text:
Hard water

Hard water is water that has a high mineral content (in contrast with "soft water"). Hard water is formed when water percolates through deposits of limestone, chalk or gypsum, which are largely made up of calcium and magnesium carbonates, bicarbonates and sulfates.

Drinking hard water may have moderate health benefits. It can pose critical problems in industrial settings, where water hardness is monitored to avoid costly breakdowns in boilers, cooling towers, and other equipment that handles water. In domestic settings, hard water is often indicated by a lack of foam formation when soap is agitated in water, and by the formation of limescale in kettles and water heaters. Wherever water hardness is a concern, water softening is commonly used to reduce hard water's adverse effects.

Origins
Natural rainwater, snow and other forms of precipitation typically have low concentrations of divalent cations such as calcium and magnesium. They may have small concentrations of ions such as sodium, chloride and sulfate derived from wind action over the sea. Where precipitation falls in drainage basins formed of hard, impervious and calcium-poor rocks, only very low concentrations of divalent cations are found and the water is termed soft water. Examples include Snowdonia in Wales and the Western Highlands in Scotland.

Areas with complex geology can produce varying degrees of hardness of water over short distances.

Permanent hardness
The permanent hardness of water is determined by the water's concentration of cations with charges greater than or equal to 2+. Usually, the cations have a charge of 2+, i.e., they are divalent. Common cations found in hard water include Ca2+ and Mg2+, which frequently enter water supplies by leaching from minerals within aquifers. Common calcium-containing minerals are calcite and gypsum. A common magnesium mineral is dolomite (which also contains calcium). Rainwater and distilled water are soft, because they contain few of these ions.

The following equilibrium reaction describes the dissolving and formation of calcium carbonate and calcium bicarbonate (on the right):
 * CaCO3 (s) + CO2 (aq) + H2O (l) Ca2+ (aq) + 2  (aq)

The reaction can go in either direction. Rain containing dissolved carbon dioxide can react with calcium carbonate and carry calcium ions away with it. The calcium carbonate may be re-deposited as calcite as the carbon dioxide is lost to the atmosphere, sometimes forming stalactites and stalagmites.

Calcium and magnesium ions can sometimes be removed by water softeners.

Permanent hardness (mineral content) is generally difficult to remove by boiling. If this occurs, it is usually caused by the presence of calcium sulfate/calcium chloride and/or magnesium sulfate/magnesium chloride in the water, which do not precipitate out as the temperature increases. Ions causing the permanent hardness of water can be removed using a water softener, or ion-exchange column.

Temporary hardness
Temporary hardness is caused by the presence of dissolved bicarbonate minerals (calcium bicarbonate and magnesium bicarbonate). When dissolved, these types of minerals yield calcium and magnesium cations (Ca2+, Mg2+) and carbonate and bicarbonate anions ( and ). The presence of the metal cations makes the water hard. However, unlike the permanent hardness caused by sulfate and chloride compounds, this "temporary" hardness can be reduced either by boiling the water or by the addition of lime (calcium hydroxide) through the process of lime softening. Boiling promotes the formation of carbonate from the bicarbonate and precipitates calcium carbonate out of solution, leaving water that is softer upon cooling.

Effects
With hard water, soap solutions form a white precipitate (soap scum) instead of producing lather, because the 2+ ions destroy the surfactant properties of the soap by forming a solid precipitate (the soap scum). A major component of such scum is calcium stearate, which arises from sodium stearate, the main component of soap:
 * 2 C17H35COO− (aq) + Ca2+ (aq) → (C17H35COO)2Ca (s)

Hardness can thus be defined as the soap-consuming capacity of a water sample, or the capacity of precipitation of soap as a characteristic property of water that prevents the lathering of soap. Synthetic detergents do not form such scums.

Because soft water has few calcium ions, there is no inhibition of the lathering action of soaps and no soap scum is formed in normal washing. Similarly, soft water produces no calcium deposits in water heating systems.

Hard water also forms deposits that clog plumbing. These deposits, called "scale", are composed mainly of calcium carbonate (CaCO3), magnesium hydroxide (Mg(OH)2), and calcium sulfate (CaSO4). Calcium and magnesium carbonates tend to be deposited as off-white solids on the inside surfaces of pipes and heat exchangers. This precipitation (formation of an insoluble solid) is principally caused by thermal decomposition of bicarbonate ions but also happens in cases where the carbonate ion is at saturation concentration. The resulting build-up of scale restricts the flow of water in pipes. In boilers, the deposits impair the flow of heat into water, reducing the heating efficiency and allowing the metal boiler components to overheat. In a pressurized system, this overheating can lead to the failure of the boiler. The damage caused by calcium carbonate deposits varies on the crystalline form, for example, calcite or aragonite.

The presence of ions in an electrolyte, in this case, hard water, can also lead to galvanic corrosion, in which one metal will preferentially corrode when in contact with another type of metal when both are in contact with an electrolyte. The softening of hard water by ion exchange does not increase its corrosivity per se. Similarly, where lead plumbing is in use, softened water does not substantially increase plumbo-solvency.

In swimming pools, hard water is manifested by a turbid, or cloudy (milky), appearance to the water. Calcium and magnesium hydroxides are both soluble in water. The solubility of the hydroxides of the alkaline-earth metals to which calcium and magnesium belong (group 2 of the periodic table) increases moving down the column. Aqueous solutions of these metal hydroxides absorb carbon dioxide from the air, forming insoluble carbonates, and giving rise to turbidity. This often results from the pH being excessively high (pH > 7.6). Hence, a common solution to the problem is, while maintaining the chlorine concentration at the proper level, to lower the pH by the addition of hydrochloric acid, the optimum value is in the range of 7.2 to 7.6.

Softening
In some cases it is desirable to soften hard water. Most detergents contain ingredients that counteract the effects of hard water on the surfactants. For this reason, water softening is often unnecessary. Where softening is practised, it is often recommended to soften only the water sent to domestic hot water systems to prevent or delay inefficiencies and damage due to scale formation in water heaters. A common method for water softening involves the use of ion-exchange resins, which replace ions like Ca2+ by twice the number of mono cations such as sodium or potassium ions.

Washing soda (sodium carbonate, Na2CO3) is easily obtained and has long been used as a water softener for domestic laundry, in conjunction with the usual soap or detergent.

Water that has been treated by a water softening may be termed softened water. In these cases, the water may also contain elevated levels of sodium or potassium and bicarbonate or chloride ions.

Health considerations
The World Health Organization says that "there does not appear to be any convincing evidence that water hardness causes adverse health effects in humans". In fact, the United States National Research Council has found that hard water serves as a dietary supplement for calcium and magnesium.

Some studies have shown a weak inverse relationship between water hardness and cardiovascular disease in men, up to a level of 170 mg calcium carbonate per litre of water. The World Health Organization has reviewed the evidence and concluded the data was inadequate to recommend a level of hardness.

Recommendations have been made for the minimum and maximum levels of calcium (40–80 ppm) and magnesium (20–30 ppm) in drinking water, and a total hardness expressed as the sum of the calcium and magnesium concentrations of 2–4 mmol/L.

Other studies have shown weak correlations between cardiovascular health and water hardness.

The prevalence of atopic dermatitis (eczema) in children may be increased by hard drinking water. Living in areas with hard water may also play a part in the development of AD in early life. However, when AD is already established, using water softeners at home does not reduce the severity of the symptoms.

Measurement
Hardness can be quantified by instrumental analysis. The total water hardness is the sum of the molar concentrations of Ca2+ and Mg2+, in mol/L or mmol/L units. Although water hardness usually measures only the total concentrations of calcium and magnesium (the two most prevalent divalent metal ions), iron, aluminium, and manganese are also present at elevated levels in some locations. The presence of iron characteristically confers a brownish (rust-like) colour to the calcification, instead of white (the colour of most of the other compounds).

Water hardness is often not expressed as a molar concentration, but rather in various units, such as degrees of general hardness (dGH), German degrees (°dH), parts per million (ppm, mg/L, or American degrees), grains per gallon (gpg), English degrees (°e, e, or °Clark), or French degrees (°fH, °f or °HF; lowercase f is used to prevent confusion with degrees Fahrenheit). The table below shows conversion factors between the various units.
 * {| class=" wikitable"

! || 1 mmol/L || 1 ppm, mg/L || 1 dGH, °dH || 1 gpg || 1 °e, °Clark || 1 °fH ! mmol/L ! ppm, mg/L ! dGH, °dH ! gpg ! °e, °Clark ! °fH The various alternative units represent an equivalent mass of calcium oxide (CaO) or calcium carbonate (CaCO3) that, when dissolved in a unit volume of pure water, would result in the same total molar concentration of Mg2+ and Ca2+. The different conversion factors arise from the fact that equivalent masses of calcium oxide and calcium carbonates differ and that different mass and volume units are used. The units are as follows:
 * + Hardness unit conversion.
 * 1       || 0.009991 || 0.1783   || 0.171    || 0.1424   || 0.09991
 * 100.1   || 1        || 17.85    || 17.12    || 14.25    ||10
 * 5.608   || 0.05603  || 1        || 0.9591   || 0.7986   || 0.5603
 * 5.847   || 0.05842  || 1.043    || 1        || 0.8327   || 0.5842
 * 7.022   || 0.07016  || 1.252    || 1.201    || 1        || 0.7016
 * 10.01   ||0.1|| 1.785    || 1.712    || 1.425    || 1
 * }
 * Parts per million (ppm) is usually defined as 1 mg/L CaCO3 (the definition used below). It is equivalent to mg/L without chemical compound specified, and to American degree.
 * Grain per gallon (gpg) is defined as 1 grain (64.8 mg) of calcium carbonate per U.S. gallon (3.79 litres), or 17.118 ppm.
 * a mmol/L is equivalent to 100.09 mg/L CaCO3 or 40.08 mg/L Ca2+.
 * A degree of General Hardness (dGH or 'German degree (°dH, deutsche Härte))' is defined as 10 mg/L CaO or 17.848 ppm.
 * A Clark degree (°Clark) or English degrees (°e or e) is defined as one grain (64.8 mg) of CaCO3 per Imperial gallon (4.55 litres) of water, equivalent to 14.254 ppm.
 * A French degree (°fH or °f) is defined as 10 mg/L CaCO3, equivalent to 10 ppm.

