Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Humans & Apes ARE monkeys

  • 07-10-2011 7:02am
    #1
    Yitzhak Rabin
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,225 ✭✭✭


    I was reading over the forum request thread for this forum, and I noticed Sid_Justice said:
    Sid_Justice wrote:

    steddyeddy wrote:
    yes there would be indeed, bonobo, chimp, gorilla and orang

    none of them are monkeys bra'


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A-dMqEbSk8



    Then I saw this video, which claims that all of them ARE still monkeys.

    Which taxonomical classification system is the right one? Which one is taught in Irish Universities?


Comments

  • #2
    steddyeddy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,564 ✭✭✭✭steddyeddy


    Well monkeys are not a cleary defined taxon. Monkey can refer to new world monkeys (america) and old world monkeys (the rest). If you were describing a primate in the field you shouldnt really use monkeys. Then again you shouldnt really use ape either! The classification changes every few years or , some species of eukaryotic micro-organisims are reclassified five times within two years! Theres a lot of debate about how chimps and bonobos are classified. Some think that chimps should be classified within our group "Homo" and they be offered the same protection as us!


  • #3
    Sid_Justice
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,720 ✭✭✭Sid_Justice


    The video makes a very compelling argument. Is the salient point the most ancient primate was a monkey and therefore, every primate since is a variation of a monkey and thus we should all call ourselves monkeys?

    He seems to contradict himself a bit as he highlights, as steddyeddy has, that all these vernacular terms are non-scientific and ambiguous. A species, when looked at in the context of evolutionary time is really a transient entity. The definition of a species too, is very much prone to change. Between the taxa of Order and species I think taxonomy is really just academic and we really shouldn't get too fussed over it, it will change as more information and understanding is made available.

    I don't think the video is aiming to prove we're more related to monkeys then to apes or anything like that, but rather we should consider the entire order an order of monkeys. Is that fair? I might have to read it again but I don't have time to check up the different taxa he references and I am not particularly familiar with extinct ones.

    In conclusion, I really don't see any need to adapt the usage of the world monkey (my definition being any animal from the taxa Cercopithecoidea and Platyrrhini). Apes are still the gibbons, gorillas, chimps and orangs.

    PSS None of this stuff actually changes the way all the animals are related just the way we describe the relationships. Perhaps we do artificially move the goalposts to make humans look more unique then they actually are.


Advertisement