User deleted post
Isn’t it weird how most people don’t see themselves as monkeys when we in fact are?
discussionin German 'Affe' refers to both apes and monkeys, and humans being a type of 'Affe' is uncontroversial, which makes me think that this disagreement over humans being monkeys must be due to the cultural/historical context of the English word 'monkey' as it's sometimes used as an insult and racial slur.
i think most people with education in zoology would agree humans belong to the Simiiformes, but english speakers often don't use the word 'monkey' to refer to the clade of simians and instead use it colloquially as a paraphyletic group of non-ape simians. i feel that it's okay to use terms to refer to paraphyletic groups in informal contexts but i also understand if people feel that we should be as accurate and up-to-date with modern science with our language as possible so as to avoid misinformation.
like, basically everyone agrees all humans are apes and all apes are simians, but english speakers often avoid conflating the non-scientific word "monkeys" with the precise scientifically defined clade "simians" (or the order "primates"), which i speculate to be for cultural reasons.
due to the cultural/historical context of the English word 'monkey' as it's sometimes used as an insult and racial slur.
Wow I never thought about that, very cool
It’s also tied into one of our landmark court cases. The “Scopes Monkey Trials.” Two of them, actually.
State of Tennessee v. John Thomas Scopes and the subsequent Scopes v. State of Tenn.
The tldr is that the State sued Scopes (a biology teacher) for violation of The Butler Act of Tennessee, which prohibited teaching evolution in schools. And it was staged as a very high-profile case. It got the name because the textbook he taught from taught the then-hypothesis that we descend from apes (specifically), and that devolved into the “we come descended from monkeys,” narrative that made it into popular culture (notably in O, Brother, Where Art Thou).
It does have the racial baggage on a cultural level, but it also is tied into how we talk about evolution (particularly in teaching it in schools).
So in US English - there’s a few reasons we don’t really say “monkey,” when we talk about evolution. It became a taboo on several levels.
And it doesn’t help that every few years we have some political discourse about teaching evolution. It stays fresh.
The Butler Act of Tennessee
Had to look that up... 1925, phew.
I've never heard of "monkey" being avoided in discussions of evolution though.
It’s not so much an active thing - but when we talk about it, it tends to come with a lot of disclaimers.
Like, I had a bio prof who prefaced every discussion of evolution with, “This doesn’t mean that we evolved from monkeys.”
Yipes that they have to say that what a weird world
Duh. We're talking about legalities.
"Mammal" is similar in English I think. It's not used pejoratively so no one has a problem accepting they're a mammal. Actually, that includes evangelical christians who'd a thunk?
Speak for yourself, mammal.
EDITOR'S NOTE: [ I have gone back and forth adding information into different places throughout my comment so I apologize if transitions between paragraphs and sentences seem sudden ]
I don't know German but I found this: https://www.reddit.com/r/German/s/r0cJZG3dLF
Nobody in the scientific community should be believing that humans are a type of monkey, or that monkeys are apes. Monkey and Simian are not interchangeable terms, they are not the same thing. Simian is a very broad term (infraorder) that includes all primates except for lemurs and tarsiers. This tree can explain just how distant we are from monkeys: https://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/images/Lewis_11_scans/Lewis11_p126_800.png
It has nothing to do with racism, that's the most pie in the sky bullshit excuse I've ever heard for simple ignorance. You're assuming that English is wrong and German is right simply because you (presumably) are a native German speaker. You should also consider the possibility that your assumptions of the german language are themselves based on your learned experience of informal language. Your use of 'Affe' in reference to humans and monkeys is as a colloquial term, not a real definition. I don't understand where your confusion is between this distinction. You cannot possibly be assuming that since there exists an informal term that refers to humans as monkeys, that humans must actually be monkeys. That's like saying that since many people call other humans 'bitch' (which means female dog), that humans must actually be dogs.
Clades are only generalizations based on common ancestors. They are deviations from the central path of evolution (AKA grades) For example, ancestors of whales were land animals with legs. If we assume that most species that evolved from it kept their legs, then whales would be a clade. If we assume that most of them lost their legs, then whales would be part of the grade. I won't delve into that family tree though. So let's use that system of logic.
Saying that humans are monkeys because they're both simians is the same as saying dogs are bears because they're both canines.
New World Monkeys (a clade) branched off from the rest of the simians (the grade) around 40 million years ago. Old World Monkeys (a smaller clade) then separated from Apes around 25 million years ago, followed by the separation of the great apes 17 million years ago. The genus Homo began around 3 million years ago, and Homo sapiens emerged only around 300,000 years ago.
The common ancestor between dogs and bears split about 45 million years ago. Interestingly, the common ancestor between dogs and cats (generally considered polar opposite animals) split around 42 million years ago. Those are strikingly similar timing to the split between humans and monkeys.