Hard/soft classification
As it is the precise mixture of minerals dissolved in the water, together with water's pH and temperature, that determine the behaviour of the hardness, a single-number scale does not adequately describe hardness. However, the United States Geological Survey uses the following classification for hard and soft water:
 * {| class=" wikitable"

! Classification || mg-CaCO3/L (ppm) || mmol/L || dGH/°dH || gpg Seawater is considered to be very hard due to various dissolved salts. Typically seawater's hardness is in the area of 6,570; ppm (6.57 grams per litre). In contrast, freshwater has a hardness in the range of 15 to 375 ppm; generally around 600 mg/L.
 * Soft || 0–60 || 0–0.60 || 0–3.37 || 0–3.50
 * Moderately hard || 61–120 || 0.61–1.20 || 3.38–6.74 || 3.56–7.01
 * Hard || 121–180 || 1.21–1.80 || 6.75–10.11 || 7.06–10.51
 * Very hard || ≥ 181 || ≥ 1.81 || ≥ 10.12 || ≥ 10.57
 * }
 * Hard || 121–180 || 1.21–1.80 || 6.75–10.11 || 7.06–10.51
 * Very hard || ≥ 181 || ≥ 1.81 || ≥ 10.12 || ≥ 10.57
 * }
 * }

Indices
Several indices are used to describe the behaviour of calcium carbonate in water, oil, or gas mixtures.

Langelier saturation index (LSI)
The Langelier saturation index (sometimes Langelier stability index) is a calculated number used to predict the calcium carbonate stability of water. It indicates whether the water will precipitate, dissolve, or be in equilibrium with calcium carbonate. In 1936, Wilfred Langelier developed a method for predicting the pH at which water is saturated in calcium carbonate (called pHs). The LSI is expressed as the difference between the actual system pH and the saturation pH:

 * LSI = pH (measured) − pHs

 * For LSI > 0, water is supersaturated and tends to precipitate a scale layer of CaCO3.
 * For LSI = 0, water is saturated (in equilibrium) with CaCO3. A scale layer of CaCO3 is neither precipitated nor dissolved.
 * For LSI < 0, water is under-saturated and tends to dissolve solid CaCO3.

If the actual pH of the water is below the calculated saturation pH, the LSI is negative and the water has a very limited scaling potential. If the actual pH exceeds pHs, the LSI is positive, and being supersaturated with CaCO3, the water tends to form scale. At increasing positive index values, the scaling potential increases.

In practice, water with an LSI between −0.5 and +0.5 will not display enhanced mineral dissolving or scale-forming properties. Water with an LSI below −0.5 tends to exhibit noticeably increased dissolving abilities while water with an LSI above +0.5 tends to exhibit noticeably increased scale-forming properties.

The LSI is temperature-sensitive. The LSI becomes more positive as the water temperature increases. This has particular implications in situations where well water is used. The temperature of the water when it first exits the well is often significantly lower than the temperature inside the building served by the well or at the laboratory where the LSI measurement is made. This increase in temperature can cause scaling, especially in cases such as water heaters. Conversely, systems that reduce water temperature will have less scaling.
 * Water analysis:
 * pH = 7.5
 * TDS = 320 mg/L
 * Calcium = 150 mg/L (or ppm) as CaCO3
 * Alkalinity = 34 mg/L (or ppm) as CaCO3

 * LSI formula:
 * LSI = pH − pHs
 * pHs = (9.3 + A + B) − (C + D) where:
 * A = $log_{10}[TDS] − 1⁄10$ = 0.15
 * B = −13.12 × log10(°C + 273) + 34.55 = 2.09 at 25 °C and 1.09 at 82 °C
 * C = log10[Ca2+ as CaCO3] - 0.4 = 1.78
 * (Ca2+ as CaCO3 is also called calcium hardness, and is calculated as 2.5[Ca2+])
 * D = log10[alkalinity as CaCO3] = 1.53

Ryznar stability index (RSI)
The Ryznar stability index (RSI) uses a database of scale thickness measurements in municipal water systems to predict the effect of water chemistry. It was developed from empirical observations of corrosion rates and film formation in steel mains.

This index is defined as:

 * RSI = 2 pHs – pH (measured)

 * For 6.5 < RSI < 7 water is considered to be approximately at saturation equilibrium with calcium carbonate
 * For RSI > 8 water is undersaturated and, therefore, would tend to dissolve any existing solid CaCO3
 * For RSI < 6.5 water tends to be scale form

Puckorius scaling index (PSI)
The Puckorius scaling index (PSI) uses slightly different parameters to quantify the relationship between the saturation state of the water and the amount of limescale deposited.

Other indices
Other indices include the Larson-Skold Index, the Stiff-Davis Index, and the Oddo-Tomson Index.

Regional information
The hardness of local water supplies depends on the source of water. Water in streams flowing over volcanic (igneous) rocks will be soft, while water from boreholes drilled into porous rock is normally very hard.

In Australia
Analysis of water hardness in major Australian cities by the Australian Water Association shows a range from very soft (Melbourne) to hard (Adelaide). Total hardness levels of calcium carbonate in ppm are:

 * Canberra: 40
 * Melbourne: 10–26
 * Sydney: 39.4–60.1
 * Perth: 29–226
 * Brisbane: 100
 * Adelaide: 134–148
 * Hobart: 5.8–34.4
 * Darwin: 31

In Canada
Prairie provinces (mainly Saskatchewan and Manitoba) contain high quantities of calcium and magnesium, often as dolomite, which are readily soluble in the groundwater that contains high concentrations of trapped carbon dioxide from the last glaciation. In these parts of Canada, the total hardness in ppm of calcium carbonate equivalent frequently exceeds 200 ppm, if groundwater is the only source of potable water. The west coast, by contrast, has unusually soft water, derived mainly from mountain lakes fed by glaciers and snowmelt.

Some typical values are:
 * Montreal 116 ppm
 * Calgary 165 ppm
 * Regina 496 ppm
 * Saskatoon 160–180 ppm
 * Winnipeg 77 ppm
 * Toronto 121 ppm
 * Vancouver < 3 ppm
 * Charlottetown, PEI 140–150 ppm
 * Waterloo Region 400 ppm
 * Guelph 460 ppm
 * Saint John (West) 160–200 ppm
 * Ottawa 30 ppm

In England and Wales
Information from the British Drinking Water Inspectorate shows that drinking water in England is generally considered to be 'very hard', with most areas of England, particularly east of a line between the Severn and Tees estuaries, exhibiting above 200 ppm for the calcium carbonate equivalent. Water in London, for example, is mostly obtained from the River Thames and River Lea both of which derive a significant proportion of their dry weather flow from springs in limestone and chalk aquifers. Wales, Devon, Cornwall and parts of northwest England are softer water areas and range from 0 to 200 ppm. In the brewing industry in England and Wales, water is often deliberately hardened with gypsum in the process of Burtonisation.

Generally, water is mostly hard in urban areas of England where soft water sources are unavailable. Several cities built water supply sources in the 18th century as the industrial revolution and urban population burgeoned. Manchester was a notable such city in North West England and its wealthy corporation built several reservoirs at Thirlmere and Haweswater in the Lake District to the north. There is no exposure to limestone or chalk in their headwaters and consequently the water in Manchester is rated as 'very soft'. Similarly, tap water in Birmingham is also soft as it is sourced from the Elan Valley Reservoirs in Wales, even though groundwater in the area is hard.

In Ireland
The EPA has published a standards handbook for the interpretation of water quality in Ireland in which definitions of water hardness are given. In this section, reference to original EU documentation is given, which sets out no limit for hardness. The handbook also gives no "Recommended or Mandatory Limit Values" for hardness. The handbook does indicate that above the midpoint of the ranges defined as "Moderately Hard", effects are seen increasingly: "The chief disadvantages of hard waters are that they neutralise the lathering power of soap[...] and, more important, that they can cause blockage of pipes and severely reduced boiler efficiency because of scale formation. These effects will increase as the hardness rises to and beyond 200 mg/L ."

In the United States
A collection of data from the United States found that about half the water stations tested had hardness over 120 mg per litre of calcium carbonate equivalent, placing them in the categories "hard" or "very hard". The other half were classified as soft or moderately hard. More than 85% of American homes have hard water. The softest waters occur in parts of the New England, South Atlantic-Gulf, Pacific Northwest, and Hawaii regions. Moderately hard waters are common in many of the rivers of the Tennessee, Great Lakes, and Alaska regions. Hard and very hard waters are found in some of the streams in most of the regions throughout the country. The hardest waters (greater than 1,000 ppm) are in streams in Texas, New Mexico, Kansas, Arizona, Utah, parts of Colorado, southern Nevada, and southern California.

title: Hard water


text:
Ilchester

Ilchester is a village and civil parish, situated on the River Yeo or Ivel, five miles north of Yeovil, in the English county of Somerset. Originally a Roman town, and later a market town, Ilchester has a rich medieval history and was a notable settlement in the county; around the 12th and 13th centuries it was effectively the county town. It had, however, declined in size and importance by the beginning of the 18th century, and the last markets were held in 1833. In 1889 the historic corporation that had governed the town (the Bailiff and Burgesses) was dissolved.

