Talk:Hamadryas baboon

Sacred Baboons keep wild dogs as pets

I just saw on the National Geographic channel how a tribe of Hamadryas baboons steal puppies from a wild dog litter and raise them as "pets", benefiting from their company and loyalty much as humans do: To protect the tribe from other wild dogs, and to play with the young. Anyone else know about this? I think this should be added to the article somewhere. As far as I know they would be the only non-human animal to keep dogs as pets! --Rcgy (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

If you can cite a verifiable and reliabe source, then please do add it. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The 'pest' reference was POV and the European 'lustful' comments are doubtful

I deleted the reference to hamadryas baboons being considered a 'pest' as it appeared very POV and also had no place in the 'mythology' section. The destruction of their habitat through farming is already covered and describes the situation better.

Also is someone having a laugh with the 'lechers' section? I've deleted it to be on the safe side but please put it back if you can find sources for it. Also please try and word it more encyclopaedically - eg 'undergarments' instead of 'pants'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.30.215 (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

"this species also shows sexual dimorphism in coloration"

The most striking thing about them, their brightly-colored "sitting pads", isn't mentioned in the article! Why's that? --John (talk) 02:19, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

the largest day ranges of any primate

I find this quote to be extremely dubious. I found no sources stating that baboons have the largest day ranges of any primates. The only source I could find suggesting a day range is 900-3000 meters, which is clearly well below that of humans.

Distribution in Asia

I have seen large packs of Hamadryas Baboons in Saudi Arabia, all along the Hejaaz area including Medina and Makkah. Yet the map shows only Yemen. This is misleading. Actually I believe the number of Baboon are much higher in Saudi Arabia then in Yemen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.223.187.171 (talk) 11:49, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also agree and came here to say they live in numbers between Jeddah and Medina (and are quite a bit of a common roadside attraction even). The map should be adjusted. —ayman (talk) 21:52, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

They're a tourist attraction around Abha and Kamis Mushayt. The buses stop on the highway. Yes, the map is incorrect. The range extends well into Saudi Arabia. JuanTamad (talk) 00:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Literally the first photo in the article (File:Male Hamadryas Baboon (8083148924).jpg) is of a baboon in Ta'if, which is several hundred kilometers north of the border with Yemen, which is just about the northern edge of its range according to File:Hamadryas_Baboon_area.png. Can anyone give a reliable source with an accurate description of the range of this species in SA? @Aymanshamma and Jtamad: any idea? —Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 03:35, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Incorrect photos

At least two of the photos (in particular, the two photos of adult female baboons) are not hamadryas baboons, but are hybrids between hamadryas and olive baboons. It looks like these photos were taken in the hybrid zone in the southern part of Awash National Park. (Not all of the baboons in Awash National Park are hamadryas; some are olives (Papio anubis), and some are hybrids between the two species.) These photos should be replaced with photos of hamadryas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lenaloop (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Just seen this. I agree that the picture of the female baboon at the head of article is clearly a hybrid, and excellent though the picture is, it ought not to be used as an illustration of a hamadyras female. I suggest we replace it with one of a wholly hamadryas female such as this:

Tim riley talk 22:48, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Environmental physiology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 5 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AngeloB99 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: HLStewart2000, Madisonnew.

— Assignment last updated by Jessicaphillips10 (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't there more information on how Hamadryas Baboons have been found mummified and entombed?

There are scientific journals stating that there are mummified Hamadryas Baboons that reveal captive breeding in Egypt. AngeloB99 (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like something you can work on for your school project. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit warring for useless reason

@BhagyaMani: Why are you reverting my usage of "extirpation"? It is a valid scientific term. And what do you mean by neutral? Neutral to what? Per the rules, you have reverted my edits three times now, which is edit warring. Please explain yourself. 74.67.164.210 (talk) 03:20, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Extirpation is the more correct and precise term, whilst locally extinct is used in the media and general public. BhagyaMani (talk) has not excellent English comprehension and frequently refuses to discuss his changes. There is a discussion here Talk:Local extinction#Extirpation vs local extinction which seemed to end in the conclusion that Wikipedia was going to prefer to use local extinction in most cases. I have no idea what BhagyaMani (talk) is going on about with "neutral". Jameel the Saluki (talk) 06:25, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Read all about intuitiveness of piped links at MOS:EGG. For a link to a page titled "Local extinction" the most intuitive pipe is "locally extinct". – BhagyaMani (talk) 10:52, 13 November 2022 (UTC)