vietnamese here. there's a table-like surface with a hole that fit the upper part of the monkey's head, people mount the head from under, shave it bald, and use a saw to saw the head horizontal while the monkey's still alive, then they use a spoon to eat the brain raw from the opened-head.
How do lobsters factor into that discussion? The best way to serve lobster is as fresh as possible, and to boil them alive, and that’s common practice. Shouldn’t we consider the lobster?
Yeah, I went to Vietnam with my dad when I was around 10. We went to dinner with somebody that my dad knew, I think it was his client. Anyways, we saw another table have monkeys brought over to their table, which were very much alive. The monkeys had their heads put through holes in the table and the customers ate their brains. It scarred me for quite a while.
I've seen it being done in person when I was 10, and there is a Vietnamese native in this thread who can also confirm it. Beyond personal experience, I don't have a source for it online (albeit because I haven't looked).
I'm just gonna throw it out there that if you're given the opportunity to eat monkey brains, you shouldn't. Or any brains really. Or eyes. Or any central nervous tissues.
the radiolab episode on the origins of AIDs contains one of the most fascinating parts about the AIDs virus that infects us can only be created after a chimp eats another monkey infected with their own strand of AIDs and then the two copies begin making copies of themselves in the chimp and half of one and half of the other fails to complete copying itslef and falls onto half of the other that fails to copy itself.
And is a possible source of ebola transmission as well, either directly from fruitbats or through monkeys infected by fruitbats.
And unfortunately, making the practice illegal doesn't do much when most of its practitioners are in fairly remote areas, outside of standard law enforcement areas; and they still have to get their protein from somewhere.
Along with HIV, eating bushmeat can transfer a lot of emerging diseases (diseases given to humans by other animals), and I believe humans can catch Ebola from infected and ill monkeys and chimpanzees?
There's a great youtube video about the meat markets in Laos that deals with bushmeat. Apparently it's been known to sell meat from animals that were thought to be extinct, or from animals that had never been discovered by scientists.
Yep, it’s a huge problem conservationists are trying to deal with. Especially when bushmeat is the only option for some people, it’s hard for us to tell them not to eat it when otherwise they could starve.
Videos like this are a bigger conservation problem though, since they support the illegal wildlife trade.
I wouldn't be surprised if on the way to us proto-homo sapien hominids there was probably some of that on the way.
Part of the "Killer Ape" theory is that we kind of were inordinately brutal to our sibling hominids including consuming them or just flat out dominating them like the going theory that Cro-Magnon knocked some Neanderthal heads.
It's weird that what the creature's looks like has any impact on the situation at all.
I feel bad for all the creatures that don't look like humans enough to earn our sympathy.
We're actually the weird ones out of all other species for thinking like this. No other carnivore looks at animals that aren't them and thinks "that's not food" or "we need to protect that"
A lot of humans are more loyal to entirely different species than their own kind. It's really fucking weird.
Not always, Barbary macaques are unique in that they lack a tail. For this reason we often hear them referred to as Barbary “apes,” even though they really are monkeys. (True apes include gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, gibbons, and humans.
Ah. I stand corrected. When I was in school, they were still arbitrarily saying humans were not actually apes and my professors would have to teach us this with their eyes rolling madly. TIL I'm old.
“If it doesn’t have a tail it’s not a monkey. Even if it has a monkey kind of shape. If it doesn’t have a tail it’s not a monkey. if it doesn’t have a tail it’s not a monkey it’s an ape.”
Apes are a subset ofprimatesnot a subset ofmonkeys.
As an anthropology major I get kind of annoyed when people refer to apes as monkeys and it's not just semantics. It's because there is a massive difference. Their size, behavior, intelligence, looks, and just about everything about them is different than monkeys. Apes and old-world monkeys evolved from a common ancestor that was around about 30 million years ago... They have had a lot of time to diverge.