Ilchester is alternatively called Ivelchester (after the River Ivel) and the electoral ward of South Somerset District Council is named Ivelchester.

Geography
The parish, which includes the hamlet of Ilchester Mead, the former village of Sock Dennis or Stock-Dennis, and the old parish of Northover, has a population of 2,153. Sock Dennis lies on the Monarch's Way long-distance footpath.

The A303 road once passed through the village but now runs via a dual carriageway bypass just to the west.

The village of Yeovilton lies 1.5 mi to the east of Ilchester. RNAS Yeovilton continues to be a notable Royal Naval Air Station.

Roman times
In the Roman period, the place was named Lindinis and was the site of a fort and then a town on the Fosse Way. Finds from a large 4th-century cemetery at Northover House suggest Christian worship. It eventually served as one of two regional capitals for the Durotriges tribe.

Medieval times
The place-name 'Ilchester' is first attested in the Domesday Book of 1086, where it appears as Givelcestre. The name means 'Roman fort on the River Yeo'.

There is evidence of continuous occupation of Ilchester despite the Roman withdrawal from Britain around 410. Ilchester has been associated with the Cair Pensa vel Coyt listed among the 28 cities of Britain by the History of the Britons, on the basis that it should be read as an Old Welsh form of 'Penselwood' (coit being Welsh for "forest"), although others view it as three separate words: Pensa or Coyt. Bishop Ussher believed the listing referred to Exeter instead.

Around the year 1000, there was a mint at Ilchester, which was moved to South Cadbury following attacks by the Danes, and prior to the Siege of Ilchester in 1088.

The parish of Ilchester was part of the Tintinhull Hundred. Ilchester Friary was founded between 1221 and 1260 as a Dominican monastery. The buildings were restored in the 13th and 14th centuries until the site occupied a 1.6 ha site, and by the 15th century it extended beyond the town walls. It is believed to be the birthplace of Roger Bacon, possibly in 1213 or 1214. It was dissolved in 1538, as part of the dissolution of the monasteries, but the buildings continued to be used, as a silk mill and relief prison, particularly for Quakers, until it was finally demolished in the early 19th century.

Ilchester Nunnery was founded around 1217–1220 originally as White Hall Hospital (Latin: Alba Aula, French: Blanche Halle/Blanche Salle) and, by 1281, had been converted into an Augustinian nunnery. The original White Hall hospital had been created after the gift of a house and other property by William "The Dane" (Norman-French: Le Deneis etc., Latinised to Dacus {not in the least bit related to Dacia}, modernised to "Dennis") of Sock Dennis. From a branch of this family was possibly descended the influential Denys family of Devon, (arms: three Danish battle axes) seated at Orleigh, near Buckland Brewer, Devon, from the 12th. to 17th. centuries In the early 14th century concerns were raised about the management of the nunnery and the poverty of the nuns. The building was expanded in 1370. The nunnery was dissolved in 1463 and the chapel become a free chapel, which itself was dissolved in 1548. A ruined building still existed in 1791, but the stone was then used to build the nearby Castle Farm.

Ilchester was a base for Henry III of England for a short period in 1250.

During the 12th century it was the county town of Somerset. The town has a 13th-century mace with three kings and an angel on it, which is the oldest staff of office in England. It can be seen at Ilchester Museum, which is located at the Town Hall House.

Later times
In July 1645 during the English Civil War, Ilchester was the scene of several skirmishes between Royalist and Parliamentary forces fighting for control of the bridges over the River Parrett and River Yeo before the Battle of Langport.

In 1795 work began on the Ivelchester and Langport Navigation, a canal linking Ilchester with Langport, but the scheme was soon bankrupted.

From 1621 to 1832, Ilchester was a Parliamentary constituency and a notorious rotten borough. Ilchester was the parliamentary seat of Sir William Manners (later Lord Huntingtower) in 1803 and 1806; however, it is said that he maintained his position by demolishing the houses of his opponents and putting them in the workhouse which meant they were not able to vote. When his son was not elected in 1818 he demolished the workhouse. He was succeeded as Member of Parliament by the Irish playwright Richard Brinsley Sheridan, author of The School for Scandal.

In 1962 the Ilchester Cheese Company was formed.

Governance
The parish council has responsibility for local issues, including setting an annual precept (local rate) to cover the council's operating costs and producing annual accounts for public scrutiny. The parish council evaluates local planning applications and works with the local police, district council officers, and neighbourhood watch groups on matters of crime, security, and traffic. The parish council's role also includes initiating projects for the maintenance and repair of parish facilities, as well as consulting with the district council on the maintenance, repair, and improvement of highways, drainage, footpaths, public transport, and street cleaning. Conservation matters (including trees and listed buildings) and environmental issues are also the responsibility of the council.

The parish falls within the non-metropolitan district of South Somerset, which was formed on 1 April 1974 under the Local Government Act 1972, having previously been part of Yeovil Rural District. The district council is responsible for local planning and building control, local roads, council housing, environmental health, markets and fairs, refuse collection and recycling, cemeteries and crematoria, leisure services, parks, and tourism.

Somerset County Council is responsible for running the largest and most expensive local services such as education, social services, libraries, main roads, public transport, policing and fire services, trading standards, waste disposal and strategic planning.

The parish is in the 'Ivelchester' electoral ward. Ilchester is the most populous area of the ward but this stretches south east to Mudford. The total population of this ward taken at the 2011 census was 4,319.

It is also part of the Yeovil county constituency represented in the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It elects one Member of Parliament (MP) by the first past the post system of election.

Ilchester Town Trust
Separate from the parish council, the Ilchester Town Trust repairs and manages Ilchester Town Hall, as well as providing for charitable purposes for the inhabitants of Ilchester. As well as the Town Hall, the Trust has ownership of the Roman cemetery in Northover and the Ilchester sportsfield. The Trust was established in 1889, upon the dissolution of the historic corporation that had governed the town (the Bailiff and Burgesses). The Trust also manages the Ilchester Museum which is based in the Town Hall House, behind Ilchester Town Hall.

Religious sites
Ilchester had at least eight churches in medieval times of which two remain. The church of St Mary Major dates from the 13th century and is a Grade II* listed building, as is the Church of St Andrew which is slightly more recent, although it may stand on the site of an earlier Roman building and associated cemetery. St Andrew's is in the care of the Churches Conservation Trust.

Education
Ilchester Community Primary School consists of a Junior school and an Infant school, which cover key stage 1 and key stage 2 of the national curriculum. Both parts of the school are separate, each having a deputy head of year. The school has 295 pupils enrolled. The school was awarded Healthy school status in the summer of 2007. Ilchester has a few Pre-schools and a Nursery. Heron Pre-School provision was rated as good by OFSTED in 2010. St Mary's Pre-School, Ilchester has been in existence for around 40 years. It is located in the heart of the village, in the Church Rooms next to St Mary Major, its most recent Ofsted was in 2012 where it was rated as GOOD, particularly in safeguarding and relationships with parents.

Notable people from Ilchester

 * Richard of Ilchester, also called Richard of Toclyve or Richard of Toclive (d. 22 December 1188) was a medieval English statesman and prelate.
 * Roger Bacon, who was a notable medieval scientist, is said to have been born in or near Ilchester. He was known as "Doctor Mirabilis" and was one of the first to insist on the use of experimentation to back theory.
 * William Arnold one of the founding settlers of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, one of the thirteen original proprietors of Providence, and was one of the twelve founding members of the first Baptist Church in America.

Historic estates

 * Brooke, Ilchester, the earliest known seat of the prominent Brooke family, Barons Cobham.
 * Sock Dennis

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Ilchester


text:
Talk:Crab-eating macaque

Untitled
FYI, there sure ain't much on this fella out there in internet land. All I can find is lots of neuroscience experiments, and this:.

I don't know why you found it difficult to find external sources. A google search reveals this, and this, both of which have a lot of good info. Arjuna (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Common Name
Someone recently made an article-wide change of the common name of M. fascicularis from "Crab-eating Macaque" to "Long-tailed Macaque". Both names are equally good; however, until the name of the article changes from "crab" to "long-tailed", we should keep the naming consistent. Arjuna 22:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I recently spoke with Webster-Merriam about the use of common names for M. fascicularis. Crab-eating macaque is the least commonly used of it names. Also, in all of the subspecies listed in the article, they are all named a form of long-tailed macaque, except the M. fascicularis fascularis which is label crab-eating. Why this inconsistency. I suggest using long-tailed macaque through the article and as the main heading, if that can be changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs).

 * It has been recently re-stated that long-tailed macaques are documented as a serious source of extinction pressure on other animals in non-native ranges. Please cite your references. I have read reports where studies have shown these macaques are not as great of an extinction pest as common sentiment usually suggests (see Sussman and Tattersall, 1986 for Mauritius). For example, before the wiki page said the l.t. macaque was responsible for the extinction of the dodo bird. An entirely erroneous unbacked statement. Humans destroyed the dodo bird, not macaques, and humans are destroying most of the other species people are now targeting l.t. macaques as a cause of. Another example, is the birds of paradise in Irian Jaya. It is now claimed by some conservationists that macaques are the major pressure to their extinction, although thousands of people in Indonesia have stuffed birds of paradise in their homes, trade them as pets, and are destroying habitat. Macaques may eat some of their eggs. What is the greater extinction threat, humans or macaques? It is possilby a compounded effect where humans have fragmented the endangered species to such an extent that now macaques have more of an impact. But humans brought the macaques there as pets and humans have compounded the problem with their own destructive practices. There are also reports that the Irian Jaya introduced macaques are anywhere between 70-70,000 in population number. A rather imprecise number, indicating a great lack of knowledge of what is really going on in some (and possibly many) of the areas where macaques have been introduced. We need scientific data before anyone can make these general claims about all non-native macaques. Each situation will more than likely be different. Would macaques have the impact they have if it weren't for the great habitat loss caused by people. We need to study this. Lots of negative things have been stated about this animal across fields, with little scientific data to back it. I am fine with that as long as the claims are cited and scientifically validated. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs).

