Jump to content
Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia

Talk:Uganda mangabey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is written in Ugandan English and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
A fact from Uganda mangabey appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 30 August 2019 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2019/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Wildlife of Uganda.
Wikipedia
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject icon Primates Low‐importance
WikiProject icon 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
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject icon Africa : Uganda Low‐importance
WikiProject icon 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
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Uganda .

Untitled

[edit ]

This is still not a valid taxon! See: http://primatology.net/2007/02/20/a-new-species-of-gray-cheeked-mangabey-anounced/

--Esculapio (talk) 16:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

That's a blog. i'm not impressed. the taxon is valid, as it was described in 1912 by Matchie. Groves doesn't need to re-describe it. He only needs to elevate its status, which he has done. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC) [reply ]

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /