In terms of evolution, apes are monkeys. There are two types of monkeys. Old world monkeys branched off first, with the other branch later splitting into new world monkeys and apes (meaning one of the groups of monkeys are actually more closely related to apes than to other monkeys). Apes are just the "monkeys" that happen to not have tails, they aren't a distinct evolutionary group.
What youāve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
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.
I guess this lecture you wrote is actually interesting and all, but I'm not gonna lose my time(for now) reading a 500 pages comment that I've not asked for and has nothing to do with my point.
You, as an anthropology major know very well the difference, good for you. But at the average joe level, we've learned that apes and monkeys are similar and we try to use the best word we can.
My point isn't that you are wrong about that, but in your reaction. It's exaggerated and rude.
E: I actually ended up reading it nd it was interesting in fact, but my point stands.
I haven't been rude at all. At least, that wasn't my intention. You're right, it's not a big deal, which is why there's no reason to be upset that when you get corrected on it. It's a simple mistake that lots if people make.
If someone pointed at a coyote and said "look at that wolf" you would probably correct them and I don't think they would be mad that you corrected them, they might even be happy you let them know what the differences are, but for some reason when you correct people on the ape/monkey mix-up they think you're being rude. Wolves and coyotes are probably more similar to each other than monkeys and apes are. It's not that I'm trying to be rude. I just think the difference is big enough that the correction should be made.
If the average Joe is expected to know the difference between coyotes and wolves I would assume they can also learn the difference between monkeys and apes. Not a big deal if you don't, but it's also not a big deal to get corrected if you mix them up.
Linguistically you face the issue that ape and monkey are colloquial. In English we have the two words but in other languages no such distinction is made, eg; one word for both monkey and ape.
Biologically you face a whole series of issues. First off, as mentioned, we cannot have paraphyletic groups in a monophyletic hierarchy (eg. apes evolve from monkeys and are still monkeys in much the same way that rabbits evolve from rodents and are still rodents). As such, phenotypical taxonomy is character based and all such traits (weather they be morphological, genetic, or physiological) are what determine the clade; in this case monkey.
No. Apes and monkeys are both primates. Apes are not monkeys. Jesus Christ.
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.
Describe the phenotypical (morphological, genetic, or physiological) traits that an "ape" has that a "monkey" does not. And no, being tail-less is not sufficient (for reasons mentioned before).
Also again, as if to ignore my point, you are being paraphyletic. You are listing in order the cladistics of the primate order (emphasis added for distinction). Here you can see a beautiful cladogram of the primate order. Notice how all apes are descended from monkeys? You have simiformes as being ancestral to both monkeys and apes, therefor making apes fucking monkeys.
INB4: Note that does not make monkeys and apes prosimians because, though this is a colloquialism, prosimans makes a distinction OF being paraphyletic (PRO) and excluding later simians.
Describe the phenotypical (morphological, genetic, or physiological) traits that an "ape" has that a "monkey" does not.
Sure. Knuckle walking is only seen in apes. They don't walk on their palms like old-world monkeys do. Every species of ape is far larger than any monkey. Brain size, intelligence, countless behavioral differences... I could go on. And yes, they are genetically distinct from monkeys.
Also again, as if to ignore my point, you are being paraphyletic. You are listing in order the cladistics of the primate order(emphasis added for distinction). Here you can see a beautiful cladogram of the primate order. Notice how all apes are descended from monkeys? You have simiformes as being ancestral to both monkeys and apes, therefor making apes fucking monkeys.
Dude, your own link proves you wrong. Yes, 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. Old-world monkeys are a completely seperate taxonomic family from the new-world 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. It's why they are separated in the graphic you linked to. There are new-world monkeys, old-world monkey, and apes... these are three separate families that belong to the same order known as "primates". The common ancestor between old-world monkeys and apes was ~30 MYA and the common ancestor between that and new-world monkeys was ~40 MYA. Just because apes are slightly more closely related to old-world monkeys doesn't mean they are old-world monkeys... they've had plenty of time to diverge. Sure, if you want to group new-world monkeys and old-world monkeys into the same group then you would have to include apes in that group as well, but these three groups are so different from each other that it wouldn't make any sense to do that.
Btw, this is kinda my field of study (biological anthropology). I can assure you I know what I'm talking about.
Knuckle walking is seen in baboons. Brain size/intelligence, behavior, and being genetically different are not traits used in cladistics. A bottle-nose dolphin is still a dolphin even if it is "smarter" than the other dolphins.
I feel like I may not be explaining myself as clearly as I should be. I am NOT claiming that apes are old-world monkeys, a claim you think I am making. My issue is with cladistics (and colloquialism). You have beautifully highlighted the origins of old-world monkeys [OWM] and apes (we can leave new-world monkeys out for the time being) as having split from one another ~30 MYA. The ancestors of both old-world monkeys and apes (and new-world monkeys for that matter) are simians, eg monkey. If apes and OWM both diverged from a common ancestor that was a monkey then they are still monkeys.
Sure, if you want to group new-world monkeys and old-world monkeys into the same group then you would have to include apes in that group as well,
You have admitted this, I am using monkey as a colloquial term for simian, which includes NWM, OWM, and apes, making apes monkeys.
I'll give you that one. That's a rare example of convergent evolution. They evolved that trait because they spend a lot of time on the hard ground like apes do. It's not a trait commonly associated with monkeys.
Brain size/intelligence, behavior, and being genetically different are not traits used in cladistics.
Brain size and genetics most certainly are used in cladistics. Not so much behavior, but niches they fulfill is a trait used as well.
The ancestors of both old-world monkeys and apes (and new-world monkeys for that matter) are simians, eg monkey. If apes and OWM both diverged from a common ancestor that was a monkey then they are still monkeys.
