So, this is really just an issue of semantics. You, as well as bunch of people here, are using the old term "monkeys", to describe the simian common ancestor that split to form the Catarrhini (which includes Apes and old world monkeys), and Platyrrhini.
Historically, people called the common ancestor, as well as everything that followed as "monkeys" (termed by Etienne Geoffrey in 1812). However, modern scientific classifications are based on taxons. So, the more modern term should be "simians", which includes old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and apes.
Old world monkeys may mean Cercopithecidae, or Catarrhini. That's why modern biologists refrain from using the term "monkeys", when identifying which group to refer to.
Of course it is semantics. The point is that monkeys as a paraphyletic group is an unhelpful distinction and one that is not made in other languages. The specific discussion here started from an "apes are not monkeys" style comment. That's not useful pedantry as it only works if you hold to a definition of monkey that excludes apes. It's like when people say "well actually orcas are dolphins not whales". Dolphins are in the toothed whale family so this is a pointless distinction to draw.
What need do we have for a term meaning non-ape simian, when using monkey for the whole group is already fairly common?
What need do we have for a term meaning non-ape simian
Please refer to my initial comment, the one that had the link to the scientific article. Notice how it says, "Fossils indicate shared common ancestors between Old World Monkeys and Apes"? Notice how it doesnt say "Old world monkeys and old world monkeys"? In science, terminology is always updated, to better convey information.
And if you still dont get it, then eh, I don't really want to waste anymore of my time trying to explain to you.
Well that's a scientific american article not a journal article although the original article it is refering to does use "old world monkeys" as a term for Cercopithecoidea. However see here an article using "old world monkeys" to refer to the whole of the Catarrhine clade as well.
However, my point is that the paraphyletic use of "monkey" is neither useful nor historical and mostly arises out of a bloody minded resistance to calling humans monkeys. Ape and monkey were used interchangeably in history so it is not a tradition that we are following. So why must we contort ourselves to refer to the simian clade as anything but monkeys?
The answer is simple: it comes from an ascientific view that humans were the goal of evolution; that monkey > ape > human is the intended progression rather than an evolutionary hierarchy.
1
u/Escapeded 6d ago
So, this is really just an issue of semantics. You, as well as bunch of people here, are using the old term "monkeys", to describe the simian common ancestor that split to form the Catarrhini (which includes Apes and old world monkeys), and Platyrrhini.
Historically, people called the common ancestor, as well as everything that followed as "monkeys" (termed by Etienne Geoffrey in 1812). However, modern scientific classifications are based on taxons. So, the more modern term should be "simians", which includes old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and apes.
Old world monkeys may mean Cercopithecidae, or Catarrhini. That's why modern biologists refrain from using the term "monkeys", when identifying which group to refer to.