 * Please sign your talk edits with 4 tildes ( ~ ~). "Crab-eating Macaque" is the common named preferred by Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed., which claims to be an extention of previous work assigning an official common name to all mammals. None of the subspecies names are given in MSW3. - UtherSRG (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Mgumert, I'm sorry you seem to be rather mis-informed about the situation. There is now ample scientific documentation on the negative biodiversity impact of M. fascicularis where it is an introduced alien species, notably in Mauritius, Anggaur, and Papua. A simple Google search of "invasive macaques" yields several results linking to important papers; apparently you have not carried out this most mundane task, so you may wish to start with: http://www.issg.org/database/species/impact_info.asp?si=139&fr=1&sts= Arjuna 22:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing the title of the article to Long-tailed macaques. However, your point about which subspecies are CE versus LT is dubious, as Mirriam Webster is hardly an authoritative source on primate taxonomy. Latin names are definitive, common names are whatever people invent and use. Therefore, LT and CE macaques are common names that apply equally to any particular subspecies of M. fascicularis -- as complicated a primate taxon as they come -- and indeed is usually considered a "super-species". Arjuna 22:17, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I wrote my last comment before I read UtherSRG's message. If CE Macaque is what is used in the authoritative book he cites, then while LT is certainly not incorrect, I agree that the current use of CE macaque is better and the article title should remain unchanged. Arjuna 22:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

 * My comment on subspecies was about an inconsistency written in the wikipedia article. Why is it listed here that the main subspecies is a crab eating macaque and the rest long-tailed. All subspecies can be named long-tailed or crab-eating, why the inconsistency here. I did not cite Merriam Webster as a source of naming subspecies. I refered to Merriam Webster simply as a source of how frequently the common names are used throughout literature. Crab-eating macaque is the least commonly used common name. Please read my comments more carefully. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs).

 * Mammal Species of the World, 3rd ed. is not the end all be all of animal naming and furthermore it is not primary literature. I prefer to select my naming from the experts that study these animals in the wild, not large reviews of animals such as the work you refer to. A large amount of the primary literature written on research in the wild or on the natural history of this species uses the name long-tailed macaque. A very extensive review is by Fooden, 1995 in Fieldana:81 and this work does an good review on the sub-species. He used long-tailed macaque as the name for these animals. This is one example of many, but his work here is one of the best pieces of natural history work on this animal. Many of the people that have contributed to a large part of our understanding of these animals in the wild use the name long-tailed macaque. These include Bruce Wheatley, Antje Engelhardt, Augustin Fuentes, Fillipo Aureli, de Ruiter, Palombit, van Noordwijk, van Schaik, to name just a handful. My interest in standardizing the common name is simply to begin better standardizing how we refer to this animal and to do this why don't we select the common name from the several used that is the more accurate description of the organism. Long-tailed macaque is a better general referant, than crab-eater, which more refers to the cultural developments of the few populations that do eat crabs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mgumert (talk • contribs).

 * MSW3 is the book we are using to update many of the mammal articles, and provides a single conssitent source of information. It is much preferred to use one set of consistent data, and explain the discrepancies from there, than it is to accumulate the various works and try to make something consistent and explain why it isn't. Plus, the "make something work" borders on original research, something to be avoided on Wikipedia. - UtherSRG (talk) 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see the value of a standardized source like MSW3 in guiding the layout of information here, but I do think one benefit here at wikipedia is that we can pull from numerous sources to reach an educated decision about what is included in this wiki article. I don't think pointing out that long-tailed macaque is a more commonly used term than crab-eating throughout the literature (esp among field work) or making a case that it is a better description of the organism as a whole (when comparing these two terms) is anything close to original research. It is an encyplodedic issue, trying our best to document what has been conveyed in the literature. My concern with basing what we state here on one other encyplodic sourse is that now this becomes a third level source of information, and why add it if you just repeat what is in MSW3, someone could just go to that source. We can do better. I think we already have, as the article is more informative now than before we started discussion. Mgumert 15:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

What are the credentials of Mammal Species of the World? Other than that they've had to change it twice since they first wrote it? ;) If you run a Yahoo search, you'll find that Cynomolgus comes up twice as much as Long-Tailed, which comes up about 3 times as much as Crab-Eating (the actual Genus species name is about half way between Long-Tailed and Cynomolgus). In the scientific research world, everyone calls them Cynomolgus monkeys and they publish more. I think that before Wikipedia considers using an encyclopedic source for standardization of information they should ask themselves, "How many people will use an encyclopedia that just sites another encyclopedias?" I have to agree with Mgumert, you can't just say, "this is the source we're using, so there!" This is supposed to be a community fed source of information, not a small clique of "experts" transcribing from another work. Paul123 12:26, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.3.58 (talk)

