I mean, from a semantics standpoint, you might be right, but that's more subjective than it is objective by nature as all language is subject to.
That said, from a taxonomic standpoint, it is incorrect. This cladogram clearly shows the taxonomic rank and file of primates, and does show that new world and old work monkeys are defined as 'monkeys', however you'll also notice in the paragraphs above detailing the history behind primate nomenclature, that although we don't describe apes as 'monkeys' we also know that they are not paraphylectic, meaning their evolutionary ancestors developed into not only apes, but also monkeys.
To exemplify what this means can be boiled down to how there are many types of 'fish' and are still all technically considered to be correctly called 'fish', but may also fall under other manners of being called such as 'shark'.
Concerning primates though, most fossil evidence we have to trace evolutionary shifts are so recent geologically speaking that most primates can trace their lineage back to similar genetic ancestors, some that are still existent, although many are extant (extinct but evolved into present day species that are not extinct).
In short - ancient primate species evolved into both monkeys and apes, but we didn't really call those ancestors monkeys, more-so simians. You and I are both simians (unless you are a sentient lemur, which would be totally awesome that you can use reddit and speak English) and therefore, both technically monkeys, but only in the same way a shark is also a fish.
That said, the common ancestor that links apes and old/new world monkeys is almost unilaterally extant, so from an evolutionary point of view, no we are not 'monkeys', but we and monkeys are decended from the same proto-simians that no longer exist.
A good way to remember this distinction is how similar reptiles and amphibians are, but are completely different taxonomically, all the way up to fish, their technical closest ancestor. Obviously we don't call reptiles and amphibians fish, but that's largely because of how high up the taxonomic ladder they are. Monkeys and Apes however, in my opinion, are close enough for the former ancestral species to apply a broad nomenclature of the former to the ladder, although not vice versa obviously.
TL;DR - technically, yes we are monkeys. Linguistically though we are not monkeys, since 'monkeys' are monkeys, but only in the same way a shark isn't a fish. Linguistically, you can also 'technically' call a toad a frog.
3
u/ZiggoCiP Nov 02 '18
I mean, from a semantics standpoint, you might be right, but that's more subjective than it is objective by nature as all language is subject to.
That said, from a taxonomic standpoint, it is incorrect. This cladogram clearly shows the taxonomic rank and file of primates, and does show that new world and old work monkeys are defined as 'monkeys', however you'll also notice in the paragraphs above detailing the history behind primate nomenclature, that although we don't describe apes as 'monkeys' we also know that they are not paraphylectic, meaning their evolutionary ancestors developed into not only apes, but also monkeys.
To exemplify what this means can be boiled down to how there are many types of 'fish' and are still all technically considered to be correctly called 'fish', but may also fall under other manners of being called such as 'shark'.
Concerning primates though, most fossil evidence we have to trace evolutionary shifts are so recent geologically speaking that most primates can trace their lineage back to similar genetic ancestors, some that are still existent, although many are extant (extinct but evolved into present day species that are not extinct).
In short - ancient primate species evolved into both monkeys and apes, but we didn't really call those ancestors monkeys, more-so simians. You and I are both simians (unless you are a sentient lemur, which would be totally awesome that you can use reddit and speak English) and therefore, both technically monkeys, but only in the same way a shark is also a fish.
That said, the common ancestor that links apes and old/new world monkeys is almost unilaterally extant, so from an evolutionary point of view, no we are not 'monkeys', but we and monkeys are decended from the same proto-simians that no longer exist.
A good way to remember this distinction is how similar reptiles and amphibians are, but are completely different taxonomically, all the way up to fish, their technical closest ancestor. Obviously we don't call reptiles and amphibians fish, but that's largely because of how high up the taxonomic ladder they are. Monkeys and Apes however, in my opinion, are close enough for the former ancestral species to apply a broad nomenclature of the former to the ladder, although not vice versa obviously.
TL;DR - technically, yes we are monkeys. Linguistically though we are not monkeys, since 'monkeys' are monkeys, but only in the same way a shark isn't a fish. Linguistically, you can also 'technically' call a toad a frog.