Talk:Gibbon

Gibbon wall partitions at the Met?

I removed this edit for comment here.

<<Some say the Gibbon wall partitions (New York Metropolitan Museum of Art) reveal the true dual nature of the gibbon: troublesome yet speculative -- a notion that is highly debated to this day.>>

I also note the quality of that editor's other changes to Wikipedia. The Gibbon wall partitions at the Met may be notable enough for exposition in Wikipedia. But we would need some citations, such as perhaps a picture from the Met Website. Nevertheless, even if the Gibbon wall partitions at the Met are both 1) notable and 2) supported, still the Gibbon wall partitions have nothing to do with the "gibbons" that are the small apes in the family Hylobatidae. Any ideas? --Rednblu 20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

social

Are gibbons social animals? The article doesn't say.--24.52.254.62 18:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and I've updated the article. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:42, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to know a bit more about that. I noticed the pairing ritual at the zoo where the male approached the female while doing gymnastic tricks and immediately started playing with the females genitale organs. The female rejected the male. A few hours later when we saw these two apes again the female was eating, I noticed that the female didn't share food. The flirting of the male earlier made me think that these animals are socially developed so now I wonder if these animals are socially that developed that they have some leve of empathy. Do gibbons share food? Do they comfort each other when one is afraid? How well are they socially developed compared to gorilla's and elephants?

193.190.253.147 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there a collective noun for a group of gibbons?--88.105.124.56 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC) No, there is no collective noun for a group of gibbons. Though I'm sure a "troop" would work, as it works for chimpanzees. Fayrfayr (talk) 04:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Nomascus hainanus

Groves vide Wilson & Reeder (2005) recognized Nomascus hainanus as a separate valid species and treated N. nasutus as a subspecies of N. concolor. This is based on his revision of the gibbon family (Groves, 2001).

Groves, C.P. 2001. Primate Taxonomy. Smithsonian Institute Press: Washington, D.C.

Groves, Colin (16 November 2005). in Wilson, D. E., and Reeder, D. M. (eds): Mammal Species of the World, 3rd edition, Johns Hopkins University Press, 178-181. ISBN 0-801-88221-4.

Therefore, revise the species listing. 72.194.116.63 02:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC) Vahe Demirjian 18.28 21 February 2007.

However, Geissman revised after that, and Mootnick and Groves revises Hoolock as well. What was here before your edit was more uptodate than your edit, so I revert. - UtherSRG (talk) 04:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

I rated this article as "high" importance, but I am wondering if it should actually be "top". Any thoughts? Rlendog (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it should be top. Any existing ape Family should be of top importance. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 22:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

(From the article) "One unique aspect of gibbon physiology is that the wrist is composed of a ball and socket joint" Unique among whom? Primates? All mammals? Might be obvious to a zoologist but to the average reader such as myself... Hadrian89 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

As the lower arm consists of paired bones and the hand even more, it is difficult to understand how all these are articulated using "a ball and socket" - this really needs some better explantion and convincing citation.--88.105.124.56 (talk) 20:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few requests for citations with reasons. The quality of the entire section is questionable, but I stopped myself from getting more triggered where it continues to state that gibbons have hands with fingers and thumb, like, er, primates? It just goes on and on! Surprised to see no one has improved that in fifteen years since the two complaints above. 2A02:A473:FE0C:1:86DE:5B4:2B88:E36 (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Source for expansion

A new study can be read about here, discussing new material from:

• Channon, A.J.; Crompton, R.H.; Günther, M.M.; Vereecke, E.E. (2010). "The biomechanics of leaping in gibbons". American Journal of Physical Anthropology. doi:10.1002/ajpa.21329.

Whoever eventually revamps this article may want to include this information. – VisionHolder « talk » 13:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

A new Gibbon

A new Gibbon is being claimed by some German researchers called the northern buffed-cheeked gibbon. Not sure where to put this but their findings are in a Vietnamese journal of some kind.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You will need a citation, as a minimum - ideally one in English, if available, so that the validity of the species can be judged. Anaxial (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Reference: Thinh, V.N. et al. (2010). A new species of crested gibbon, from the central Annamite mountain range. Vietnamese Journal of Primatology 1 (4): 1–12. Burmeister (talk) 19:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I just heard it on the news and thought mentioning it might prompt someone else to post a reference if they knew of one. I'm glad someone did!--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Colour changes

I removed this section: "The male gibbon sometimes ends up with some dark patches in the white to show it is a suitable choice for mating." as there is no citation and "this makes no sense. Gibbons are all different colours, i.e. different species have different pelages, some are sexually or not sexually dichromatic. There is no “white” gibbon. Gibbon pelage does change on maturity in some taxa, which may act as a signal of sexual maturity", as quoted from an email from Dr Benjamin Rawson, one of the foremost gibbon experts ("IUCN SSC PSG Section on Small Apes". Retrieved 15 August 2015.)

Number of species

This article says that there are 18 species of gibbon. As I count the number of species in each genus, there are, resp. 7, 4, 4, 1, which add up to 16. I don't know which numbers are incorrect, so I don't want to change anything, but I want to draw attention to this discrepancy. TomS TDotO (talk) 22:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think you may have miscounted; the article lists the number of species in each genus as Hylobates (7), Nomascus (7), Hoolock (3), Symphalangus (1), which does indeed add up to 18. Anaxial (talk) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gibbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217022947/http://www.gibbonconservation.org//07_journal/gibbon_journal_4.pdf to http://www.gibbonconservation.org//07_journal/gibbon_journal_4.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)