Did you say Evolution doesn't teach man evolved from ape?

[Lilandra]

crustaceans like lobsters and other crabs are on the branch with hexapodal insects.

http://tolweb.org/Public/treeImages/Arthropoda.gif?x=2098074561
That spider on the linked page is freaky. She looks like if you went to step on her, she'd lift your foot up and throw you off. Ewwww...
Crab is another common name that has been misjudged apparently.

Back to the discussion.

Edit here is her picture, the link just goes to the tree of life branch

She's like I can see you. Ick

wait a sec, I thought spiders and insects were bugs in the colloquial sense. But spiders are not insects because insects are six legged bugs.

Also, I don't know the specifics but aren't spiders more closely related to crabs than six legged insects?

I'll go check it out.

 

[Aron-Ra]

wait a sec, I thought spiders and insects were bugs in the colloquial sense. But spiders are not insects because insects are six legged bugs.

Also, I don't know the specifics but aren't spiders more closely related to crabs than six legged insects?

Yes. This is where I have a contest with many taxonomists. I am convinced that spiders and scorpions are separate groups which both arose separately from within Eurypterida, the sea scorpions. Most scientists still consider scorpions to be arachnids, which they see as a sister clade to Eurypterids.

I'll go check it out.

You need go no further than here to find the true bugs.
http://tolweb.org/Heteroptera

 

[Lilandra]

form to sea scorpions.
I know this happens with other organisms like the marsupial Tasmanian Tigers looking so wolfish.

A light finally went on about why mammals displace marsupials. Dingos/wolves/dogs are social animals. Cooperative hunting is better than hunting alone. I read that somewhere when I was reading about dingos.

Yes. This is where I have a contest with many taxonomists. I am convinced that spiders and scorpions are separate groups which both arose separately from within Eurypterida, the sea scorpions. Most scientists still consider scorpions to be arachnids, which they see as a sister clade to Eurypterids.
You need go no further than here to find the true bugs.
http://tolweb.org/Heteroptera

 

[Aron-Ra]

She's like I can see you. Ick

Cute. Has anyone ever told you, you talk like a teen-ager?

it is strange that scorpions would take such a similar form to sea scorpions.
I know this happens with other organisms like the marsupial Tasmanian Tigers looking so wolfish.

That would be the dominant idea. But looking at the various eurypterid genera has convinced me otherwise. When scorpions were first classed as arachnids, and arachnids placed as a sister clade to Eurypterida, we didn't know about all these other wildly-diverse varieties -each hinting a new lineage blossuming within. Also I don't think the Linnaean system could really conceive of new forms flowering out of old ones this way, its categories developed on the assumption that species remain static.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Darn it all, I really should spend every waking second responding to each and every supposed point made by some dude on an internet discussion board. If I don, by golly, it must be because I all wrong and know it, not that I have other things more worthy of pursuit...

Nice smoke screen. Almost no one noticed that you still haven't answered any of those simple short-answer questions I gave you.

it shows that you do not pay attention to detail and jump to conclusions.

I don't think so. But it wouldn't bother me if I were equal to you in that regard.

Ummm.... You've never done a phylogenetic analysis, have you?

Just a student with no degrees yet, remember?

You see, you have to have an outgroup in order to have something to 'measure' your ingroup against - a yardstick of sorts. In actual laboratory science, one tends not to include in an analysis that for which one possesses no data. I had sequence data for those included in the study and no others, hence, I did not use any non-primates as outgroups in the first part. For the gamma sequence, I did have data from a 'prosimian', galago, and rabbit, and so used them, and the ensuing branching arrangement was presented (the apparent 'grouping' of galago and rabbit is an artifact). The 'illustrated phylogeny', by which I assume you mean the phylogenetic tree, is what the actual data indicate. It is the branching order produced using the analytical techniques described. 'Tradition' has nothing to do with what the data indicate. There are multiple, competing, sometimes contradictory, often times confusings methods for 'naming' things. While the naming may be different, the underlying "assumption" is the same - that extant taxa shared, at some point, a common ancestry with just about every other extant taxon. IN the end, again, it is all just semantics, which is another reason I am done here.

My problem with it is that your phylogeny depicts New World monkeys and Old World monkeys sharing a common ancestor that was not a monkey itself (as if that were possible) and also is not a common ancestor with apes either. Since every analysis I've yet read for any pre-Catarrine anthropoid describes its morphology as similar to Platyrrhine monkeys, then I don't see how any phylogenies I've seen from your perspective can claim what they do.