Humans cannot be monkeys because monkeys are a clade that evolved off the central branch that eventually evolved into humans. They've existed a lot longer than humans and humans did not evolve from any species of monkey. How far back in the evolution tree do you think is acceptable to associate a species with another? If you go all the way back, all life on earth shares a single common ancestor (LUCA) that branched off into many different types of life. So are humans plants? No, they're not. Cats are not dogs, dogs are not bears, and humans are not monkeys. Just because there's less apparent difference (i.e. physical appearance) between humans and monkeys than there is between cats and dogs, does not change the fact that we are in fact not monkeys. Similarly, just because your experience of language has tainted you to associate humans as monkeys, does not mean that humans are monkeys. I've known people who associate 'chinese' with just about any Asian. Indians are the only type of Asian that are vastly different from all other types of Asian people. The reason for this association is because they've grown up in an environment ignorant of the differences between different Asian people (Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Filipino, etc.) It's not too bold of me to assume that you think humans are monkeys simply because you've grown up in an environment where some people use 'Affe' or similar terms to refer to people as monkeys, so you've learned to associate humans with monkeys. No, I'm not calling you racist, nor anyone you grew up around. I'm only suggesting that your vocabulary is plagued by an indoctrination of informality.
My only point with bringing up German was that the equivalent of "Simian" - a clade that includes new world monkeys, old world monkeys and apes - is the default word, unlike English where the common informal words for simians are divided into the specific clade Apes and the paraphyletic group monkeys (non-ape simians).
https://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/troufs/anth1602/images/Lewis\_11\_scans/Lewis11\_p126\_800.png
Yes. this chart is accurate to my knowledge but uses the non-clade definition of "monkey" - you can see here that it include the Old World Monkeys but excludes the apes, making it paraphyletic. In my comment I do state that this paraphyletic definition is what people generally mean when they say "monkey"
"Humans cannot be monkeys because monkeys are a clade that evolved off the central branch that eventually evolved into humans. They've existed a lot longer than humans and humans did not evolve from any species of monkey."
Ok i think this is our main source of disagreement.
"Monkeys" are not a clade. There is no monophyletic group that includes both the old world monkeys and the new world monkeys. A clade is by definition monophyletic & you cannot evolve out of a clade. If apes are not monkeys, then the word "monkey" is not referring to a clade.
If monkey is a paraphyletic group, then sure, we can exclude humans from that group, and humans are not monkeys. I believe this is how most English speakers use the word. But surely it's notable that English speakers choose to use a scientifically outdated common term when we could adjust our definition of monkey to be equivalent to "Simian"? Maybe it's not due to racism, but it's a little weird that we're fine with using cladistic common terms like mammal, primate, ape and animal to refer to humans, but choose the paraphyletic term monkey to distance us from other simians. This is an outlier and my suggestion that it could be due to the cultural context of "monkey" as a slur is just one explanation for why it is unusually non cladistic in common usage.
Either way, as i said, i think its fine to use words to refer to paraphyletic groups. But really as biologists instead of saying "humans are not monkeys, because monkeys are non-ape simians", we should say "the word monkey generally doesn't refer to a clade, it's not reflective of our modern understanding of primate evolution. humans are apes and apes are simians. some monkeys, like the proboscis monkey and collared monkey, are more closely related to humans than they are to other monkeys like spider monkeys and howler monkeys."
You misinterpreted my words. I apologize if my definition of clade and grade aren't entirely correct, I'm not actually familiar with the technical terms for things. What I meant was that New World Monkeys are a clade themselves separate from Old World Monkeys and Apes. They branched off and became their own clade. When you place their parvorder as the common ancestor , everything evolved from there is a part of that clade. That's the exact same way you're referring to Simians as a clade. You're correct that you can't evolve out of a clade, but separate clades exist within clades. Every time something evolves and branches off, that can be marked as a clade. New World Monkeys are a clade, as are Old World Monkeys a separate clade. Two different clades, not connected to each other. To my knowledge, A clade is simply an imaginary box we put around a section of evolution that all share a common ancestor. A clade can literally be one species. Humans are a clade. Regardless, however we define clades, that's completely irrelevant. So my point is that there are 2 separate groups of monkeys both of which branched off from the rest of simians, both at different points in time. New World Monkeys branched off 40 million years ago, Old World Monkeys branched off 25 million years ago. We use the term Monkey to refer to any species of either of those two clades (or evolution groups). By that means, it is a paraphyletic term. However, I don't see your purpose in arguing that, because regardless of whether "monkey" refers to only New World Monkeys, only Old World Monkeys, or both, it does not refer to humans or apes ever. Apes are separate from both of those deviations. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
Simian is the parent common ancestor. We'll simplify this pack of animals to the 3 main relevant ones (NWM, OWM and Great Apes) 40 Mya. NWM separated from the pack. 25 Mya. OWM separate from the pack. This leaves Great Apes. We are the remaining wolf cub. Since we are neither New World Monkeys or Old World Monkeys, that means we are not monkeys, nor are apes. We use cladistic terms like Mammal, Primate and Ape to refer to humans because humans ARE a part of those clades. We are not however a part of either monkey clade. It's exactly how my original comment stated. Just because dogs and bears are both canines, does not mean that dogs and bears are the same thing, or that we should refer to either of the 2 as simply canines.
