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.
Apes are not monkeys. If you're speaking English.
That's because neither 'ape' nor 'monkey' are formally defined phylogenetic terms. They're common, everyday words which refer to groups of organisms we've lumped together for one reason or another
Hominoidea, Cattarhini, Platyrhinni and Simiiformes are formally defined phylogenetic terms. The realisation that apes are more closely related to babboons than to howler monkeys means that Hominoidea must be considered part of Cattarhini. It makes not a jot of difference to the meanings of ape or monkey.
All this confusion would be avoided if we weren't speaking English, since most European languages don't have two seperate words. In Dutch, a monkey is an aap, as is in an ape (of course, it's still paraphyletic used in the traditional sense, since humans are not aapen).
In Czech, there are different words for black rats and brown rats (krysa and potkan, respectively). Most rats are called krysa. But it makes no sense to therefore say that a potkan is a krysa since potkani are nested within the krysa clade.
Some normal terms are pretty much meaningless phylogenetically. 'Toad' refers to a wide range of anurans spread across the tree, and what's called a toad by some may be a frog to others. And of course, this distinction does not exist everywhere - there isn't a seperate word for frog and toad in every language.
This is why they invented the formal neo-Latin terminology in the first place.
Re: "First they say primates came from bats, then tree shrews"
The tentative connections between species or time of extinction, indicated by a "?", are open to clarification as new DNA and fossil evidence is reviewed in the scientific literature; see comments below the chart.
The first interesting thing on this thread! Do you have any more context for our graphic? I found the website, but there is little explanation for how they present it, and I am very curious which Ethiopian fossils they are classifying as H. antecessor. I've only ever seen this applied to Spanish fossils.
In case it helps make sense of some of what Davidjay says, he doesn't understand the difference between a tree showing descent, like the one you just showed:
And a tree showing classification relationships, like this one that caused him to conclude that primates are descended from bats:
I do not understand the distinction you're making - those trees are both showing descent. And the one which you claim led to DavidJay's confusion about bats doesn't include any bats. His confusion about bats had nothing to do with that graphic. It was spurred by Chiroptera's mentioned of the (outdated) theory that bats are closely related to primates:
quote:However, Archonta is a clade that includes bats (ahem!) assuming that bats are that closely related to primates.
My reading is that he sees the evolutionary model as proposing some sort of Grand Chain of Being. The branching he bangs on about seems to involve some kind of superior organism sprouting out of the inferior organisms below. The inferior organisms remain, but now there are superior branches of organims above them. From these, in turn, bud off new, superior branches, until we have a hierarchy of organisms with (presumably) humans at the top.
Hence the continual demand to know what animals we branched off from. He's looking for the living species from which the superior human branch budded off.
Honestly, I think he understands the concepts just fine. He is just playing stupid to get a rise out of everyone. His posts don't read like he is engaged in dialog. They are just troll babble. Nothing more.
I guess I have more faith in people's honesty, but less in their reading comprehension skills.
To my reading it is representing it as a diagram of classification.
Sure, it's a diagram of classification; but phylogenetic classification. The diagram is a phylogram, a family tree, whatever you want to call it. The proposed classification in the tree ('Sundatheria') is a proposed clade. I'm not sure if you're misinterpreting the picture or if I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say.
With regards to DavidJay, we can agree on 'challenging to interpret'.