Simply because the word Propliopithecidae is below the others and the branches are all graphically 'equivalent' in no way - or should not anyway - indicates a particular phylogenetic relationship. If you bother to look around that site, ALL of the trees they provide are done the same (confusing) way.

Look here, for instance, where they list chimps as humans and indicate that the term Hominidae is equivalent to Pongidae. The tree they present there is also in an unconvential, each branch is equivalent fashion. This is even more clear here, where they list several genera and tribes and have each one branching off of a single vertical branch.

As I said before, if you follow the link they provide for Cercopithecoidea, you will not find Propliopithecoidea listed within that group. And if you refer to your preferred authority, John G. Fleagle's taxonomy of extinct primates, you will again see that Propliopithecoidea is not any subset of Cercopithecids, but is rather another superfamily all its own.

I am staggered that you will argue even so obvious a point. Another reason why I am done here. You simply will not yield a single point, even when obviously, blatantly wrong.

In this one discussion with you, I have conceded a handful of errors at least. I was wrong about Tarsiers being reclassified as Haplorhines for example. I was wrong about the class paper being written by a student rather than a lecturer. There were at least a couple other errors I had conceded to you which I don't remember right now. But how many points have you conceded? Because there were several times I noted when you were obviously, blatantly, and demonstrably wrong and would not yeild anything. The one and only exception was when you admitted to calling John Harshman a "computer guy" just because you didn't know what a systematist was. Perhaps you should pay more attention, and not jump to such conclusions.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Therefore, all extant primates are monkeys?

No, just the anthropoids.

Or is Eosimias a sarcopterygian fish?

Yes. It is definitely sarcopterygii (according to the experts) but 'fish' appears to defy any definition rigid enough to be useful in classification, unless it is a colloquial synonym for 'chordate' the way 'monkey' is a colloquial synonym for 'anthropoid' and 'ape' is a synonym for 'Hominoid'.

 

[Lilandra]

Cute. Has anyone ever told you, you talk like a teen-ager?

Telemarketers often ask for my mother on the phone so I sound like one too apparently. Besides teenagers talk like me. I was teen during the 80's during the Valley Girl thing. Everything was like-like you know...Whatever!

Besides mentally I am a woman that is where it counts. My voice is just the cards I was dealt. I have to play them.

That would be the dominant idea. But looking at the various eurypterid genera has convinced me otherwise. When scorpions were first classed as arachnids, and arachnids placed as a sister clade to Eurypterida, we didn't know about all these other wildly-diverse varieties -each hinting a new lineage blossuming within. Also I don't think the Linnaean system could really conceive of new forms flowering out of old ones this way, its categories developed on the assumption that species remain static.

That is actually on topic. Phylogenic analysis like SLP keeps alluding to reveal unusual relationships between organisms in ways Linnaeus could mnot have anticipated. Laypeople certainly weren't scrutinizing primates very closely when they were bandying the term monkey around.

Also fossil discoveries of extinct lineages force revisions.

 

[Cirbryn]

A light finally went on about why mammals displace marsupials. Dingos/wolves/dogs are social animals. Cooperative hunting is better than hunting alone. I read that somewhere when I was reading about dingos.

You mean why placental mammals replace marsupial mammals? I don’t think dingo cooperative hunting strategy is the factor. Wolves and coyotes (cooperative hunters) coexist just fine with cougars and bobcats (solitary hunters) in the American west. A more likely scenario is that sheep ranchers tried to kill off both thylacines (Tasmanian wolves) and dingos but only managed to kill all the thylacines because dingos, having had more evolutionary experience with humans, were better at avoiding hunters and trappers.

My major professor (Bobbi Low) actually did her dissertation on adaptive strategies of red kangaroos, and being marsupials actually gives them a sizeable advantage over any hypothetical placental competitors. Water and rain is very unpredictable in central Australia where they live, so they go from boom times (with lots of forage) to bust (with nothing to eat), and back again with no way of predicting and preparing for the bad times. So their pouches allow them to practice triage. An adult female can have a joey on foot beside her, another in the pouch, and be pregnant with a third. If the good times last she can raise all three. If a drought comes she first aborts the fetus to save resources for the ones that are farther along. If the drought lasts, then her milk dries up and the joey in the pouch dies. She can then put all her remaining resources into saving the oldest joey, into which she’s already put the most effort.

