Porosity writes:
It's also important to point out that all apes are monkeys, but that not all monkeys are apes. Just as all humans are apes, but not all apes are human. It's called a nested hierarchy.
I'm not sure it's true that all apes are monkeys, but I'm finding this more confusing than I thought it would be. I read the introductions to the Wikipedia articles on
monkeys,
apes and
Old World monkeys, and it seems that New World monkeys are in one group, while apes and Old World monkeys are in another group, the Catarrhini. Apes are in the superfamiily Hominoidea, while Old World monkeys are in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea. I don't think Old World monkeys contains apes.
But this explanation from the article on monkeys says that apes
are monkeys, except that they're not, because of parphyletics. It left me gasping for air:
quote:
Apes emerged within the catarrhines with the Old World monkeys as a sister group, so cladistically they are monkeys as well. However, traditionally apes are not considered monkeys, rendering this grouping paraphyletic.
This excerpt from the article on
Catarrhini left me equally so:
quote:
Therefore, cladistically, apes, catarrhines and related contemporary extinct groups such as Parapithecidaea are monkeys as well, for any consistent definition of "monkey". "Old World Monkey" may also legitimately be taken to be meant to include all the catarrhines, including apes and extinct species such as Aegyptopithecus, in which case the apes, Cercopithecoidea and Aegyptopithecus emerged within the Old World Monkeys.
Egad!
I still don't think apes are monkeys, but this bit of reading has rendered me incapable of arguing the point.
--Percy