Why are you insistent on everyone changing their vocabulary to match yours, when you should just change your vocabulary to match the real terms. English is no more specific about the names of things than German is, at least to my knowledge. If you're saying that German does not have separate words to differentiate New World Monkeys from Old World Monkeys and Apes, then isn't that less of a problem with English and more of a problem with German? We have a word for each evolutionary section, and we have words that combined multiple of them. If we changed the definition of Monkey to include all Simians, then this implies that humans are no different than monkeys.
Changing the definition of Monkey will not change what people are describing in conversations. It will only drive confusion. If we change the meaning of Monkey to refer to all simians, we will just use another word in its place. How else are we supposed to refer specifically to those animals? We call them monkeys specifically to differentiate them from us. You don't want people going around calling people monkeys because it's "technically correct". We're not monkeys. We're far more advanced intellectually than monkeys. So it's an insult to call someone a monkey. It's not an insult to call someone a primate, because that word does not exclusively refer to a lesser species.The point is, what the fuck do you have against calling a monkey a monkey??
We use the term Monkey to refer to any species of either of those two clades (or evolution groups). By that means, it is a paraphyletic term.
yep yep i agree with everything up to and including this point - im glad we agree on that, thank you for clarifying
However, I don't see your purpose in arguing that, because regardless of whether "monkey" refers to only New World Monkeys, only Old World Monkeys, or both, it does not refer to humans or apes ever. Apes are separate from both of those deviations. I don't know how much simpler I can put it.
i find this an important distinction because paraphyletic groups are not scientifically meaningful. apes and old world monkeys share a more recent common ancestor than old world monkeys and new world monkeys do. we now include birds as reptiles, because we understand that birds and sauropod dinosaurs share a more recent common ancestor than sauropod dinosaurs and lizards.
Simian is the parent common ancestor. We'll simplify this pack of animals to the 3 main relevant ones (NWM, OWM and Great Apes) 40 Mya. NWM separated from the pack. 25 Mya. OWM separate from the pack. This leaves Great Apes. We are the remaining wolf cub. Since we are neither New World Monkeys or Old World Monkeys, that means we are not monkeys, nor are apes.
i agree that if we are using the word "monkey" as a paraphyletic group that only includes the clades that have "monkey" in their common name, then apes are not monkeys.
this is a pretty arbitary distinction to make, though, especially since apes and OWMs are more closely related than OWMs and NWMs.
Just because dogs and bears are both canines, does not mean that dogs and bears are the same thing, or that we should refer to either of the 2 as simply canines.
this isn't an equivalent analogy. dogs and bears are seperate clades and they're both part of the caniforms. the words "dogs" and "bears" here are being used to refer to clades. an equivalent analogy is like saying "prarie dogs are dogs, because their common english name contains the word 'dog', and they're both mammals that bark." this is a silly definition of dog because it arbitarily includes one group of mammals whilst excluding a bunch of animals that are more closely related to canids (caniforms such as bears, skunks, racoons, and ferrets).
If we changed the definition of Monkey to include all Simians, then this implies that humans are no different than monkeys.
humans are more similar to collared monkeys than collared monkeys are to spider monkeys! we are different in many meaningful ways, but monkeys are not all similar to each other in a way that is distinct from apes. we share more DNA with certain monkeys than monkeys do with other monkeys! we are a very unique type of ape, but all apes and all old world monkeys evolved from a population of simian ancestors that didn't include the new world monkeys.