 * The credentials of MSW3 are that it is the de facto standard used by others. It is written by scientists who study and determine the classification of mammal species. the credential for using it for common names is that it is a follow on to a previous work on mammalian common names, and it is the next step in the proceess of having an Official Common Name list, much as the ornithologists have. - UtherSRG (talk) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I second UtherSRG's point. Common names are inherently always a compromise. Arjuna (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I changed the name of the language/dialect for macaque from "Fiot" to "Ibinda". The cited external reference does not mention Fiot, and the wiki page linked to states that Fiot is considered derogatory while the preferred term is Ibinda. Jmckaskle (talk) 14:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Threats
Arjuna, thank you for your concern of my mis-information. I have read alot on the subject but I admit I can always learn more. I ran your search and opened the first hit. http:// www.indopacific.org/macaca.asp. Here they discuss a report on New Guinea. They have identified that there are 6 troops of macaaques in New Guinea. That is a small population. Some conservationists have tried to argue to me that there are 70,000 macaques on the island, and I just very much dislike such overemphasis and alarm on these issues and simply seek to stop those kind of statements from happening. It is why I want fair explanations in places like this wikipedia blog. Many people overescalate the problem and it is largely because people look at reports like this and don't pass on the information the data really shows. Rather they just blankedly state fascicularis is a serious extinction threat in non-native habitats. If there are only six troops on new guinea, it is not a serious extinction threat. Additionally, the problem is compounded by the fact humans have isolated these forest areas, and this is probably what really makes the macaque become damaging. Furthermore, they have no baseline data before the macaques were there, which is a confound in their results. Aside from that, the report says the likelihood of them getting out of their isolated forest "islands" is small, although over the long-term they maybe could start to colonize other areas. Therefore, this particular case is not a big threat. Keep the problem contained, remove the monkeys, the threat of this problem is removed Mgumert 17:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Mgmert, if people tried to convince you there were that many macaques on the island then they were mis-informed and would have benefited from reading the IPCA report to establish the facts. The reality of the threat from alien invasive M. fascicularis to native fauna is serious enough to not require exaggeration. I think if you read the report carefully yourself, however, the picture that is presented is not nearly as optimistic as you seem to think. First of all, your use of the term "extinction threat" is not used in the scientific community as it is a bit melodramatic and imprecise; "biodiversity threat" is more commonly used and gets the point across. Extinction is not a term usually bandied about until a particular species is truly nearing such a threshold, by which time it is often too late. So using the term "extinction threat" is a strawman argument. No, the IPCA report does not say that because that term is not a useful tool in understanding the role of the species in New Guinea. If you have read the report in its entirety, the report makes a very clear and scientifically sound documentation of the threat to native species by macaques. The facilitation of this threat by human agency (creating new potential habitat by degrading adjacent forest areas) is important, but you are missing the point: those forests and the species within them have the capacity to recover as long as no additional pressures (viz. macaques) are introduced, and secondary forest creates a new vector for further macaque colonization of new areas. This is precisely why the New Guinea macaques ARE a very serious biodiversity threat. As to whether the lack of baseline (pre-macaque arrival) data compromises results, the answer is no. Obviously it would be ideal in any situation to have a strong baseline, but for most areas of the world outside of Europe and the U.S. it does usually not exist --this is particularly so in New Guinea. Fortunately, then, it is not scientifically required since a hypothesis can be tested with alternative methods. The report authors carried out "double-blind" survey tests of four forest habitat plots, with and without macaques, in both secondary and primary (a proxy for pre-macaque baseline data) forests. Their results were robust (i.e. statistically significant) that macaques negataively impact the native fauna. Case closed. Hope this helps. Arjuna 19:19, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna, a biodiversity threat means loss of biodiversity and is thus an extinction threat in either a local or broad sense. The use of terms here to convey our points is trivial, other than for the melodramatic tone you mention. Which is exactly my point against your position. You accuse my terminology as being overemphasized by using extinction threat. Well, saying 6 macaque groups is a very serious biodiversity threat is overemphasizing their true impact on New Guinea. This is a quote from the IPCA report "Populations of introduced Macaca fascicularis in Papua are currently limited to a relatively small area in the immediate Jayapura/Kotaraja area in far the northwestern part of the province. There are approximately 60 individual macaques, in six different troops, all more or less in the same general vicinity south of Jayapura city" It is from the impact of this report that the one conservationist I mentioned stated there are 70,000 macaques and that macaques are taking over papua. So this paper has had a negative impact on others in important conservation roles .I agree he should have read the report more thoroughly, but that fact is so many won't be reading it, they don't have time, and they take the basic message and exxagerate it greatly as they get it from secondary sources. Therefore, my point is people in your role, who mediate the information that comes from primary to layment sources, needs to be aware of this affect when you state as a major point on a small info page, that they are a "very serious" biodiversity threat. You are loading the statement from your perspective. You need to say, some groups have provided evidence, or it is possible they are a threat. In the report they fairly lay out alternative arguments, yet you choose not to investigate those sides more. All scientific data is based in the principle of falsifiability and thus no sceintific work proves anything in the philosophical sense. Anyway and more important, one macaque group lives in a range of appox 0.3-1.9km2. If there are six groups, this covers at most 12 km2. How can that be a major threat currently to papua new guinea biodiversity in general. How, just think about, even if they could destroy every animal in their home range they have only altered this small area. Yes, it is a problem, I am not aguing that they have no influence on biodiversity loss and I also think they should be removed in non-native ranges where they do lower diversity. But, I am speaking about the level to witch we claim they are changing biodiversity in general. The Papua macaque problem is comparative to a spill. I am confident with the attention to this issue, we will clean up the spill, but we don't need to overemphasize the overall threat to achieve this end. When a macaque becomes a brown-tree snake and it is truly documented as the primary cause of the extinction of any animal, only then will I agree they belong on the top 100 list of invasives. This will have to be something I take up elsewhere and in other circles though. Not in wikipedia, but I do appreciate your conversation on the subject. This issue is far from closed.Mgumert 21:20, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Mgmert, well, we see the issue differently. First of all, however, I already made my point about terminology, so that is a dead letter as far as I'm concerned, and hopefully on that we can agree. Second, we need to put another issue to rest: if someone has glanced at the IPCA report and come away with the notion that there are 70,000 macaques "taking over Papua", then they are not credible and should be either advised appropriately or discounted. That they have chosen to remain ill-informed is unfortunate but doesn't change the fact that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk. Why you have trouble acknowledging what the report indicates is quite baffling; because they are not immediately causing extinction in isolation from other factors such as deforestation, etc. simply makes no sense whatsoever. The threat that the IPCA report documents is not simply that regarding their immediate presence in the Jayapura area, but the fact that they are highly ecologically adaptable and thus have the potential to colonize adjacent forests at any time, at which point their impact becomes far greater and the problem un-manageable. By any definition, this is a "very serious" risk, as is acknowledged by the report's statement that "Given the probable consequences of the [Jayapura] macaques becoming invasive, immediate implementation of...a program to mitigate the above mentioned threats is therefore of the highest priority." (p. 7) How this can be read in any way other than that the report concludes that macaques are a very serious biodiversity risk is completely inexplicable. The only such examples I know of similar mis-readings of the conclusions in a scientific report are those found in the Bush White House regarding climate change. You're certainly welcome to provide evidence to the contrary, otherwise, I wish you good luck in convincing credible scientists that macaques are something other than a very serious biodiversity risk in areas where they are non-native species. Arjuna 21:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna: On the very first page of the report it states the main conclusion of the study. "Macaca fascicularis as an alien and potentially invasive species in New Guinea". So yes, they are documented as a potentially invasive species, we should stop them in areas where they are a potential and we have the capability to do something, like new guinea. We agree on this issue. But, more work needs to be done especially on the historical claims they make in the report (they reinvent history in some cases, and I am less convinced by those arguments). I also think they are a bit guilty of overemphasizing things and failing to emphasize others in some instances, which is common in conservation groups' literature b/c they have an agenda. For our purposes, using terms like "very serious" have no place in an encyplodia. Readers make those decisions on their own. The Bush White house is also notorious for making big ordeals from small potentials, although I don't think discussions of Bush really fit into our topic of discussion here, nor am I ignoring fascicularis's danger as an alien, like Bush does with climate. All in all, I think the article reads better now, but can improve. It doesn't have the loaded terms. I have also added this issue to the spot where it is most appropriate, in the conservation section. I don't know if we need to dedicate a whole paragraph do this isue though in the general summary, and restate it again in the diet, as it makes the article read that this is all the animal is, an invasive. 95+% of them are not. Lets introduce it in the beginning in a sentence, and discuss it mainly in the conservation section. There is alot more to this animal than its role as an invasive and that's why I put up this big argument against it. I think it is overemphasized. If makes us overlook so many other aspects of this organism, which are also important to an encyclopedia reader. Can we work to incorporate some more positives of this animal in the article. For example, we give no real info on significant contributions the animal has made to research knowledge, in medical and other fields. We only state they are used. Also - nothing on the social life, cognition, or behavior. Also interesting. Mgumert 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC)19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Mgumert, that sounds generally reasonable. I agree that the invasive discussion could (mostly) go into another section (some mention, as with its role in research etc. should go in the intro however), since it is quite reasonable -- even necessary -- as you point out, to discuss the species in its other contexts. In terms of the invasive discussion, we still disagree on how to characterize the degree of threat, but for now let's go back and forth on how to improve the article more generally. On an unrelated note, please remember to "sign" your name by adding four "~"s at the end of your talk contribution. Cheers. Arjuna 19:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Arjuna. Sorry, I always forget to sign my name. It seems we are moving in the right direction. Oh and I have wanted to ask basd on your name - Apakah anda orang Indonesia, gak? I think the issue on invasiveness is a pretty hot debate in those interested in fascicularis and conservation in Indonesia and SE asia. So I think our debate represents that well. best. Mgumert 19:45, 7 October 2006 (UTC) 19:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

 * Mgumert, agreed -- I think I understand where you're coming from better now. Nggak, aku orang bule tapi udah lama di Indonesia, dan suka ceritera Mahabarata aja. Cheers, Arjuna 21:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Fishing
http://www.nature.org/wherewework/asiapacific/indonesia/images/fishing_lg.jpg Is that worthy of putting in the article? Ratattuta (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

If you had permission from TNC for the GNU free documentation thing, then that would be fine -- I somehow doubt they will grant it, but I could be wrong. But more to the point, the article talks about M fascicularis fishing in fast-flowing rivers, not the ocean. It was already known that they fish in rivers, so I removed the added material. Arjuna (talk) 19:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

what is the range?
Could we have a map? Or at least more discription than "Southeast asia"? I am ok with the island description to the south. But how far north do they go? Do they cover all of Indochina? Any of China proper? Burma? Bangladesh, Andamans, India, Ceylon? etc? 72.82.57.163 (talk) 14:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Taxobox image
I have replaced the taxobox image with a better quality one which also had greater encyclopedic value as it was showing more than just the head. Please discuss any changes here before making them--Muhammad (talk) 02:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reston Ebola Virus
We should include something about Reston Ebolavirus --76.67.96.180 (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Photograph
Please note - the photograph of this species is Wrong. It is of a bonnet macaque (M. Radiata). Can this please be updated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.2.13 (talk) 08:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

'PHOTOGRAPH is still wrong. This is either a toque or bonnet macaque. Please stop putting macaques from India, as the main picture for long-tailed macaques. Who keeps doing this? June 24, 2012

It also seems to me this is a toque or bonnet macaque or maybe a weird hybrid, if the photograph was really taken from within a crab-eating macaque range. Another picture further down in the article of a mother with a child seems doubtful as well - perhaps the photograph is from a hybrid from a poorly maintained zoo, which is very likely considering how obese this individual is. Both should be changed. Unfortunately I do not have photographs of crab-eating macaques myself. Skamnelis (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I have replaced the two incorrect photographs with appropriate photographs from wikipedia.de Skamnelis (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Killer Dolphins
I have posted a long comment in the Talk section of the main Macaque genus article, about the renaming of all the macaque species articles to "[Name] Macaque" (e.g. "Barbary Macaque") from their traditionally names (e.g. Barbary Ape).

Would you please take a look at that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Macaque#Killer_Dolphins

And then correct this individual species article as necessary — I'm not sure which macaque species may have actually been called "[Name] Macaque" traditionally.

(And I hope you can see that the fact that I don't know that, after reading a Wikipedia article about the species, is why rewriting reality in Wikipedia is a problem.)

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.180.30.135 (talk) 12:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Behavior updated and suggestions
I have added a sourced behavior section with a lot of the data that is out there on social behaviors. This page could use some updating in other areas as well. There needs to be a lot more sources for the claims being made. I also would like to recommend that we re-name the page "long-tailed macaque." This is the more common name and has more primary source data (even though it is the same species, searching for "crab-eating macaque" yields fewer results than "long-tailed macaque." I addressed the monkey as a long-tailed macaque throughout.Katims90 (talk) 02:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Peer Review
Katims90, great job on your additions to the article. It was very well-written and informative, and I only had to make a few minor grammatical changes. There's one thing I think you could expand upon or clarify. The experiment you talked about in the second paragraph of "Kin Altruism and Spite" was a little confusing. When I first read your description of the study, I thought spite was inferred based on the fact that most females did not preferentially share food with their kin, so there was a decrease in giver benefit and also a decrease in kin benefit (they don't get the food). But then in the next sentence you said that "spite fueled feeding kin preferentially." How does this work, since I thought the result from this particular experiment was that kin was actually NOT fed preferentially? I also didn't understand the significance of the sentence "This is due to the observation that food was given to kin for a significantly longer period of time than needed," so if you expanded a little more about that, or just work to clarify the experiment a bit more, it would make your contribution even better! Ihyuan (talk) 02:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This was an interesting article! I liked your additions—I learned a lot about group living and the social interactions between the females and males, and of the young. To be honest, I didn’t see anything that I had to fix regarding sentence structure, grammar, and word choice. However, I did have a few questions. One is, how do hierarchies get established—like through strength and size? Like, how does the alpha male become the alpha male? Also I had a question about infanticide rates being decreased due to uncertainty of paternity—I would actually assume the opposite, because wouldn’t they be more likely to kill the infants if they thought they weren’t his own (lions)? Your Conflict section was very solid, and I don’t think you need to change anything in that. In your Kin Altruism and Spite section, I was confused as to what spite exactly is. It’s shown that they don’t follow the kin selection rule, but how does food being given to kin for a significantly longer period of time than needed relate to spite? Just maybe a couple sentences more on that could clear it up. Great job though, I learned a lot! Alexliu818 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The article is good and very informative. I made some minor grammatical and sentence structure adjustments, especially to correct a few awkardly-worded phrases. I also added some more links to hopefully help with nominating this page. You have done a great job, though. The article is easy to read and understand, while it presents a great amount of information. WhitleyTucker (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Crab-eating macaque. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130828032238/http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_289.htm to http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/biodiversity/loe/page_289.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130928024123/http://www.offthefence.com/detail/island-of-the-monkey-god/1093564/ to http://www.offthefence.com/detail/island-of-the-monkey-god/1093564/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Edit request for changing the main image
Are there images of the highest quality that show a full body of the animal? Can somebody do it? Esagurton (talk) 11:20, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Unclear sentence
In the section Reproduction this sentence appears:

"Here they play together, forming crucial bonds that may help them when they leave their natal group."

