This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Lists Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Africa: Tanzania Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Tanzania (assessed as Mid-importance). Mammals Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

it is mentioned the creature was discovered in 2008, and indeed today (1 Feb) it's in the news (e.g. here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7213571.stm). However, the actual discovery of the creature was as early as 2005 ("The new species was first caught on film in 2005 in Ndundulu Forest in Tanzania's Udzungwa Mountains by a camera trap"), shouldn't it list 2005 for the discovery? Or is the date of official publication usually used for the 'discovery date'? Jalwikip (talk) 09:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The publication date is the date it was formally "described". Trying to put a date on the "discovery" is a bit awkward since there's a collection date, but who knows if the collector recognized that it was a new species at that point. There are lots of scenarios where an animal is in a museum for a century after being collected before someone analyzes it and determines it is something new. So does that make the date 1908, 2008,the date the researcher first suspected it was something new, the date the researcher was confident it was new, or the date the researcher convinced the reviewers it was something new? There is no formal definition of a "discovery" date. In formal usage, the impoartant date is the "description" date. --Aranae (talk) 15:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added genus homo human Homo sapiens as the last species of primates under chimpanzees, humans are native to Tanzania. 202.123.130.53 (talk) 05:07, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know why it was reverted. 202.123.130.53 (talk) 10:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When they say "list of mammals," they really mean "mammals aside from humans." That, and humans are not specifically native to Tanzania, either.--Mr Fink (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]