We call them monkeys specifically to differentiate them from us. You don't want people going around calling people monkeys because it's "technically correct". We're not monkeys. We're far more advanced intellectually than monkeys. So it's an insult to call someone a monkey. It's not an insult to call someone a primate, because that word does not exclusively refer to a lesser species.The point is, what the fuck do you have against calling a monkey a monkey??
right. humans are the most intelligent apes, and apes as a whole are generally more intelligent than other simians. but this division based on intelligence is arbitary. we don't exclude orcas from being whales or crows from being birds because they're too smart and 'too evolved' to belong to that category anymore. its use as an insult in english is probably a big reason for 'monkey' continuing to refer to an illogical grouping of simians. if we weren't offended by sharing ancestory with gibbons, why would we exclude ourselves from a grouping? this is exactly what i meant with my original comment. humans are apes, apes and some of the monkeys are catarrhines, catarrhines and the rest of the monkeys are simians. if the word "ape" was known as an insult and racial slur, you'd be arguing that humans aren't apes because we're more intelligent than them. dividing the simians into two monkey groups and the apes because "monkey" is offensive is just as arbitary. the only reason that humans are not monkeys is because we invented the word monkey to specifically exclude us.
Apes and monkeys are not interchangeable terms though, monkeys are a sunset of apes, so whereas all monkeys are apes not all apes are monkeys, humans are also a sunset of apes, but are not monkeys
This is not true. Monkeys are not a subset of apes.
"Ape" refers to Hominoidea. All apes are simians, not all simians are apes. The word "monkey" is controversial, imprecise and usually non-cladistic, since it's generally used to mean "All simians except the apes". But most animals that are commonly referred to as monkeys (such as spider monkeys, howler monkeys, langur monkeys, and proboscis monkeys) are not a member of Hominoidea.
Apes and Old World Monkeys make up the Catarrhines. Catarrhines and New World Monkeys make up the Simians. The closet equivalent clade (monophyletic group) to the word "monkey" is the Simians, making it more like the other way around to what your comment said; ie:
- if we define 'monkeys' as the Simiiforms and "apes" as the Hominoidea,
- apes are a subset of monkeys (all apes are monkeys, not all monkeys are apes)
- humans are a subset of apes (all humans are apes, not all apes are humans)
- therefore humans are a subset of monkeys.
Monkeys and apes are both primates, but monkeys and apes are different
So saying humans are monkeys is factually incorrect. Humans did not descend from monkeys
Isn’t it weird how most people don’t see themselves as evolved from single celled organisms when we in fact are?
...when in fact all of those people started their existence as single fertilized cells.
Careful! Us Muricans are dangerously close to defining life as starting at haloid cells!
Soon enough jizzing will be genocide 🙄
Well there is this one church that fancies itself a sovereign country.
Uh, no we’re not. Life has been known to start at fertilization for a while now.
Yeah, no. My state defined life as you described, and now it has to figure out WTF that even means, as far as dependent deduction for taxes, as the United States government isn't stupid enough to grant a SS number to a clump of diploid cells.
There is a church, who considers the prevention of conception to be a sin.
Life begins at fertilization. That’s not up for debate. There’s no other logical point in human development where life would begin.
Your gametes are no less alive. Technically, the chain of life is unbroken. The only difference is that a fertilized egg has the potential to develop into a complete adult thing and an unfertilized one likely doesn't outside of cases of parthenogenesis (there's an all female species of lizard and rotifers reproduce through parthenogenesis).
Gametes are not considered living organisms. They are technically only half a cell. A mammal’s life cycle begins at fertilization.
They are technically only half a cell
No, they're complete cells. In fact, the egg's genes are the only ones being expressed for the very first part of embryogenesis (when the embryo undergoes rapid cell division while skipping growth phases). During oogenesis, the process when gametic stem cells are developing into eggs, one daughter egg winds up absorbing most of the resources between the two daughter cells that split off, except for the DNA. There's also the fact that again, many species are capable of parthenogenesis, such as the examples I gave, but also occasionally other reptiles, the occasional bird, scorpions, amphibians, but it's a normal part of reproduction for many social insects like bees. They may not be individual people, but the cells involved in sexual reproduction and meiosis are very much alive, hence why viable and non-viable gametes are even a thing.
A mammal’s life cycle begins at fertilization.
A life cycle and being "alive" are not the same thing. Case in point, your muscle cells are alive, your skin cells are (except for the epidermis) alive, your brain cells are also alive, at least under ideal conditions. Simply because you're not a patch of skin, an axon, or a bit of muscle at some point during your development doesn't mean that these cells are not alive.
Of course it's up for debate. The fact that you don't want to is immaterial.
No, it’s not a credible debate at all.
Not with that kind of reply, it's not.
Multicellular with symbiotic relationships with single celled organisms for the win!
Symbiogenesis ftw!
We're all evolved from hydrogen gas (over 13.7 billion years).
I find it weird to believe we evolved from single cell organisms. I believe. But I can’t fault others for not.
I dont find it weird considering the timescale
I’m more easily impressed with life than you.
Most people know that we are.
Speak for yourself, I'm a random amino acid that was created by lightning
Well we're fish also so
One of us is a gay fish
Do you like fish sticks Kanye?