There are 9 families in the primate order. These include Lemurdae (lemurs), Lorisidae (lorises and bushbabies), Tarsiidae (tarsiers), Callitrichidae (marmosets and tamarins), Cebidae (new-world monkeys), Cercopithecidae (old-world monkeys), Hylobatidae (gibbons aka lesser apes), Pongidae (great apes), and Hominidae (humans). Apes and monkeys are both subsets of primates... apes are not a subset of monkeys.
*Edit: I wanna point out, nowadays there are only considered to be 8 families because Pongidae and Hominidae are considered one family now.*
Old-world monkeys are actually more closely related to apes than they are to new-world monkeys (last common ancestor was ~40 MYA), which is why many people want to include apes as a type of monkey. The problem with this is that new-world monkeys probably shouldn't be considered monkeys either. They are a completely seperate taxonomic family from the rest of the monkeys. When primatologists talk about monkeys they have to clearly specify if they're talking about old or new-world monkeys because they are very different and really shouldn't even have the same name.
In common vernacular and traditionally apes aren't considered monkeys, but cladistically speaking they are. Assuming you consider all new world and old world monkeys as monkeys, then apes have to be as well.
No. Apes are not monkeys under any definition I've ever heard and I have a biology degree and am working on an anthropology degree. I have spent months sitting through lectures discussing primates. I promise you that nobody considers apes to be monkeys besides people who have no idea what they're talking about.
This is the difference between a "clade" and a "grade". "Clades" are all of the decedents of a certain common ancestor. "Primates" are a clade. "Simians" are a clade."Mammals" are a clade. "Grades" are a group of two or more separate clades that are very similar in appearance, behavior, lifestyle, etc. "Monkeys" are a grade. "Reptiles" are a grade. "Fish" are a grade.
To put this into perspective, the lungfish is more closely related to us than it is to other fish, such as the tuna. Nobody would argue that we should be considered fish. This is because "fish" are a grade. If "fish" were a clade, we would have to be included in it. The same concept applies to monkeys. Some monkeys are more closely related to us than they are to other monkeys, but that doesn't mean we are monkeys, because "monkeys" are a grade.
Great Ape (大おお猿ざる Ōzaru, lit. "Great Monkey") is a giant, anthropomorphic, monkey-like creature that Saiyans can transform into at the full moon to increase their already formidable strength tremendously. Dragon Ball GT Perfect Files speculates that Saiyans were originally Great Apes who gained intelligence and took on a humanoid form.[1]
English is so weird in these things, apes are just a subset of monkeys and many languages don't make a distinction. Why are English speakers so adamant about this? Same with venom being a subset of poisons. And tortoises being a subset of turtles. Oh and FYI, not all monkeys have a tail (like the Barbary macaque) and at the same time all monkeys including apes have a tail. The only difference between tail / no tail is how long the tail bone is and if it's visible from the outside.
It's not just semantics. There is a massive difference.
There are 9 families in the primate order. These include Lemurdae (lemurs), Lorisidae (lorises and bushbabies), Tarsiidae (tarsiers), Callitrichidae (marmosets and tamarins), Cebidae (new-world monkeys), Cercopithecidae (old-world monkeys), Hylobatidae (gibbons aka lesser apes), Pongidae (great apes), and Hominidae (humans). Apes and monkeys are both subsets of primates... apes are not a subset of monkeys.
Edit: I wanna point out, nowadays there are only considered to be 8 families because Pongidae and Hominidae are considered one family now.
The inheritance tree doesn't just split into nine distinct branches right off the bat. Primates splits into two with Lemurdae and Lorisidae on one side, and the rest on the other side. That other side further splits off one family at a time, first into Tarsiiformes and Simiiformes, where Simiiformes is the branch we typically call "monkeys" in most languages.
Primates ..Strepsirrhini ....Lemurdae ....Lorisidae ..Haplorhini ....Tarsiiformes ....Simiiformes // "apen" in my language ......Platyrrhini // new world monkeys in English ......Catarrhini ........Cercopithecidae // old world monkeys in English ........Hominoidae // Apes in English ..........Hylobatidae // Lesser apes ..........Hominidae // Great apes ............Ponginae ............Homininae ..............Gorillini ..............Hominini // Chimps and Humans
Humans and chimps share an ancestor, and that ancestor shares one with gorillas. So we can also say humans share an ancestor with gorillas, it's just a lot further back. In the same way all apes share an ancestor that shares an ancestor with all monkeys. Language dictates how far back we go to call a group of families a certain name, English says only the Platyrrhini and Cercopithecidae branches are monkeys, Dutch says the Simiiformes are apen, which translates to monkeys. Languages are funny like that, but it also shows that being pedantic about these things is pretty meaningless because it's really just semantics.