 

[Lilandra]

You mean why placental mammals replace marsupial mammals? I don’t think dingo cooperative hunting strategy is the factor. Wolves and coyotes (cooperative hunters) coexist just fine with cougars and bobcats (solitary hunters) in the American west. A more likely scenario is that sheep ranchers tried to kill off both thylacines (Tasmanian wolves) and dingos but only managed to kill all the thylacines because dingos, having had more evolutionary experience with humans, were better at avoiding hunters and trappers.

My major professor (Bobbi Low) actually did her dissertation on adaptive strategies of red kangaroos, and being marsupials actually gives them a sizeable advantage over any hypothetical placental competitors. Water and rain is very unpredictable in central Australia where they live, so they go from boom times (with lots of forage) to bust (with nothing to eat), and back again with no way of predicting and preparing for the bad times. So their pouches allow them to practice triage. An adult female can have a joey on foot beside her, another in the pouch, and be pregnant with a third. If the good times last she can raise all three. If a drought comes she first aborts the fetus to save resources for the ones that are farther along. If the drought lasts, then her milk dries up and the joey in the pouch dies. She can then put all her remaining resources into saving the oldest joey, into which she’s already put the most effort.

That's fascinating. I'm still getting the montreme/marsupupial/placental mammal thing straight in my head.
I wonder if bobcats/cougars have precisely the same niche as coyotes/wolves though.

 

[Cirbryn]

I was never talking about the Linnaean system in the first place. I was always only arguing from a cladistic perspective.

You're right. The out-dated Linnaean system does allow paraphyly.

Great! So given this and your admission in post 136 that Linnaean taxonomy is the standard technical classification system, we can now agree that according to the commonly accepted colloquial and technical meanings of the terms, humans aren’t monkeys. So it would be extremely misleading to tell someone that technically humans are monkeys, without making sure the person to whom you were talking knew you were using non-standard definitions. Right?

Now what I’d like to do is go on to whether cladistics or Linnaean taxonomy is a better system, but I’m not going to do that until this point gets resolved. This was my original point, after all, way back in post 42.

I should probably stop there, but I’m going to go on and answer the rest anyway. I’m really hoping we’ve finally reached some common ground on this “humans are monkeys” thing though.

Please point to where I claimed that domestic dogs aren’t dogs.

Its how I'm trying to perceive your logic. There are several species of wild dogs which don't have wolves as ancestors. Wild dogs are also older than domestic dogs. Hence, (I would think) they hold more claim to the name than domestic dogs. But for some reason, colloquial tradition has decided that jackals and wolves are not dogs. So if domestic dogs descend from wolves, they shouldn't be dogs either. But then, I'm forgetting that in your terminology, everything can be polyphyletic and paraphyletic, and nothing has to adhere to any precise definition.

Aron, Dude! I never claimed that African wild dogs are dogs but wolves and jackals aren’t. I never claimed domestic dogs aren’t dogs. Whatever it is you’re talking about, it’s not my logic.

Since, as Edx brought up, colloquial terms have variable definitions enabling us to switch definitions and double-talk ourselves out of any goal-post placement, then yes; you could say that African wild dogs are and aren't dogs, and if a new species of them arises, perhaps with a different color pattern, or with different proportions, then you could arbitrarily decide that it was not a dog anymore -if you wanted to, and you could always change your mind and go back again because your terminology allows that. Mine doesn't.

I’m not saying that using colloquial terms give carte blanche. When a colloquial term is generally understood to coincide with a technical term it is proper to point out that technically a colloquial usage is or is not correct. The problem isn’t that “humans are monkeys” is incorrect by the colloquial definitions being used; it’s that it’s incorrect by the associated technical definitions (assuming the standard technical classification system is being used). Humans are in family Hominidae, superfamily Hominoidea. Living old-world monkeys are in family Cercopithecidae, superfamily Cercopithecoidea. The extinct propliopiths you refer to farther down are (according to your cite) in family Propliopithecidae, superfamily Propliopithecoidea. There is no overlap.

Canidae divides diverges into two clades, which may be colloquially recognized as foxes on one subset, and dogs in the other. Wolves, domestic dogs, and wild dogs of every kind that ever lived from the stem of that clade on -are all dogs, and always will be -even if they evolve into seals.