But it is entirely unclear what the word "here" refers to.

I hope that someone knowledgeable about this subject can fix this. 2601:200:C000:1A0:ED6E:E25D:FE94:D2A6 (talk) 02:56, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

 * I believe that refers to being on the periphery, since that's what the previous sentence talks about. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:35, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article was the subject of an educational assignment at Washington University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 15:37, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Crab-eating macaque


text:
Talk:Egyptian Rat Screw

I reverted to the last edit by 24.119.88.105. Not to censor, but I don't think the vulgar name deserves such prominent mention. I know lots of vulgar people from around the country that know the game, and they've never called it ERF. Ed Cormany 21:29, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

title: Talk:Egyptian Rat Screw


text:
Talk:Southern California

Bakersfield?
Most people would agree that Bakersfield is in Central California as it is in the Central Valley. Most people associate them selfs with Central California not SoCal. Any thoughts? thanks, House1090 (talk) 05:38, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 * Even by wikipedia's own definition. House1090 (talk) 05:43, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

 * [Responding not just to the 2013 comment above but also recent edits which were reverted and told to go to the talk page.] Defining a boundary of Southern California is a challenge for Wikipedia due to lack of quotable references - it boils down to the division of north and south. The only region of California which is mutually exclusive with Southern California is Northern California. Central Coast and Central Valley can and do overlap with both. Think about it... if you want to exclude any of the southernmost 10 counties from Southern California, then you're proposing they're in Northern California. That's why it doesn't work. Southern California is not synonymous with the Los Angeles Basin, even though LA's dominance in SoCal often leads to generally referring to it as SoCal. But that doesn't work any more than saying the San Francisco Bay Area is the full extent of Northern California - you can drive north for 6 hours and still be in the state. Those are references to the economic centers but not the boundaries. Ikluft (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

 * So what if there is overlap? That is a silly reason to not use better-known distinctions. A lot of things over lap and they still have their own page (see North and Central America). It does make sense because that's how Californians see it. Our place is not to create new distinctions but to state fact. The fact is these distinctions are not used by common people outside of this page. These ridiculously generous distinctions of northern and southern California are completely useless to anyone interacting in the Central Valley, Central Coast, and southern California and as such is a disservice to readers. Glegleglo (talk) 20:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

IP edits – Northern boundary
Multiple editors, including myself as well as have undone 's additions for being, in short, unjustified by what the sources say. A region like this one that is not a political division will almost always have ambiguous boundaries and there is no reason to expect otherwise. I suggest the IP stop editing this article until they resolve these concerns here with us.--Jasper Deng (talk) 00:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 * As it stands, the article describes how there are several definitions of the northern boundary of SoCal, but Santa Barbara is inside all of them, so our disruptive friend doesn't have any support from the sources we have been citing. He will have to go out and find some sources of his own that say Santa Barbara is not Southern California. Until then, he's just a nuisance. Binksternet (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree. To say that Santa Barbara is not in Southern California, or that the southern Central Coast is in Northern California, is absurd. Thank you to everyone who’s done their best to remedy the situation. Pf1127 (talk) 01:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Yes, the IP is wrong about Santa Barbara. BUT... I’d be curious to know the source of our information that Southern California comprises ten counties. It’s baldly asserted as fact, but based on what? IMO San Luis Obispo County and Kern County are highly questionable as part of “Southern California”. The sentence in the lead is unsourced, and the section “Northern boundary of southern California” is mostly unsourced - three of the six paragraphs are completely unsourced, as are the maps. The LA Times is cited as listing eight counties, including Santa Barbara but not San Luis or Kern. I think if you ask any Californian what part of the state San Luis and Kern are in, they would say “Central California”. I propose dropping San Luis and Kern from the definition, with the LA Times as the source. Anybody care to show me the evidence that San Luis and Kern counties are generally regarded as part of Southern California? -- MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Pinging who has defended the 10-county definition before. I personally consider SLO to be more central California than southern (the IP is also wrong, by the way, that we need to divide the state into just two pieces). This unsourced "definition" has deep roots, and seems to have derived from the efforts of multiple editors, see this edit too, and this one. The IP is partly right in that Kern County is not generally considered a part of socal.--Jasper Deng (talk) 01:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * That edit I made dates back to 2014, and I do not remember exactly what I was thinking. I assume it was because I was restoring what appears to have been selective removals: the version before that edit, including its lead, "northern boundary", "Geography", "economy", "transportation", and other sections, still listed a lot of content in Kern and SLO.
 * Looks like at one point in 2015 there actually were in fact citations in the lead for both "[it] generally comprises California's southernmost 10 counties" and "traditionally described as 'eight counties'". After a bunch of copyedits, the gist of that "eight counties" and "extensive 10-county definition" content was removed from the lead by another IP in 2019.
 * This debate seems to have been ongoing forever, so I do not really care at this point what it should be, just as long as it is determined by reliable sources and not just original research. Should we restore that 10-county-definition content that was removed in 2019, or find better sources that that ACSC report, or just stick with the eight counties? Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I thought I would take a look at how other articles handle this question. Here's what I found:
 * The lead sentence of the San Luis Obispo County, California article says “San Luis Obispo County, officially the County of San Luis Obispo, is a county in Central California.” No sources are cited.
 * The Kern County, California article does not mention southern California. It says the county “spans the southern end of the Central Valley”. It is not classified as northern, central, or southern California in the lead section or the Geography section.
 * Central California says it is a subregion of Northern California and does not include either of these counties. No sources are cited for that definition or for the entire Geography section.

Conclusion: Apparently the northern California and southern California articles were written from the point of view of dividing the state into two, rather than from common usage or reliable sources. The SLO County and Kern County articles do not buy into that approach. (I can understand that; I have family roots in SLO County, and if you try to tell anyone from SLO that they live in southern California, their response will range from “bite your tongue!” to something unprintable.)

I would like to change this article's definition to one based on common usage and the LA Times definition of southern California - which at this point is the only Reliable Source we have that addresses the question. But if that is too drastic a change to longstanding practice - if we decide to keep the ten counties - then we should change our lead sentence from “generally comprises the southernmost counties of California” to “comprises the southern half of the state of California”. There is no way that “southernmost” applies to San Luis Opispo or Kern counties. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

 * I think we need to cast our net wider to get the proper balance. A great many definitions have been put forward over time, and we shouldn't latch on to one of them unless it really stands out. A look through older book sources shows some interesting definitions, including 11 counties with Tulare in a March 1920 issue of Spanish California and the Gold Rush, 10 counties in a 1940 committee meeting of the United States National Resources Planning Board's California Central Valley-Central Coast Drainage Basin Committee, "the southern third" of California "from Santa Barbara County southward" as defined by a 1942 article in Farmer's Bulletin, 8 historically bigger counties prior to WWI as defined by a 1955 report by the Southern California Planning Institute ("Before World War I, southern California was commonly defined as the area south of the Tehachapi Range, and included eight counties"), and 14 counties in a 1964 report by the Lower Colorado River Land Use Advisory Committee. Let's tabulate a bunch of sources to get a sense of balance. Binksternet (talk) 17:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The tripartite division of California seems most common these days, implying the more conservative definitions of "southern" California are the most common, but few folks say "I'm from central California".--Jasper Deng (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Tripartite is rising up, eh? I haven't seen it running so strongly as you have. Otherwise, San Francisco would be referring to itself as Central California, which isn't happening. The old North–South division is far from dead. Binksternet (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but a clean-cut North-South division is also far from accurate. These regions of the state are not mutually exclusive with Central California, so the best way to resolve the issue might be to acknowledge that some counties act as a buffer or overlay area between regions, such as Kern and San Luis Obispo for Southern/Central California.

