Talk:Malbrouck

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Africa Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct species on the photo?

Could someone with the available resources check the identity of the monkey on the photo [1] currently used in this article? It was taken near Livingstone, Zambia, which is right on the border between the Malbrouck (Chlorocebus cynosuros) and the Vervet Monkey (C. pygerythrus). It also lacks the pale blotches in the face (or is the faint paleness around the muzzle enough?), which specifically is mentioned for Chlorocebus cynosuros in Kingdon's guide (where listed as a subspecies of C. pygerythrus; see ref. in Malbrouck article). 212.10.91.173 (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A fast search only turns up a single photo of Chlorocebus cynosuros ([2] - page by Naturalis, so likely reliable), and it has strikingly whitish areas around the eyes − very unlike the individual on the on the photo in this article, which looks like a pretty typical C. pygerythrus. I am removing the photo, as its identification, based on this and above comment, is highly questionable at best. Should someone be able to show this is wrong, please do not hesitate to re-insert the photo. 212.10.91.173 (talk) 00:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a brief addendum it should be added that Chlorocebus cynosuros is monotypic, i.e. no geographical variations identified, making it even less likely that the commons photo is correctly identified as this species. 212.10.91.173 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]