Do you like fish sticks... in your mouth?
At least fish is a helpful useful term to keep around and use. How useful is a term that includes all simeon's except for apes?
I'm pretty sure apes used to not include humans and we changed they way we use it, why not monkey?
Apes has included humans since Linnaeus.
Well I know the way I learned it is out of date but I was taught that monkeys had long tails, basically.
But when I want to school it was Linnaean taxonomy not cladistsics
While I agree wholeheartedly that's how we should talk about it scientifically, we should also consider not everyone is writing a PhD in biology and it's normal to talk about groups in a non-monophylitic way. It's weird to say that humans are fish for example, even though technically we are.
Clint is great! The madman is going through all phylogeny of at least vertebrates. Did some arthropods too i believe. 140 videos on passeriformes lets gooo! He just did Corvoidae!
That's because we're monkeys with egos.
Amusingly, there's some president precedent for that. After all, the lowest monophyletic clade that includes all monkeys, and thus is equivalent to "monkey", is Simiiformes, the Simians. An alternative name for the Simians are the anthropoids - meaning "human like".
And don't get me started on ape chromosome naming.
Simiformes means simian like not simian
Click the link; they're simians.
precedent
Hah, that it is; fixed, thank you.
You can't evolve out of a clade! Humans are monkeys.
African Apes are great apes are apes are monkeys.
The real controversy comes when I want to call tetrapods fish, or ants wasps. When, phylogenetically, they most certainly are.
Some paraphylactic terms are helpful to keep around, like fish. Some really kind of aren't, like monkey, monkey should just be a synonym for Simians.
I want opposable thumbs and a grasping tail with a bare tactile pad!
I have good news about the thumbs, and bad news about the Barbary macaque.
No monkeys are not apes and apes are not monkeys Monkeys have tails and apes don't.
You are mistaken. The understanding you propound here is outdated, we now have a better understanding. Apes are a clade of monkey, specifically a type of Catarrhine monkey, or "old-world monkey."
Find the last common ancestor of everything you call a monkey, and to your astonishment, you will find that apes descend from it.
Also, this thing, which is monkey but not an Ape, has no tail.
If you go back 60 million years yes there is a common ancestry. That is true for all living things if you go back far enough. Doesn't mean we use monkey in our nomenclature any more than any other group we have a common ancestry with.
The point is not that we share a common ancestor with all the things called monkeys, as we do with all life. The point is that the smallest, least inclusive clade which includes everything we call moneys cannot exclude us.
Take starfish as a counterexample. We share a common ancestor with them, as with all life, but the last common ancestor of all starfish is not one of our ancestors.
The least inclusive clade which includes all starfish excludes us, therefore we are not starfish. The least inclusive clade which includes all moneys includes us, therefore we are monkeys.
Also excludes lemurs
It can and does exclude apes
I don't think you know what clade means.
Edit: A clade which includes all monkeys cannot exclude the apes because the Cercopithecidae are more closely related to the apes than they are to the new-world monkeys.
Turns out you are quite right. Thank you.
Huzzah!
(Can we maybe encourage more of this?)
It's got a vestigial tail. I mean I accept what you're saying because this sort of simplification happens a lot in general education, but the Barbary Macaque has a vestigial tail.
I had no idea.
Still, a monkey is still a monkey even if it loses its tail - apes are the best example. Although, some individual apes are born with vestigial tails, too.
I look forward to the day when everyone can get over their hangups about monophyly and embrace the simple beauty of cladistics. It’s like a Russian doll.
Here, here; nested clades are great.
Have you ever seen this website?
It's my favourite website on the internet alongside Wikipedia and Google Earth.
Yes! I’ve been obsessively telling people about it for over a year now too! I’ve spent hours just getting lost in the many recursive branches.
Duuuuuuuuuuuuuude
What do you think?
That’s because most people don’t understand enough about biology to know the difference between the common usage of the word “monkey” and its modern scientific definition. In the US, this also plays into the fundamentalist Christian doctrine of special creation. Which feeds our egotistical sense of being above all other forms of life.
I have moments every so often where I stop and think “huh…I’m an ape.”…
this is just semantics. we both are and are not monkeys. these are just words and definitions we've come up with.
While prescientific and later Linnean words had arbitrary definitions, there is something natural about clades which would exist in the absence of humans. Though the names, obviously, still would not.
We are not monkeys. We are great apes.
We are ok apes at best
all apes are monkeys, not all monkeys are apes
All tortoises are turtles, not all turtles are tortoises.
All toads are frogs, but not all frogs are toads.
All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds.
Just to add a few more. I'd argue we are definitely monkeys, just a semi-radically different branch, like the above examples.