There are similar issues with the Central California and Northern California articles as well (i.e. Central California is erroneously described as a subregion of Northern California in the lede), so I would definitely recommend investigating these further and coming up with some sort of resolution for all three portions of the state. Pf1127 (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

 * Sounds like you're intent on a three-way division of the state despite just about nobody in California referring to their area as Central California. I don't expect to have "resolution" here; the best we can do is tell the reader what are the most common definitions of Southern California. Binksternet (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree: "tell the reader what are the most common definitions of Southern California." County lines do not follow the geographic features that are "placemaking' to us. This is very similar to defining neighborhoods in Los Angeles. The city can't make large community groups as the micro-local voices will not be represented to their councilmember but the larger "neighborhood" is often mentioned in the media and by the general public. The coastal cities in Ventura County feel close to Santa Barbara as part of the Central Coast. Simi Valley and Thousand Oaks relate closely to the San Fernando Valley and might go to the Malibu beaches rather than those in Ventura County. There will always be ambiguity in defining areas that do not have legal boundaries as cities and counties do. Fettlemap (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Capitalization redux
MOS:COMPASS lists "Southern California" as an example of a title that should be capitalized, but it looks like a local consensus was former here in 2010 to lowercase it. Since the MOS overrides the local consensus, I believe we should restore the capitalization. {{u| Sdkb  }}  talk 20:43, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support use of capital S, per clear and consistent majority shown in sources in this Ngram. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The dividing line near the 36th parallel
The longstanding definition of Southern California is the lower third of the state, cut in a straight line at 35°45' (just north of Mission San Miguel Arcángel) as proposed in 1859, or following the northern borders of the modern counties San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino, which are more or less drawn at 35°45' degrees latitude, not exactly a straight line. This definition of Southern California has been in the public mind for more than 160 years, and is still the main definition. It was codified in 1859 by the Pico Act approved by 75% of California voters and signed by Governor Weller, to create the new territory of "Colorado". See Territory of Colorado (California).

Today, this definition of Southern California holds ten counties. Back in 1872, the same area contained six, then seven, then eight counties by 1889. In 1897 the same area held nine counties. Finally, in 1907, San Diego County was divided to create the tenth county: Imperial.

Certainly, there are other viewpoints about the definition of Southern California. But each one of them is of minor importance compared to the widely held ten-county definition. We can and should tell the reader about them, but not at the expense of proclaiming the ten-county definition as foremost by far.

A recent effort by sought to widen the scope of the definition to make Southern California a much smaller place, equivalent to the western urbanized areas of the "South Coast", leaving out the sparsely populated eastern desert areas and northward from the Santa Barbara coast. Uni3993 found website sourcing at TripSavvy, a travel site, and Oakdome, a self-published home-schooling website. These are nowhere near authoritative enough to establish the notional "South Coast" definition as equally important.

Many sources establish Southern California as being the lower third portion of the state, cut west-to-east in a nearly straight line. Post-1907 sources may also talk about a ten-county definition of Southern California.
 * In 1944, the United States Forest Service acknowledged the ten-county definition: "Taking Southern California as a whole, the ten counties usually considered as comprising..."
 * The 1952 University of California Press textbook State and Local Government in California talks about the definition of Southern California on page 37, saying that it was made up of the "ten counties below the straight line formed by the northern boundaries of San Luis Obispo, Kern and San Bernardino counties..."

We should strive to represent the literature in balance, giving much greater weight to the mainstream viewpoint. Binksternet (talk) 23:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok but whats wrong with mentioning, as a side note in the lead section and a new separate definitions section, that popularly or colloquially especially by people living in SoCal, it also carries a South Coast definition, again colloquially. Which is already included in a sentence in the geography section of this article. That very urban agglomeration has to have a name right by people living there and it does see here too Megaregions_of_the_United_States and also my other sources? Uni3993 (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Your sourcing is terrible. Your sources say nothing at all about how Californians view their state. If you ever found suitable sources, the mention would be appropriate for the body but not the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 03:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's just very hard to find any other source about this specific information. OK then tell me this, dont you think there would a be a term that would refer to the huge urban agglomeration, I know the article mentions South Coast, but how many times have you heard people talking about the South Coast? Uni3993 (talk) 03:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok I gave up, you win let the article be wrong. I just added sources to AN ALREADY EXISTING SENTENCE and also moved the regions in the section Geography to the section Regions which obviously makes much more sense. Uni3993 (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So now you've violated WP:3RR to get your nonsense put into the page, which means you may be blocked. Any time you find yourself in the situation where it is "very hard to find any other source about this specific information" then you should just stop trying to stick it in. Wikipedia is supposed represent the published literature in summary form; people usually read the literature and then add something to Wikipedia. You, however, came up with a personal observation and then you tried and failed to find adequate sourcing to support it. THAT'S NOT HOW THIS WORKS. Binksternet (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I didn't revert first of all this change is a completely different change, and I wholeheartedly believe that my sources are reliable. If you want we can find someone from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard to confirm? Do you want that? Uni3993 (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

New reference found for the narrower definition
Since you wrongly only consider official sources as accurate, do you think this reference is enough to at least add my definition with the word sometimes?

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=granuleid:USC-prelim-title43-section390h-4&num=0&edition=prelim

Uni3993 (talk) 10:47, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

 * "Wrongly" LOL. I consider reliable sources reliable, not strictly "official" ones.
 * This government page in your link doesn't define anything as "South Coast". It only contains the term "south coast" without capitalization, and without a definition. This page says that the California Department of Water Resources is the body that defines something, but it is unclear whether the CDWR defines "Southern California", the "Colorado River hydrologic" region, or the "south coast" region. To find out, you would have to search for the CDWR definitions laid out clearly in some other publication. Binksternet (talk) 14:37, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Literature section being removed
Why was that literature section removed due to lack of notability? I do not agree with this change and it looks okay to stay in article. Would you like to give me further details about why was literature section omitted after editing? I definitely want to listen to that editors. Thank you for reading this. And do not forget the links cited in this source. —-:ThatCaliforniaLover2019 (talk) 19:22, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Add Map of Southern California with Original Indian Tribes (Indigenous)
It would be useful to add a map of what Southern California looked like when the Indian tribes (Indigenous Americans) lived there. Such as this map: The Gabrielino Indians at the time of the Portola Expedition. It was designed by historian Allen Welts and copywritten in 1962 by the Southwest Museum. Another example: this map shows ancient tribal routes and communities. Here's a map of the Tongva villages in the Los Angeles Basin. - Artanisen (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Southern California


text:
Talk:Red River (1948 film)

Untitled
Somebody forgot to list Rory Calhoun in the credits!

Matt Garth and Tom Dunson were unrelated. I don't know what term to describe the relationship, but Matt was in no way "adopted" by Dunson.--Buckboard 00:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sundry opinionated remarks
This entry does not do justice to Red River, arguably one of the 3-4 greatest Westerns ever filmed, and a masterpiece by master director Howard Hawkes. John Wayne's acting is sadly wooden, and his "Beef for a Hungry World" voiceover with which the film opens skirts self-parody. The film was arguably the springboard for Montgomery Clift's career. The tension between Wayne and Clift is ironic, given what we now know of Clift's homosexuality and Wayne's homophobia. The cattle drive scenes were difficult and dangerous to shoot, as they featured thousands of authentic longhorn cattle. Dimitri Tiomkin's rich Russian score powerfully contributes to the film's iconic character. (A decade later he composed the theme for Rawhide.) When I refer to a piece of music as being like the score to a Western film (e.g., "Jupiter" from Holst's The Planets), it is Red River I have in mind. The start of the cattle drive features editing and split screen techniques that Sergei Eisenstein would have admired.

The ending feels strangely forced. Dru's monologue, delivered unrealistically while pointing a .38 at Wayne and Clift, is a concession to American Christian optimism. A European director would have ended the film with Wayne being hanged for murdering Clift, and Dru walking into the sunset with a broken heart. Wayne represents traditional American macho, Clift the New Man of sensitivity, and Dru the strong American woman whose ascendance renders male conflict silly and irrelevant.Concerned cynic 18:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

 * sundry sunday.. take the blinders off your opinion. Consider the director's influence; ie, we hear the overlaid dialogue style, banter of Slim and Steve used a few yrs before in another Hawks film 'To Have and Have Not'; eg, the wagon train scene bt'wn Dru and Wayne. And would see it AGAIN in ANOTHER Hawks/Wayne/Brennan film, 'Rio Bravo' w/ Wayne & Angie Dickinson duking it out..... hmm Brennan was in all three, pretty good... 'You ever been stung by a dead BBEEE!?' 2600:1700:A760:C10:A047:76FD:1C4A:40B8 (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What's the holdup?
Why did this film take two years to complete and cut after principal filming? Thanks, Maikel (talk) 10:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

On the ending of "Blazing Guns on the Chisholm Trail"
The description of the ending of the original story is inaccurate. In the story, before reaching Abeline, Cherry and Dunson draw, and Cherry is faster, but Tess jostles his arm to save Dunson. Cherry ends up dead, and Dunson is wounded. Dunson goes to Abeline, and draws with Matt, who draws but does not shoot. Dunson wounds Matt but collapses from his wounds. He refuses medical help and instead insists on (and succeeds in) going back to Texas to see his ranch before he dies (!). Erniecohen (talk) 18:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Red River (1948 film)


text:
Heaviside's dolphin

Heaviside's dolphin (Cephalorhynchus heavisidii) is one of four dolphins in the genus Cephalorhynchus. The small cetacean is endemic to the Benguela ecosystem along the southwest coast of Africa.

Nomenclature
Early in the 19th century, a specimen was caught off the Cape of Good Hope and brought to the United Kingdom by a Captain Haviside of the British East India Company. Zoologist John Edward Gray, who described the species in his Spicilegia Zoologica, misidentified Haviside as the surgeon John Heaviside, who was known for his own biological collections at the time. "Heaviside's dolphin" is the recognised common name, though amongst others, "Haviside's dolphin" and "Benguela dolphin" are also used, the latter especially in Namibia.

The genus name "Cephalorhynchus" comes from the Greek kephale for 'head' and rhynchos for 'beak'. For the species name "heavisidii" see the above description.

Closely related species and genetic origin
The three other species in the genus Cephalorhynchus are the Chilean dolphin (C. eutropia), the Commerson's dolphin (C. commersonii) and the Hector's dolphin (C. hectori). All are located in cool temperate shelf waters in the Southern Hemisphere.

Genetic studies suggest that the Cephalorhynchus dolphins originated from a single common ancestor in Southern Africa, from which Heaviside's dolphin are the basal species. Radiation around the southern hemisphere following the Antarctic Circumpolar Current (otherwise known as the West Wind Drift), first to New Zealand and then to South America, is thought to have led to the subsequent speciation within the genus.

