Ooh, Chimpanzee That! Monkey News!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Socreges said:
Raist, again with this bullshit! :lol

Guys, he's talking about what he feels it SHOULD BE, not what it IS.

Sigh. Well fair enough, I'm very curious to know what a monkey IS. "Any anthropoid but apes" is not a valid answer btw.

I'm pretty sure Zhora started to smoke and drink because of you guys :p. Identity crisis.
 
Raist said:
Wait. Are you saying that apes diverged from the rest before old and new world monkeys diverged?
the last common ancestor of all old world monkeys lived after apes had already diverged.

put simply, apes, old world monkeys and new world monkeys diverged from separate primate families. monkeys did not exist when these divergences occurred.
 
Raist said:
I'm pretty sure Zhora started to smoke and drink because of you guys :p. Identity crisis.
chimpanzee-glock-300x209.gif

"Call me a monkey. Just fucking try me."
 
Raist said:
Sigh. Well fair enough, I'm very curious to know what a monkey IS. "Any anthropoid but apes" is not a valid answer btw.
a primate of the groups cercopithecoid or platyrrhine.

it works just like crabs.

this is a crab:
2qlbnli.jpg


this is not a crab:
21omzkl.jpg


this is not a crab:
2crovtj.gif


yet they are all called crabs.
 
Pandaman said:
the last common ancestor of all old world monkeys lived after apes had already diverged.

Yes. But the new world monkeys diverged from the rest first. Thus, whatever diverged from the NW monkeys were also monkeys, which eventually diverged into OW monkeys and apes.
And of course monkeys existed. Two different clades cannot be part of the same group if their ancestor wasn't the founding member of that group. Otherwise, that's paraphyletics.

Pandaman said:
a primate of the groups cercopithecoid or platyrrhine.

You just basically said "any anthropoid but apes" :I Which makes no sense in cladistic. That would be like defining TVs by "not a computer".
 
Raist said:
Yes. But the new world monkeys diverged from the rest first. Thus, whatever diverged from the NW monkeys were also monkeys, which eventually diverged into OW monkeys and apes.
nope, the last common ancestor of new world members postdates that split too.

And of course monkeys existed. Two different clades cannot be part of the same group if their ancestor wasn't the founding member of that group. Otherwise, that's paraphyletics.
'monkey' isn't a group. its a name.
a name two unrelated families of primates share.

and sure you can, consider the theory that hippos and ceteacans split from artiodactyls together and diverged from a common semi aquatic ancestor. in that case they would share a clade, but the common ancestor was neither a hippo nor a cetacean.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/14/5/537
 
Animals(like dolphins for instance) other than humans seem to be much much smarter than the average person seems to give them credit for these days.
 
Undubbed said:
Animals(like dolphins for instance) other than humans seem to be much much smarter than the average person seems to give them credit for these days.
yep.

cephalopod too.

29g20t3.jpg
 
Syth_Blade22 said:
This thread is turning into spot the American...

Because Americans don't know who Ricky Gervais is.....? Right.

More like spot one of the billions of people on earth who doesn't listen to Ricky's podcast.
 
Pandaman said:
nope, the last common ancestor of new world members postdates that split too.
a name two unrelated families of primates share.

Which is exactly why the term shouldn't exist at all in any scientific context (yet it sure does). You can't call the same way two independent clades if their common ancestor wasn't part of that group as well. That makes absolutely no sense. Because by that logic, the common ancestor of all new world monkeys wouldn't be a monkey.
And Aphidium, which was the common ancestor of all simians, completely fits the very definition of a monkey.

People refuse to consider apes as monkeys for the very same reason that at some point they wouldn't consider humans as apes. Yet eventually that was accepted. Guess it'll take some more time for monkeys.

Also birds are dinosaurs and snakes are lizards. There.

but the common ancestor was neither a hippo nor a cetacean.

And the common ancestor of humans and chimps was neither a human nor a chimp. So?
It was an ape, tho.

edit: WTF AT THAT FUUUUUUU PIC
 
Raist said:
Which is exactly why the term shouldn't exist at all in any scientific context (yet it sure does).
except it doesn't.

its used in the same convention as crabs or bugs when specific differentiation would be needlessly obtuse. the only scientific credence 'monkey' gets is as a name for two distinct groups and thats only because its a scientific principle to honour the earliest known commonly accepted name.

You can't call the same way two independent clades if their common ancestor wasn't part of that group as well.
sure you can, its a name, not a classification. you're arguing that two people shouldn't be called smith unless they share a parent.

That makes absolutely no sense. Because by that logic, the common ancestor of all new world monkeys wouldn't be a monkey.
And Aphidium, which was the common ancestor of all simians, completely fits the very definition of a monkey.
but hey, its not a clade, its a name. this problem only exists because you insist it does. if you didn't convolute the names with the groups cladistic classification your point would disappear.

People refuse to consider apes as monkeys for the very same reason that at some point they wouldn't consider humans as apes. Yet eventually that was accepted. Guess it'll take some more time for monkeys.
:lol
 
Pandaman said:
except it doesn't.

I certainly see the term "monkey" used a lot in primatology, phylogeny etc.
So I guess that you wouldn't call Aphidium a monkey then? What would it be for you?

I mean, I understand your point that it is only a colloquial term, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be used at all in a scientific context. If you want to give a correct definition describing a monkey, then apes would fall in that category as well.


Well that's true. I mean not so long ago Apes were "all hominoidae but humans"
 
Raist said:
I certainly see the term "monkey" used a lot in primatology, phylogeny etc.
So I guess that you wouldn't call Aphidium a monkey then? What would it be for you?
I'm unfamiliar with that specimen, but 'vaguely lemurish primate with a flat face and extra teeth' works for me.

wikipedia suggests Parapithecidae.

I mean, I understand your point that it is only a colloquial term, I'm just saying that it shouldn't be used at all in a scientific context. If you want to give a correct definition describing a monkey, then apes would fall in that category as well.
but there is no correct definition.
its a name, it has no deeper scientific meaning than that. it is not an actual scientific grouping, its just a popular name used largely because people identify with terms like 'new world monkey' and can associate those three words with tailed primates living in the americas.

Well that's true. I mean not so long ago Apes were "all hominoidae but humans"
There's a slight difference, apes actually exist. a supergrouping of both monkey families never existed. hence why the term was done away with as an official classification. The name may have stuck, but it has no meaning.
 
DonMigs85 said:
proboscis-monkey.gif


Be glad chimps are closer to us than this fine fellow.
I definitely am, because I just know the internet would be flooded with "erotic" nose-pulling videos if this were the case.

Goddamn weirdos have a fetish for everything.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom