appropriate. - UtherSRG (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Genus name is clear and unambiguous. The name should have been Gray langurs (plural), anyway. — Jts1882 | talk 15:56, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Gray langur was ok under the classification from 2005, before the 2 other species were classified as Semnopithecus. But now it doesn't really work. Rlendog (talk) 19:14, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.