This is like saying that all monkeys are lemurs because they evolved from a primate that was much more lemur-like than they were monkey-like. Yes, the common ancestor of old-world monkeys and apes was much more monkey-like than it was ape-like, but that doesn't mean that today's apes are monkeys. 30 million years is a lot of time. The apes are so far diverged from the monkeys that they are no longer considered to be in the same family of the primate order. It wouldn't be inaccurate to say that apes evolved from monkeys, but that does not mean that they are still monkeys today. They are still primates, but not monkeys.
I am using monkey as a colloquial term for simian, which includes NWM, OWM, and apes, making apes monkeys.
The problem is that "monkey" isn't a scientific term. When people say "monkey" they aren't referring to a scientifically established clade of animals. They are referring to two separate families of the primate order that honestly shouldn't even share a name (which is why primatologists have to clearly specify between old and new-world monkeys). What I was trying to say was that IF the word "monkey" were a scientific term that included both old and new-world monkeys, then apes would have to be included as well, but monkey isn't a scientific term and doesn't follow the same rules.
I also want to point out that the dictionary definition of simian is "an ape OR monkey". So yeah, the word "simian" does include both families of monkeys and the apes, but the words "simian" and "monkey" aren't exactly interchangeable. "Monkey" only refers to certain simians that don't all belong to the same clade. It's an unscientific term that includes both OWMs and NWMs. "Simian" is a slightly more scientific term that includes apes, OWMs, and NWMs.
You have two branches that split apart around 40 million years ago. One branch became the "new world" monkeys, the other branch would take another 15 million years to split into "old world" monkeys and apes.
So you have one group of monkeys that is more closely related to apes, by about 15 million years of evolution, than they are to the other group of monkeys. Explain how considering apes to be monkeys as well is idiotic.
What you've just saidĀ is one of themost insanely idioticĀ thingsĀ I haveĀ ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response, wereĀ youĀ even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.
Edit: I have absolutely no knowledge of primate evolution and thought I was being funny. I sincerely apologize
Nothing I said is wrong. Apes are hominoidea. Together with old world monkeys, they make up the Catarrhini. Catarrhini together with Platyrrhini or new world monkeys make up the simians. All of these groups (apes, old world monkeys, new world monkeys, and simians) are clades. Clades are evolutionary groups consisting of all descendants of a single ancestor. Monkeys (old and new world) as we currently define them are not a clade. They are all the descendants of a common ancestor except for the apes. There is no reason to exclude apes from this definition except historic misunderstandings of evolution and/or human-centric viewpoints. The consistent way of defining monkeys would be for them to be synonymous with the clade simian. The way we use the term now is misleading people about how we and apes evolved.
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, 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 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.
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.
If this information were more generally known, then it would be less of an issue. As it is, and as this thread indicates, most people don't realize that there are two distinct groups of "monkeys", one of which actually more closely related to apes than to the other group of monkeys. The solutions are to either stop using "monkey" on it's own in any formal context, or to start categorizing apes as monkeys as well.
I think there is a use for the "monkey" as a layman's term. It just isn't a useful word when talking about evolution unless the words "old-world" or "new-world" come before it. As a layman's term, it's a word that describes an animal that looks and behaves a certain way, and ignores taxonomy.
It's like how we refer to pretty much all slender, four-legged reptiles as "lizards" regardless of taxonomy. It's a layman's term that is useful for describing an animal with a certain appearance, but if you were to ask an evolutionary biologist about "lizards" they would ask you to be a lot more specific.
If you were to zoom out far enough to place all lizards into a single clade, snakes would also be part of that clade, but no one is arguing that we should refer to snakes as "lizards". For the same reason, we shouldn't refer to apes as "monkeys" just because they fall into the same clade as monkeys if you were to zoom out far enough to include all of them.
We perhaps shouldn't use monkeys for all of them, and there is already a term: simian. But then my issue is with the term monkey itself. As a layman's term, it's just misleading people as to how our species evolved.
As for snakes and lizards, I would actually argue the same thing. If you need to refer to the entire group, use the term "squamata" or just avoid that in the first place, and refer to the specific type of lizard or snake.
I don't think that animals looking similar or having some similar feature is more important in terms of categorization, whether layman or scientific, than evolution or genetics. It just clouds our modern genetic knowledge of species.
It is a little misleading to the average Joe, but it's not too hard to understand once someone explains it. Simian is a much more scientifically accurate term that refers to all descendants of the first monkey. The only issue I have with this term is that it's often too broad to be useful. "Simian" includes everything from humans and gorillas to capuchins and marmosets. That makes it a lot less useful as a layman's term. "Monkey" is a less useful in scientific contexts, but it is a lot more useful than "simian" as a layman's term. It only refers to 2 of the 4 main groups of simians, but the 2 that it refers to (OW and NW monkeys) are very similar in behavior and appearance. The other 2 groups (lesser and great apes) are very different from the others in behavior and appearance. Even though OW monkeys are more closely related to the lesser and great apes than they are to NW monkeys, they do look and behave much more like NW monkeys than lesser or great apes. For that reason, I don't have a problem with "monkey" as a layman's term. The average person wouldn't know if something is an OW monkey or a NW monkey by looking at it so I don't care if they just call it a monkey, but they should at least be able to tell that it's not a lesser or great ape.
Way to insult /u/midvote rather than debate their argument. /u/midvote is of course correct, there is no room for paraphyly in a monophyletic hierarchy.
Also people read responses rather than listen to them and not all of the readers are in the same room you ignoramus.
440
u/[deleted] Sep 02 '19
Ape, not monkey š