All dinosaurs (except crown group birds) are stem group birds
Well I think we should have just how we use the word monkey. We already did it with ape and now humans are included.
I think a word like fish is helpful but I can't see how a word like monkey and it's current definition is helpful distinction. It should be a perfect synonym to Simian IMO. Other languages do it.
Great apes are a phylum completely inside the phylum of old world monkeys. Monkeys are a paraphyletic group if you exclude great apes. We are functionally monkeys if not by name. We are specialized monkeys, we are monkeys who lost their tails, but if we don’t claim our monkey ancestry we deny biology. (And yes, we are fish as well, because the fishes can’t be monophyletic without us).
That’s not really how we refer to phyla colloquially, nor should we. You and I both know that when we say “fish,” we don’t mean humans. Same goes for monkeys.
The observation the original poster made about “we are monkeys” is biologically true. How does pedantry about taxonomy that obfuscates that reality help anyone?
Also, bullshit. Monophyly is the only valid naming schema, and any attempt to circumvent it creates a false sense of superiority as if we “rose above” being monkeys or fishes. Other monkeys and fishes are just as advanced as humans evolutionarily, they just followed different paths.
These debates come up a lot, and in the end it is a semantic argument with a lot of talking past one another. Overall though, I agree monophyly is usually superior, and I would say we are monkeys, as well as fish. However there are situations using paraphyly is better. No one calls blue whales the biggest fish of time, and humans aren't seen as archaea.
I'm with you though. In a scientific context, monophyly should be prioritized, as it is much less arbitrary and human-centric. That also means clarifying scientifically ill defined terms like fish and monkeys when used. If someone says Humans aren't monkey's because monkeys are a paraphyletic group, then that's fine, and everyone is on the same page.
Some paraphyletic terms are helpful while some paraphyletic terms are not that helpful.
Fish is obviously a helpful distinction. Monkey not so much. The way we use monkey just confuses things. It should just be a common name that means exactly the same thing as Simian IMO.
Respectfully, I don’t think you get to say “pedantry” in order to diminish other people’s claims. There’s nothing pedantic about being precise with our terms. It is more precise to call humans “great apes” than it is to call us “monkeys,” even if we technically are both. That doesn’t contradict monophyly.
Edit: I don’t disagree with anything in the comment below this. That isn’t mutually exclusive to also recognizing that in colloquial speech, it is more accurate to say that we are great apes.
To take your logic further, it’s also more accurate to say we are in the clade of vertebrates. So do we include every clade every time we refer to humans? No. We include the most precise one bigger than us.
Pedantically, and precisely it is far more accurate to include humans in both the clade of great apes, and the clade of monkeys.
To deny that humans are monkeys is as inaccurate and imprecise as saying that humans aren't vertebrates because they're tetrapods.
Nope you’re completely wrong, google is your friend here. Apes and monkeys are both primates but apes aren’t monkeys. There are specific distinctions between them and it’s not even up for debate that humans or apes are monkeys lol
it’s not even up for debate
This is such an odd rhetorical technique to deploy in a thread absolutely stuffed to the gills with comments indicating otherwise.
And the only valid “it’s an ape, not a monkey” correction is when someone refers to another great ape (other than humans) as a monkey in a way to separate their history from that of the evolution of man. Language should be constructive, that pattern is used to be divisive. Teach good biology, fighting over names that are less indicative of good understandings of phylogeny isn’t helping anyone.
Respectfully, I disagree. I think it’s a fair criticism to say that “we aren’t monkeys” is incorrect. Nonetheless, it’s certainly more accurate to say that we are great apes than it is to say that we are monkeys. Just as it is more correct to say that we are monkeys than it is to say that we are fish.
That’s the equivalent of correcting anyone saying we’re mammals every time with “actually we’re great apes”. More precision is not more correct or more accurate.
Actually precision is synonymous with accuracy so you’re wrong there too
Not in science it isn’t.
Valid point
And you are so stuck on the pedantry of language that you will keep going while you can read the post headline and understand exactly why that isn’t a meaningful or useful distinction in this context.
I don’t think you’re being respectful. I believe it is a meaningful and useful distinction. We are monkeys. We are also fish. It’s far more useful and productive to be precise (not pedantic - precise) with our language and call us great apes.
Many many languages don’t have separate terms for monkeys and apes. Most people would have no issue accepting we are primates, but monkey is a problem for whatever reason
I wouldn’t say great, but ape nonetheless
User deleted comment
2mo
there are many animals who are commonly referred to as monkeys, but are not apes - eg spider monkeys, howler monkeys, marmosets, baboons, macaques.