Morphology
Heaviside's are small and stocky with adults reaching a maximum length and weight of 1.7 m and 75 kg respectively. The dolphin has a distinct black, grey and white body pattern, and is not easily confused with any other species in its range. The head is cone shaped with a blunt beak. The dorsal fin is triangular in shape and centred in the middle of the back. The head and thorax are coloured light grey with darker patches around the eye. The dorsal fin, fluke and dorsal cape are a dark grey to almost black with a band that extends forward from the dorsal fin to the blowhole. The underbelly is white, with bands that extend onto the lower rear of the body. Small white patches are located just behind the pectoral fins and a single white patch extends between these fins on the chest. Sexual dimorphism is minimal, however variation in the shape of the white patch covering the genital slit is distinct between genders. In males, the patch ends in a point, but in females widens out to cover the mammary slits.

Life history
Information on reproduction is limited for Heaviside's dolphins, however they are thought to be comparable to Hector's and Commerson's dolphins. Females and males reach sexual maturity approximately between 5–9 years. Mating is thought to occur year-round, however individual females may only produce calves every 2–4 years. Gestation time is unknown. Maximum known lifespan is based on the oldest recorded individual at 26 years old.

Group size
Typically occurs in small groups of 2–3, but numbers of 1–10 are frequent and large aggregations of ~100 individuals or more are known to form in high density areas. Nursery groups (exclusively females and calves) are not formed in this species.

Predation
Levels of predation are unknown; however, killer whales (Orcinus orca) are known predators and there is evidence of shark attack from body scars.

Geographic range
The species is strongly associated with the cool waters of the Benguela Ecosystem. Although the southern limit of the range is defined as Cape Point, the real southern limit beyond which sightings are extremely rare is Hout Bay, some 40 km to the north (a considerable distance for a species which shows very high site fidelity to quite small spatial scales when nearshore). The species occurs more or less continuously for 2,500 km to the north of this along the South African coast, through Namibia and into southern Angola where the northern boundary for the species remains poorly defined. Several dolphins have been sighted or accidentally caught by fishing vessels north of the Angola–Namibia border,  but no sightings were reported during a series of coastal scientific surveys at Tombua which is approximately 170 km into Angola but well south of the defined northern boundary of the Benguela Ecosystem. The northern boundary of the Benguela current shifts north and south seasonally and as Heaviside's dolphins appear closely linked to its cool waters, their northern range limit may shift along with water conditions. Systematic surveys have dedicated effort to describing the distribution in southern South Africa and current research efforts focus on local populations in Walvis Bay and Lüderitz, Namibia. These locations are also popular hotspots for watching these dolphins in addition to Table Bay (Cape Town) and Britannia Bay, South Africa. Sightings are common from land and there are several dolphin watching tour companies by which Heaviside's dolphins can be seen by boat.

Recent genetic research has demonstrated evidence of population structure across the range, indicating two metapopulations (north and south) with limited genetic exchange. This pattern of fragmentation is a common feature amongst the other three species in the genus Cephalorhynchus and most prevalent in the Hector's dolphin, which displays genetic isolation over very short distances.

Habitat preferences
Heaviside's dolphins typically remain nearshore in the mornings where they typically socialise and rest. When nearshore their distribution patterns are remarkably predictable within and between years, with the animals showing highly consistent use of aggregation sites at the exposed western tips of most bays throughout South Africa and Namibia, but they are rarely seen in the protected shallows of these bays. Outside of bays, they show relatively high densities along exposed sandy beaches, but these may be a secondary choice after a preference for areas where there is a high abundance of their main prey item; juvenile hake (Merluccius capensis) in adjacent offshore waters. Most commonly sighted within sea surface temperatures of 9 to 15 C and depths less than 100 m.

Behaviour
Heaviside's dolphins are energetic and social animals, especially when nearshore in the mornings. Behaviour when offshore tends to be less playful and may include a rest phase when moving offshore to feed. They are attracted to boats and frequently bow-ride. Individuals can also be seen surfing in coastal waves. Iconic vertical leaps clear the water before re-entering headfirst with almost no splash. Heaviside's dolphins use echolocation to find and capture prey. Mating typically occurs in social groups of 3-7 individuals which remain in a small area exhibiting extensive rolling, touching and position changes with frequent leaps by one of pairs of animals which potentially serve a competitive function.

Diet and Foraging
Prey items consist of mostly demersal fish and cephalopod species, predominantly juvenile hake (Merluccius capensis) and octopus, however pelagic species such as juvenile goby (Sufflogobius bibarbatus) and horse mackerel (Trachurus trachurus capensis) are also consumed especially in Namibia. Foraging occurs mostly at the seabed, in shallow depths. Feeding nearshore is rarely observed.

Movement patterns
A diurnal movement pattern is present in South Africa, whereby the dolphins move offshore in the afternoon to feed on prey rising vertically to the surface at night. Movement inshore to rest and socialise occurs in the morning. However, the pattern is different in Luderitz and Walvis Bay, Namibia where the movement is less pronounced and dolphins appear to stay inshore during the night, which is likely associated with foraging on different prey.

Home range and site fidelity
Heaviside's have small home ranges of 50-80 km as measured using satellite telemetry over 2–3 months and photographic resightings over up to 3 years. Some individuals have been resighted at the same location for up to 10 years.

Dive time and depth
There has been limited research into Heaviside's diving behaviour, however a study of two dolphins fitted with satellite tags was undertaken in South Africa in 1997. The maximum dive depth recorded was 147 meters; however, the majority of dives were less than 50 meters. Dive duration were predominantly less than 2 minutes with most dives between 0 and 1 minutes (Davis et al. 2014).

Sympatry with other delphinids
Whilst typically found further from shore, dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) are found throughout the range and occasionally both dolphin species are sighted in mixed groups. Where both species overlap in prey selection, Heaviside's take larger prey items, potentially because they are outcompeted by the larger dusky dolphins for their preferred, smaller sized prey. In central Namibia (especially Walvis Bay) Heaviside's dolphins overlap with a small populations of fewer than 100 common bottlenose dolphins REF. The bottlenose dolphin population use only water less than 15m depth while in this area Heaviside's dolphins are almost always encounteres in water deeper than 20 m, suggesting some form of competitive exclusion.

Vocalisations
As is the case with all species in the genus, Heaviside's dolphins produce narrow-band high-frequency (NBHF) echolocation clicks (centred around 125–130 kHz), and do not whistle. This adaptation is theorised to allow acoustic crypsis from eavesdropping predators, as the sounds produced are outside of the detectable frequencies of killer whales. Although NBHF clicks are limited in acoustic range, they have a better resolution for small targets and are thought to provide a foraging advantage in the often cluttered, nearshore environment in which these species occur. Heaviside's also produce a second click type, of lower frequency and broader bandwidth, that is within the hearing range of killer whales. These calls are produced most frequently in groups engaging in social behaviour. It is likely that the dolphins use these calls when socialising away from predator threat and switch to high frequency clicks when foraging and travelling.

Population status
No total abundance estimate currently exists, however a population estimate of 6,345 for the region between Table Bay and Lamberts Bay, South Africa represents the southernmost populations in the species range. Local population estimates for Walvis bay and Lüderitz are 508 and 494 respectively. A visual and acoustic line-transect ship survey estimated an average of 1594 dolphins in the Namibian Islands' Marine Protected Area (NIMPA), which spans 400 km of coastline along southern Namibia (REF Martin et al. 2020). Quantification of abundance throughout the range is still required.

Threats
Heaviside's dolphins are exposed to a variety of threats given their limited range in coastal shallow waters which are subject to a range of anthropogenic activities. Directed catch has occurred historically, with meat being used for human consumption.

Bycatch and hunting
Heaviside's dolphins are exposed to several poorly quantified and rapidly changing human threats including fisheries bycatch related mortality and illegal directed catch (Elwen and Gopal, 2018; Alfaro-Shigueto et al., 2019). Recently developed mid water trawls for horse mackerel (specifically Trachurus capensis) are considered an emerging threat.

Climate change
Heaviside's dolphins are listed amongst the cetacean species most vulnerable to climate change as they are limited to a distribution range that includes both suitable shelf habitat and cool water temperatures (Best, 2007). The Benguela Current is the only eastern-boundary current bordered by warm-water currents at both its northern and southern limits. Consequently, small increases in water temperature could result in all shelf waters in this area becoming too warm for both species, and populations are expected to decline rather than shift poleward due to a lack of shelf habitat.

Boat interactions
Heaviside's dolphins may be exposed to increase in the marine eco-tourism business in Namibia, which has grown without regulation in Walvis Bay (Leeney, 2014). Negative effects have been demonstrated for other coastal cetacean species, for example the impact of tour boats on bottlenose dolphin behaviour in Walvis Bay includes a reduction in resting behaviour and an increase in socialising behaviour in the presence of tour boats (indurkyhua). One Heaviside's dolphin was documented in 2010 with evidence of a propeller strike along its flank. As individuals have small home ranges, they may be vulnerable to localised threats.

Conservation status
Prior to 2018, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) listed the Heaviside's as 'Data Deficient' however, as of 2017 the status was changed to 'Near Threatened', owing to improved knowledge on the species from multiple studies. Despite this, the overall population trend remains unknown, and there are many aspects of the species biology that remain to be studied.

Heaviside's dolphin is listed on Appendix II of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals and is included in the Memorandum of Understanding Concerning the Conservation of the Manatee and Small Cetaceans of Western Africa and Macaronesia. The Memorandum of Understanding was established in 2008 and aims to protect these species at a national, regional and global level.

title: Heaviside's dolphin