Talk:Slender loris

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.blueplanetbiomes.org/slender_loris.htm. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:45, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion 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.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Slender loris/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Propitheque (talk · contribs) 19:01, 22 September 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 07:37, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

• Why is the type species Loris tardigradus attributed to É. Geoffroy, 1796 rather than to Linnaeus? Also, from my understanding, the type species should be "Lemur tardigradus Linnaeus, 1758".

• In general, I think that the prose could be improved, especially in terms of WP:MTAU. A few examples from the lead:
  • eyes that lie close together, exhibiting the lowest interocular distance of all primates – can't we just say "eyes that lie closer together than in any other primate"?
  • pedal digit – why not "toe"?
  • The dentition possesses the typical strepsirrhine toothcomb – explain what the toothcomb consist of?
  • and sways from side-to-side as a slender loris travels across its preferred substrates of twigs, branches, and vines. – Do we really need the term "substrates" here? And does this mean that it does not sway side-to-side when walking on, say, a power pole?
  • The spine is characterised by an elongated shape – why not just "the spine is elongated"?

• The first paragraph of the Etymology section is a bit hard to understand for me.
  • The Comte de Buffon was the first to identify the slender lorises with the term "loris" in the 13th volume of the Histoire Naturelle, which he adopted from the Dutch language name for the animals, loeris – How can he be the first if that name already existed?
  • Sinhala – link?
  • These renditions of "loris" would later be used to name pottos in the form of luyaerd, meaning "sluggard" – I am confused how a cacography of a name can suddenly have another meaning? And what language is "luyaerd" then?

• The taxonomy section is also pretty hard to follow (even though I like taxonomy sections). I think the section does not explain enough and leaves me quite confused. It's a bit hard to narrow down what throws me of, but examples below.
  • The trivial name tardigradus – I would suggest to use "specific name" rather than this historical term, which is clearer.
  • Carl Linnaeus described slender lorises as Lemur tardigradus in the 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae.[3]: 134  Although the red slender loris is the type species of Linnaeus' Lemur – why is it the type species? Because the holotype happens to be a red slender loris?
  • If the red slender loris is the type species of Lemur, why is it no longer part of that genus, how can that be? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for choosing to review the article, @Jens Lallensack. I have edited the article in accordance with your feedback, and I believe that the taxonomy section is now more legible. I removed the content about the luyaerd, since, upon closer examination, I found that the source I had cited for that content was not solid linguistic scholarship.

  I made the following notes in response to three of the points that were raised:

  • The Sinhala article is already linked in the etymology section. It is mentioned twice, so the second mention is not linked.
  • You are correct in that the red slender loris was the type species of Linnaeus' Lemur because it was the holotype.
  • The word "lemur" was divorced from the genus Lemur that Linnaeus wrote of because the meaning changed, which is why the genus Lemus no longer includes lorises. I believe that this is explained in the taxonomy section.

  Propithèque (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes. Some follow ups, and I will continue with the rest soonish:

• I still think that the type species is Lemur tardigradus, not Loris tardigradus
• toothcomb consisting of procumbent, laterally flattened lower incisors and canines – attempting to explain the term for a lay reader, you introduced new, even more complicated terms, which does not help to make the article more accessible. Also, are they really laterally flattened (I think it's the opposite?). Why not simply "consisting of the flattened lower incisors and canines"?
• "Changes in taxonomy" seems like a rather unusual title; wouldn't it be better to remove that title and instead have a subsection title "Subspecies" for the table (I would also swap the order, with the table below the taxonomy part)?
• Although the red slender loris is the type species of Linnaeus' Lemur – You didn't yet address my comment here; I still believe this is wrong, or maybe I miss something. The type species of Lemur is Lemur catta, see .
• Arnout Vosmaer reiterated the sloth-like characteristics of lorises in 1770, which provoked a rebuttal from the Comte de Buffon, who disproved the sloth hypothesis – But Linneaus did not classify it as a sloth? So where is the "sloth hypothesis" coming from?
• The first author to elevate Loris to generic status and separate the slow and slender lorises into different species was Pieter Boddaert in 1784 – but Loris didn't exist at that time, so how could it be elevated?
• of the typical L. gracilis form – gracilis was not introduced before. Is it the only species recognised by Geoffroy?
• Believing that two gray slender loris specimens from Chennai were representatives of the typical L. gracilis form described by Geoffroy in 1796, Lydekker described the red slender loris as L. g. zeylanicus.[11] Ángel Cabrera attempted to correct Lydekker's error – I can't follow here. What is the error, and why; this seems to lack info or context.
• with the red slender loris remaining as the type species of the genus – And what is the red slender loris? What binomen?
• et al. – consider writing "and colleagues" instead to avoid jargon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:24, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Following your order of bullet points:

