The Zoochat Photographic Guide to Old World Primates

I thought you meant you were going to Kenya!

So are these animals labelled at the zoo as being matschiei, or is that just from Zootierliste? Your photo doesn't look like a matschiei, and neither do any of the photos I found online of Skansen's colobus. They look like kikuyuensis. And this page specifically says that while the male came wild-caught from Kenya, the others came from England (and also from within Sweden? - I wasn't clear on the translation): PIAS HEMSIDA

 

Given the source - a legendary liar in the Zoochat community a decade ago - I'd take that with more than a pinch of salt......

 

Yes, as TLD says, anything by Sebbe (in any of his various accounts) needs to be weighed very carefully against existing evidence because he is 100% untrustworthy. In this case though, I think he took his number of seven animals directly from ISIS which at that time listed Skansen as having seven matschiei and one unspecified animal. However Skansen were listing in the IZY back in the 1990s as holding matschiei too. I suspect that they have simply retained that ID whatever they may have now (regardless of whether they originally held matschiei or not). From the origin of their animals as noted in the link earlier I really find it unlikely they would be matschiei and, as said earlier, the photos I've seen don't look like that subspecies to me.

So, in summary, they could be matschiei but I doubt it; so I will leave the photo out of the thread.

 

In short, lied about owning a private collection in Myanmar and posted a thread discussing the various species he held, including many many photographs.... which is what caused him to be rumbled in the end, as eventually people caught onto the fact all the photographs were stolen from various sources.

He also posted various trip reports and zoo reviews from south-east Asia which (given the above revelation, and the discovery that all his posts were actually made from Sweden) can also be safely discounted.

After being rumbled, he abandoned that particular account.... but legends still tell of the fact that he walks among us still from time to time, creating new accounts for the purpose when the wind blows from the right direction

 

Start here: Pics from my private zoo in Myanmar

 

Three shots taken by @alexkant and uploaded by myself with his permission, and which may be of use as regards this thread as two plug gaps and a third represents a better shot than the one we have....

Chlorocebus cynosuros at Gradina Zoologica Bucuresti - uploaded on behalf of alexkant | ZooChat

Cercopithecus erythrotis at Shanghai Zoo - uploaded on behalf of alexkant | ZooChat

Nomascus concolor at Seoul Grand Park Zoo - uploaded on behalf of alexkant | ZooChat

 

The gibbon isn't N. concolor (females of this species have a black belly) - it is most likely to be one of the white-cheeked gibbons.

The guenon isn't C. erythrotis, but rather a probable variant of C. ascanius whitesidei. There is a good side-by-side comparison illustration of this form and erythrotis in Kingdon's Mammals of Africa. Same goes for the photos of (the same?) animal by @FunkyGibbon in the Shanghai Zoo gallery. The photo by @devilfish in the Pata Zoo gallery is also of C. ascanius.

The Malbrouck Monkey looks quite good for being that species, although it may not be pure. The face colour looks a bit off. Interestingly, Zootierliste have Bucharest as having non-subspecific Chlorocebus. I will add that photo to the thread though with a note that it may not be pure.

 

Odd; I have actually seen C. ascanius whitesidei and it didn't look like this animal at all

This is the individual I have seen:



Conversely, all the photographs I can find online of wild Cercopithecus erythrotis look *just* like the Shanghai animal

For instance....

A Vulnerable Red Eared Guenon Cercopithecus Erythrotis At Limbe Wildlife Center Stock Photo | Getty Images

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species

 

Your photo is a typical whitesidei, not the variant. (I think this probably the reason these particular animals are being misidentified).

For photos of genuine erythrotis the similarity is only general - they have a wide black facial stripe, not a narrow stripe, and it is a different shape; there is no large buffy patch above the stripe; the mouth area is a different colour; etc etc.

 

So, are the animals photographed in those links *also* misidentified? Because I still cannot see the difference

To be honest, I'm a little baffled as to why the suspect animals are being called a variant of whitesidei in particular given the fact the other ascanius subspecies look more like erythrotis than it does.

 

On another note, the gibbon isn't the greatest of photographs so as it is not N. concolor, I will delete it now

 

No, those are genuine erythrotis.

 

I'm very confused then

 

Well... I can't help with that