Can "monkey" be correctly used to refer to chimpanzees and gorillas?
monkey
No, the apes (that is, gibbons, orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans) are not considered monkeys. However, the term "monkey" itself may not be of so much use scientifically because it's paraphyletic: it contains the most recent common ancestor of all the simians (monkeys and apes), but it doesn't include all of its descendants.
(It's interesting that in French, for example, I believe they don't have any word that's quite the same as English "monkey" - the term "singe" refers to monkeys and apes indiscriminately.)
(It's interesting that in French, for example, I believe they don't have any word that's quite the same as English "monkey" - the term "singe" refers to monkeys and apes indiscriminately.)
<<However, the term "monkey" itself may not be of so much use scientifically because it's paraphyletic: it contains the most recent common ancestor of all the simians (monkeys and apes), but it doesn't include all of its descendants.>>
It's odd. There are biologists that argue that that humans are apes, but they don't similarly argue that apes are monkeys, even though there's as must cladistic reason for arguing that apes are monkeys as there is for arguing that humans are apes.
It's odd. There are biologists that argue that that humans are apes, but they don't similarly argue that apes are monkeys, even though there's as must cladistic reason for arguing that apes are monkeys as there is for arguing that humans are apes.
Apes have no tails. Monkeys do. And humans and apes are far more closely related to each other than either are to monkeys, although we are, of course, all primates. (Along with tarsiers and lemurs, which are the cutest of the bunch by a long shot!)
That's true. (And it bugs me when well-intentioned defenders of evolution try to argue with creatonists by saying, "Well no, we're not descended from monkeys, we just have a common ancestor..." when in reality, yes, we *are* descended from monkeys. Anyway...)
According to Wikipedia, the classification looks like this:
Infraorder Simiiformes (simians)
Parvorder Platyrrhini (New World monkeys)
Parvorder Catarrhini (Old World monkeys and apes)
Superfamily Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys)
Superfamily Hominoidea (apes, including humans)
In French, things are much easier, because they just have one term for everything.
According to Wikipedia, the classification looks like this:
Infraorder Simiiformes (simians)
Parvorder Platyrrhini (New World monkeys)
Parvorder Catarrhini (Old World monkeys and apes)
Superfamily Cercopithecoidea (Old World monkeys)
Superfamily Hominoidea (apes, including humans)
In French, things are much easier, because they just have one term for everything.
Uriel raises a good point: the English-language distinction between "monkey" and "ape" is basically a morphological one - tails versus no tails. From that premise, it make sense to say that humans are apes, but that apes are not monkeys. Or in other words, I think the morphological distinction between apes (tailed) and monkeys (tailless) is more solid than any supposed distinction between humans and other apes.
Sorry, I mean <apes (tailless) and monkeys (tailed)>.
And I tried to indent those taxa above, but it didn't work.
And I tried to indent those taxa above, but it didn't work.
Lazar,
You may know about language, but I'm not sure that you know a lot about biology.
You may know about language, but I'm not sure that you know a lot about biology.
Lazar, that's my post above at 7:35. I do respect your opinions on language-related issues, but when you pop over into another field, I
suspect that your opinions on some issues are not as well-researched.
suspect that your opinions on some issues are not as well-researched.
The topic of this thread relates to biology. I'd appreciate it if you didn't insult me.
Lazar,
I'm not trying to insult you. I enjoy your posts.
I understand that topics in evolution are of considerable interest to linguists, but it appears that some linguists seem to be following the ideas of older, respected linguists, not current topics in biology.
Even with the internet, it's difficult for people to be aware of research in areas that may impact their primary area of interest.
While I admire certain skills that linguists (those who have studied linguistics, not polyglots) have, I sometimes look at their conclusions with
a degree of scepticism.
It's also quite possible, that I misjudged your opinion and I note your correction about monkeys and apes.
I'm not trying to insult you. I enjoy your posts.
I understand that topics in evolution are of considerable interest to linguists, but it appears that some linguists seem to be following the ideas of older, respected linguists, not current topics in biology.
Even with the internet, it's difficult for people to be aware of research in areas that may impact their primary area of interest.
While I admire certain skills that linguists (those who have studied linguistics, not polyglots) have, I sometimes look at their conclusions with
a degree of scepticism.
It's also quite possible, that I misjudged your opinion and I note your correction about monkeys and apes.
So you were just attacking me over a typo, which I promptly corrected and which you had the opportunity to read for 42 minutes?
I'll freely admit that I'm neither a linguist nor a biologist - just an interested layman -, but I'd suggest that you make reasoned objections in a situation like this, rather than simply accusing someone of ignorance.
I'll freely admit that I'm neither a linguist nor a biologist - just an interested layman -, but I'd suggest that you make reasoned objections in a situation like this, rather than simply accusing someone of ignorance.
Or more accurately, <which I promptly corrected 42 minutes before your post>. Gosh, another mistype!