• Implemented
• Implemented
• This article follows WikiProject Primates' article format, which includes a "changes in taxonomy" subsection

• Hmm, not sure why the WikiProject Primates has to have a different structure from other TOL articles. The issue I have with this is that the table collides with the taxonbox; I guess this is why you limited the table size to 75%, but this makes the table columns too narrow to properly read at default font size. I would therefore remove the "|narrow-percent=75" parameter in the table. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Linnaeus' Lemur included the red slender loris as its type species, however the modern Lemur only includes the ring-tailed lemur. The members of the genus changed over time, which is why the article specifies that it was Linnaeus' Lemur.

• But Linnaeus' Lemur is the ring-tailed lemur (Lemur catta Linnaeus, 1758). Your sentence Although the red slender loris is the type species of Linnaeus' Lemur is inaccurate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I now see what you meant. I adjusted the sentence to remove mention of the type species. Propithèque (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• This sentence refers to the notion held by Seba and Vosmaer. I added a second mention of Vosmaer's name in the sentence to make it clear that that is what Buffon was referring to.

• It is unclear what that "hypothesis" is as you do not directly state that. Reiterating resemblances to sloths are not a hypothesis. I would directly state that Seba and Vosmaer took it a step further by hypothesizing that slender loris belong to the sloths. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

I have adjusted the sentence to specify that Vosmaer's position was meant to be taken as a hypothesis. Propithèque (talk) 21:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Changed "Loris" to "slender lorises" to specify that it refers to the animals themselves and not the taxonomic category
• Changed to just Loris; gracilis was left over from when I mentioned the full binomial name Geoffroy used earlier, which I removed to make it more clear that the first mention of his description refers to the genus alone.

• I think that for clarity, the specific name should better be mentioned too (you mention many species names later, and without mentioning Geoffroys name, it is unclear whether those are new names or not). How about As a result, taxonomic priority belongs to the name Loris, which was erected in 1796 by Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire for the red slender loris, which he named Loris gracilis, in the Magasin encyclopédique. I assume that L. gracilis is the only species of Loris recognized by Geoffroy? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Implemented. And yes, Geoffroy only recognized one species of Loris when he described it. Propithèque (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

For the table, I removed the parameter that you suggested. For my display, there is now a large gap in the page (I use Monobook), but I assume that, because it now looks better on Vector, this will be alright. Propithèque (talk) 21:23, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

• Removed extra content from the sentence to make this clearer.
• Removed this portion of the sentence altogether, as it was an unnecessary detail.
• Implemented

Propithèque (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2026 (UTC)

Description

• In general, I would advice to add in-text explanations for difficult technical terms, per WP:MTAU. The description section is very technical. Sometimes, you can avoid the techical term by replacing it with a common word and pipe-link it to the respective article (for example, slenderness instead of "gracility").

• their suite of highly derived traits. – The words "basal" and "derived" don't make much sense when talking about recent taxa (see ). And to keep it simple, I would reword this as "their high specialisation".

• They can be distinguished from other lorisids by their lithe habitus – You already said they are gracile before; now the same with another word, or do you mean something else here?

• The gray slender loris is much larger than the red slender loris – I see it is mentioned later, but the reader probably wants to know how large they are here where you mention it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:25, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

  I went through and removed technical information when possible, especially with the anatomical terms of location in the variation subsection and the part of the main section that deals with dentition. The technical terms that remain in the text should be limited to those that do not have an alternative name in common parlance. I also mentioned the sizes of the adult gray and red slender lorises in the first mention of the size differences. Propithèque (talk) 21:32, 19 October 2026 (UTC)

Rest

• Female slender lorises generally have exclusive home ranges, whereas males' may overlap multiple females – When male home ranges overlap those of females, the latter are not exclusive? Do male home ranges also overlap?