'Ape' refers to 'Hominoidea', a clade, but 'Monkey' sometimes means 'Simiiformes', sometimes means 'Primates', and sometimes informally means a paraphyletic group of non-ape simians. i think the latter is due to cultural and historical context around the english word 'monkey'. but either way, generally zoologists will prefer to use precisely defined word 'simian' instead of the imprecise, informal, culturally sensitive word 'monkey'.
You shouldn’t. They aren’t interchangeable.
User deleted comment
2mo
And they aren’t in English.
User deleted comment
2mo
Nope you’re 100% incorrect https://www.britannica.com/story/whats-the-difference-between-monkeys-and-apes
User deleted comment
2mo
I sourced Brittanica and you came back with Wikipedia lol
User deleted comment
2mo
Despite what Wikipedia says, the standard for modern primatologists is to use “Old World monkeys” to mean only the cercopithecoids, but not the hominoids.
In English, the language in which this discussion is taking place, many monkeys are not apes.
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 it's an ape!
I taught my Nephew when people call him a Monkey: "Im not a Monkey. Monkeys have tails. Im an ape, STUPID!"
Which is not entirely accurate - both because apes are catarrhine monkeys and also because Barbary macaques exist - but it's good enough for playground banter.
Exactly.
Hard to tell if the original question is a language question or a biology question.
In standard English, monkeys do NOT include apes. This is not "wrong" even if some specialized definition would include them.
Compare with of someone wondered why people thought raspberries were berries but bananas were not. Botanically, the opposite is true, but in standard English vocabulary of foods, we use a different definition of berry.
So most people don't consider themselves monkeys because we are not, using the normal English that people actually use.
However, it is possible the question is really wondering why some people do not consider themselves apes or primates. This would this be a biology question related to evolution and human beliefs, not a question about the various definitions of monkey.
Came in to say this, you beat me to it.
Wish I was a gibbon..
Damn, I love a good discussion in this sub
It’s crazy how many people think saying humans are monkeys is technically incorrect. All apes are monkeys
This comment section is so embarassingly divided, I also don't understand it.
User deleted comment
2mo
Right. In this case it would be...
Monkeys are quadrilaterals
Apes are rectangles, which are quadrilaterals
Humans are squares, which are rectangles, which are quadrilaterals
Lateral frontal pole prefrontal cortex
1) I consider us a bunch of perv-monkeys.
2) I named my business Monkey King Coffee. (I own a farm.)
3) We're a bunch of monkeys. I even disagree with our Latin name. We're not wise. Clever? Sure. But not wise.
to be fair idk if other monkeys really think about it either
Evil apes duking it out on a giant ball.
Some apes, it seems, are more equal than others.
Most Christians I’ve talked to outright dismiss evolution.
Primate, the word is primate.
That includes a lot more groups though.
This includes Prosimians. If you want to refer to this clade with a word we already have, you're looking for Simians. Otherwise, you'll include things like lemurs, lorises, tarsiers, and the like.
Lemurs are also primates, but are not monkeys.
That’s my take.
But the clade of primates includes many non-monkeys. Whereas, the clade of monkeys includes apes, but excludes those other primates.
Clade🤔
A clade, or natural group, is a way to group organisms which reflects their evolutionary history.
Let's make one right now, shall we. Take a starfish and a zebra, and find their most recent common ancestor.
Lots of other organisms descend from that ancestor, so those organisms are part of the minimally-inclusive clade which contains both starfish and zebras (called deuterostomes). Humans are members of this clade - humans are deuterostomes.
However, ladybugs, for instance, did not descend from that ancestor. You must go further back to find shared ancestry. Therefore, ladybugs are not members of this clade - not deuterostomes. (They are members of a different clade, called protostomes, which can be defined by those descended from the most recent common ancestor of an arrow worm and a tardigrade.)
Now, let's apply the concept to monkeys. Find the last common ancestor between a howler monkey and a baboon. Now we have a clade of monkeys defined by this relationship. (This clade is called Simiiformes or "simians," or just plain old "monkeys.")
Do you know who's in that clade? We are! Humans and all the rest of the apes are in the clade of monkeys.
I resent the suggestion, and I fling poop in response ...
Damn, they've started typing!
There's a reason many skill-oriented games have monkey bars and grappling hooks.
If everyone would just accept the fact that we are largely hairless apes I’m convinced the world would be a better place.
Having cats has really made me aware of the fact that I am in fact a primate
Moderator removed comment
2mo
Oi. Voice your disagreements with civility.
I mean, if you’re just referring to the colloquial term then yes we are and it’s just religion that has made people like that.
I mean we aren't monkeys we're primates, we are closer to apes than monkeys
edit: looking it up it seems to be more complex but generally in english monkey refers to anything that isn't a lemur or ape but is a primate
I think it would be an easier pill to swallow to tell people we are great apes. It's also a little more on the nose, too.