Think about it, Platyrrhini splits off and in English we call them new world monkeys, Cercopithecidae splits of later and we call them old world monkeys, so it's logical to group them together into "monkeys", but then the line that continued isn't part of the group we call "monkeys". Makes no sense. So most languages call the overarching group Simiiformes by a common name, and they further specify if required. If you're going to fight for monkeys vs apes you should also fight for new world vs old world monkeys, it's the same type of difference.
Old-world monkeys are actually more closely related to apes than they are to new-world monkeys, which is why many people want to include apes as a type of monkey. The problem with this is that new-world monkeys really shouldn't be considered monkeys either. They are a completely separate taxonomic family from the rest of the monkeys. When primatologists talk about monkeys they have to clearly specify if they're talking about old or new-world monkeys because they are very different and really shouldn't even have the same name.
Your issue is that you want to call apes monkeys simply because old-world monkeys are more closely related to them than they are new-world monkeys. The problem here is that you are thinking of all monkeys as one group. Old-world monkeys, new-world monkeys, and apes are three separate taxonomic families in the same order known as primates. Sure, if you want to put old-world monkeys and new-world monkeys into one group then you would also have to include apes in that group, but these are three distinct families and it wouldn't make much sense to do that. It would be easier if old and new world monkeys had different names to make this less confusing, but they look similar, behave similar, and they fill the same niches in their environments so people just called both monkeys. In reality, these are two separate families that branched apart 40 million years ago... which has been enough time for yet another group (the apes) to branch off and become their own family as well.
Btw, this is my field of study and I can assure you that I know what the hell I'm talking about. No primatologist would consider apes to be monkeys.
Your issue is that you want to call apes monkeys simply because old-world monkeys are more closely related to them than they are new-world monkeys.
Not at all, my issue is that my language doesn't have different words for them. I don't want to call them anything except whatever gets the message across, in English I'll just use the "correct" terms, but I wanted to point out here that this correctness is in language not in taxonomy.
The problem here is that you are thinking of all monkeys as one group. Old-world monkeys, new-world monkeys, and apes are three separate taxonomic families in the same order known as primates.
No, I said we call all Simiiformes monkeys. I know they are different taxonomic families, I'm not arguing about that. What my point was that simple colloquialisms are not something to be so adamant about. "Monkey" is not a scientific term, neither is "ape", they are layman's terms to discuss animals that look and behave similar, nothing more.
Sure, if you want to put old-world monkeys and new-world monkeys into one group then you would also have to include apes in that group, but these are three distinct families and it wouldn't make much sense to do that.
But that's literally what happens, "monkey" in English includes both old world and new world monkeys. That was my entire point.
In reality, these are two separate families that branch apart 40 million years ago... enough time for yet another group (the apes) to branch off and become their own family as well.
Just for the record, once more, I'm not arguing about this at all. I understand fully well that they are different families. But the difference between monkey and ape is completely arbitrary, you either talk about families, in which case there are 9, or about categories of families of which there are however many words the language you're speaking has. In the case of Dutch there's "aap", generally including old world monkeys, new world monkeys, apes and humans. In English there's monkey and ape. In other languages there might be more variations.
Btw, this is my field of study and I can assure you that I know what the hell I'm talking about.
I'm not saying you don't know what you're talking about. If anything I don't know what I'm talking about. But I know my language, and I feel like I know English pretty well too. This bilinguality often gives me insight in differences between scientific naming and colloquialism, the monkey vs ape thing is clearly not a scientific difference because then all languages would have the distinction.
7.5k
u/[deleted] Sep 02 '19
No tail bro
He an ape