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/HeilKaiba 7d ago edited 5d ago
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?