Humans are neurotic
I think about this probably way more than I should but imagine us more like planet of the apes.
Guy tailgating me and then aggressively passes me with his truck? Imagine an angry monkey behind the wheel. People walking their dogs at a park? Monkeys walking wolves.
For me at least, it helps underline the ridiculousness of so much of our society. But also explains some of the more illogical points as well.
monkey, as far as I can tell, isn't a specific taxonomical term, its a generic english word that covers some primates, but isn't very specific. In common parlance, humans aren't monkeys. We're primates, and maybe you could call us apes, but calling a human a monkey would be somewhere between a semantic error and insulting.
I prefer intelligent bear. 🐻
It bothers me a lot that people don't give this fact more importance in their thought processes. Yes we are primates. We are animals connected to the animal kingdom and the evolution of life on earth. Even the movie stars. They are primates.
Idk but we’re apes. Aren’t monkeys on a different branch than apes? Like we’re related but we’re not ourselves monkeys.
I'm more of an ape meself.
Apes, we are great apes.
Monkeys. Apes are monkeys.
We are not monkeys however humans and monkeys both did indeed descend from a common ancestor.
“Humans and monkeys are both primates. But humans are not descended from monkeys or any other primate living today. We do share a common ape ancestor with chimpanzees. It lived between 8 and 6 million years ago. But humans and chimpanzees evolved differently from that same ancestor. All apes and monkeys share a more distant relative, which lived about 25 million years ago.”
Monkeys have tails, we're apes.
Monkeys do not need a tail. Any descendant of the last common ancestor of all monkeys, is a monkey, and that would include apes.
We are not monkeys. We are Homo sapiens. A whole different group
Primates are not monkeys.
Primates are not monkeys, you're right, but if all Catarrhines (old world monkeys) are monkeys, and if all Platyrrhines (new world monkeys) are monkeys, then humans are monkeys. Homo sapiens fall into the great apes, as I'm sure you know, which falls entirely inside the Catarrhines. Baboons are more closely related to humans than they are to any species of South American monkeys. So if we want to call both baboons and capuchins "monkeys" then we MUST call humans monkeys as well, specifically because they AREN'T a whole different group. Humans are just a lineage of monkeys that got weird shoulders, strong hands, big, and terrestrial (probably in that order).
Okay, one quick thing to clarify here; tagging /u/Odd_Tiger_2278 as potentially interested.
You are correct in everything you've said, but there's one term there that's used in two ways which could use a bit of disambiguation.
The simains are all monkeys, including apes. The simians are divided into the clade Platyrrhini, also called New World Mokeys, and the clade Catarrhini, which are also referred to as Catarrhines, catarrhine monkeys, Old World anthropoids, and Old World Monkeys. The reason this gets confusing is because the Catarrhines are divided into two groups in turn, the Hominoids (apes) and the Cercopithecids - which are also and even more commonly known as "Old World monkeys".
That's the reason that the Catarrhines have so many names; Old World Monkey has been used for both groups, and so another term is appropreate. Personally I'd go with catarrhine monkeys. ;)
Regardless, humans are apes, apes are catarrhine monkeys, catarrhine monkeys are simians (monkeys).
We’re apes, not monkeys.
Apes are monkeys.
Moderator removed comment
2mo
Don't do that.
Honestly, no, that doesn't seem very weird to me.
We're not monkeys, we're Catarrhini. "Monkey" is a word that predates cladistics by centuries, and there's no reason to try to shoehorn it in.
Apes. Naked apes.
*apes. And yes. So many people are delusional about this. Just put your hand up next to a chimpanzee or gorilla’s hand on the glass at the zoo. It’s as obvious as it gets.
User deleted comment
2mo
...which is a type of monkey.
Maybe you're a monkey but I myself am a proud great ape lol.
Moderator removed comment
2mo
Oi. None of that now.
Moderator removed comment
2mo
Oi, voice your disagreements with civility.
okay.
I watched a chimp at the zoo eat a turd last Monday so this makes sense to me.
No we aren't, even to the staunchest supporters of evolutionary theory. We could be classified as apes.
Monkey tends to refer to primates with tails. We would be apes
We’re not monkeys. We are sapiens, and we’re a type of primate.
Thank you for posting in r/evolution, a place to discuss the science of Evolutionary Biology with other science enthusiasts, teachers, and scientists alike. If this is your first time posting here, please see our community rules here and community guidelines here. The reddiquette can be found here. Please review them before proceeding.
If you're looking to learn more about Evolutionary Biology, our FAQ can be found here; we also have curated lists of resources. Recommended educational websites can be found here; recommended reading can be found here; and recommended videos can be found here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.