Talk:Grizzled giant squirrel

Called "giant",

it's probably large. How large? - Hordaland (talk) 17:54, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Synonym use

I am reverting the edit done by Shyamal. The synonym field indicating that "zeylanicus (Ray, 1693)" was incorrect and was therefore removed is unfounced - this is the synonym for Ratufa macroura, as indicated by the MSW: http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=12400030 Removing this is a mistake. --Saukkomies ^talk 12:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it seemed as I did not find in Moore and Tate - if it is by John Ray it can be safely dropped as pre-Linnean names can be. The more important reason was the usage of "Source" - the authority - bracketing rules were not being followed. Moore and Tate note a Erxleben name of "ceylonicus" that they synonymize with the nominate ( http://www.archive.org/stream/studyofdiurnalsq48moor#page/21/mode/1up/ ) as does Reeder http://www.bucknell.edu/msw3/browse.asp?id=12400031 Shyamal (talk) 13:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the name is not part of zoological nomenclature and should not be in the synonyms box. However, Thorington and Hoffmann (in MSW 3) do mention it, separately from ceylonicus, as a synonym of R. macroura unassigned to subspecies. Ucucha 13:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Sinhalese name

As this article seems read protected (why?), I use the discussion page for a request of correction.

The article says The subspecies R. m. dandolena (taken from the Sinhalese language name for the squirrel, dhandu laena) is also found in India.. That name, while in principle correct, is rendered very badly in that statement. The correct form would be දඬුලේනා which might be rendered exactly as daⁿḍulēnā or perhaps more easily as dandulena. An approximate verification of that claim can be retrieved from the maduraonline dictionary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.68.7 (talk) 15:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Threatened?

Last world count is 200, as seen here - What's the status then?--Vinayaraj (talk) 02:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure about the veracity of that source and as for that number - that might be only for the Indian population - which was estimated higher at 500 by the IUCN - http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/19381/0 Shyamal (talk) 06:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)