• during which time participants will engage in a gregarious period of frequent social interactions with conspecifics – "with conspecifics" is redundant

• behaviours can include association while feeding, play wrestling, and interaction with infants. – This information seems arbitrary. There are many more such behaviours mentioned further down but not listed here.

• slender lorises exposure fur gaps – "expose"?

• The slender lorises are carnivorous insectivores – Are there insectivores that are not carnivorous? This seems redundant.

• without a subspecific correlation. – What does this mean?

Sources (spot checks)

• Slender lorises may also produce ultrasonic vocalisations. – The source says In Loris , no study of the emission of ultrasounds has been made. It does not seem to support the claim that these exist.
• These are food items that are not sought after by potential competitors such as carnivorous reptiles, which places slender lorises in an ecological niche typically belonging to predatory and parasitic invertebrates. – I do not think that's accurate. Reptiles such as geckos do feed on ants, and this cannot be the ecological niche for slender lorises. Your source is very old here, please verify with newer literature.
• The eyes of slender lorises are prized in some Sri Lankan traditional medical practices, and gray slender loris body parts can be marketed as cure-all medicines. – Can't see the info about the eyes in the source.
• I have my concerns about "Animal Diversity Web" as a source. This is an encyclopedia written by students, and the quality is variable. We are at GAN here so I'm not going to push hard here, but I personally would look-up and use the sources cited by the student encyclopedia directly, which should result in a more accurate representation of those sources. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Apart from the above, I think we are close to GA level. However, I would highly recommend to make this article more accessible for the general readership, per WP:MTAU. (Note that WP:MTAU is part of GA criterion 1 "well written"). There is still a high density of technical terms; some are unnecessary (e.g., electrocution --> "electric shocks"), some could be easily explained in-text. For example, you could explain the dental formula ("meaning that there are two incisors, one canine … in each half of the upper jaw …"). Let me know if you need any specific advice here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2026 (UTC)

Re:Rest

• Reworded
• Removed
• Removed
• Fixed
• Fixed
• Reworded

Re:Sources

• Removed
• Removed the part about carnivorous reptiles, but the rest of the information will remain. I have not found any more recent literature that suggests that slender lorises do not occupy such a niche.
• Fixed; this was because of a missing in-line citation in the middle of the sentence.
• Re-sourced some info, removed other info that had no other source

Re:language

I have made several edits to the prose to make it more accessible, which can be found in the edit summaries labeled "ce" in the page history. I also explained the term "substrates" in the prose for a lack of a sufficient simpler term for the concept, and explained the dental and digital formulae. In response to the example you provided, "electrocution" is a commonly used English word that would be known to a general audience. It is also more accurate than "electric shocks" because it is a term specifically used for death caused by electricity. However, I am willing to change other cases of technical jargon that could be accurately substituted with more accessible terminology. Let me know if the changes I have made so far are insufficient, as I am willing to make more changes. Propithèque (talk) 19:45, 27 October 2026 (UTC)

Final comments

• meaning that slender lorises have two incisors, one canine, three premolars, and three molars in each half of the mouth. – actually, it's twice as much: In each half of the upper and lower jaws.
• Regarding WP:MTAU, what you can do is providing in-text explanations. For example, add a bracket explaining what "opposable" means (The thumb is not truly opposable). Readers should not have to chase links all the time in order to understand the text. In this case, the linked article is not even helpful (it says "Anatomists and other researchers focused on human anatomy have hundreds of definitions of opposition"), so best specify what you mean in-text here.
• One possible example of an in-text explanation: "rhinarium (the naked skin surrounding the nostrils)"
• Anyway, I think the article made great progress, and I will promote this soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 30 October 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you for reviewing the article! I appreciate you taking the time to help with improving it to a GA quality.

  I made some more changes in accordance with your latest feedback. I will continue to make the text more accessible as I re-read it and find more opportunities to do so. Propithèque (talk) 17:02, 31 October 2026 (UTC)

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.