Actually in addition to the wolf-like canid clade and the vulpine fox clade you’re presumably thinking of, there’s a clade of South Amercan canids and some monotypic genera that aren’t closely related to any of the three main clades. (See here) Several South American canid species look like foxes (for instance the pampas fox, culpeo fox and Argentine grey fox), and many of these were previously in the genus Dusicyon until it was realized the were actually more closely related to the wolf-like canids. Dusicyon has since been renamed Pseudalopex, meaning false fox. There are also some South American canids with wolf-like common names, including the maned wolf, the bush dog, the small-eared dog and the Falkland Islands wolf (which is now extinct). The Falkland Islands wolf was originally named Canis antarcticus by Charles Darwin, who first saw it during the voyage of the Beagle. The monotypic canid genera include the grey fox (genus Urocyon), the bat-eared fox (genus Otocyon), and the raccoon dog (genus Nyctereutes).

So the South American canids were most closely related to the “dog” clade, and some are still called “dogs” but some have evolved into foxes, hardly distinguishable from the “fox” clade. This is exactly what you said could not happen to new-world monkeys – that they might have evolved into something looking like a monkey independantly of the old-world monkeys. That is also exactly what this site claims probably occurred with old and new-world monkeys.

Despite your jaw-dropping claim to the contrary in post 120, no single creature can be in two Linnaean taxa of the same rank. We can’t be in both family Cercopithecidae and family Hominidae, nor can we be both in class Osterichthyes and class Mammalia.

Yes we can be, the same way we are humans and apes. You yourself said we were, did you not?

I said “Linnaean taxa of the same rank”, did I not? We are in genus Homo and family Hominidae (humans and apes) and there is nothing wrong with that because a genus is not a family. But we can’t be in class Osteichthyes if we are already in class Mammalia, nor can we be in family Cercopithecidae if we are already in family Hominidae.

Cladistically, we are, certainly, but if you adhere to colloquial definitions, we're excluded from that group.
a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
b. A monkey.
c. A mimic or imitator.
d. Informal. A clumsy or boorish person.
--Dictionary.com

So if you like colloquial definitions, then I've already made my case, haven't I? And since Pongidae is a remnant of Linnaean taxonomy, then why do you believe humans are apes? By your system, we cant be. The colloquial definition doesn't include us, the Linnaean taxon doesn't include us, and you said its impossible to be in two different classes at the same time. How do you explain this?

Since you hold this position, and since you like colloquial defintions, you'll love this: Several dictionaries define "animal" as exclusively terrestrial, mammals only, "other than a human being." Get that? We can't be animals! Its impossible to be in two different taxa, right? Do you believe that humans are animals?

Pongidae wasn’t colloquial, it was Linnaean. And prior to about 1989 it would have been correct to say that we are not apes. But human-ape taxonomy was revised in the 1990’s based on genetic data, and the great apes (without the gibbons) were moved into family Hominidae. The gibbons were given their own family – Hylobatidae. I’m not actually sure I agree with the elimination of Pongidae, since the only explanation I’ve ever seen has been cladistic rather than comparitive, but unlike you I recognize what the accepted standard now is and I act accordingly. If I were to tell someone I thought humans weren’t apes, I would first tell them that by the standard taxonomy we are.

Regarding your other points on colloquial terms, as I’ve already said, it’s reasonable to correct a colloquial term if that term is understood to coincide with a technical term. But if you’re using a non-standard classification system you have to tell them that.

I guess you haven't yet read either of my most recent posts. But if you refer to SLP's preferred authority reference, John G. Fleagle, you'll see that in his taxonomy of extinct primates, Propliopithecoidea is a third option within Catarrhini. These are also 'Old World monkeys' in the literal sense, and since apes are perceived as nested within that group, then we can say that apes are monkeys.

See my discussion above regarding propliopiths.

 

[Cirbryn]

I wonder if bobcats/cougars have precisely the same niche as coyotes/wolves though.

Don't know. You'd think there'd be some difference or else one would have outcompeted the other. There might be some kind of prey density difference. The canids could range farther to look for scarce primary prey while the felids might have to switch over to a secondary prey animal more quickly.

 

[Nightson]

Don't know. You'd think there'd be some difference or else one would have outcompeted the other. There might be some kind of prey density difference. The canids could range farther to look for scarce primary prey while the felids might have to switch over to a secondary prey animal more quickly.

And, wolves hunt in packs while cougars are solitary. Plus I doubt there have been that many times that food has become scarce enough for sustained strong competition.

Then again, for all we know one is slowly outcompeting the other right now.

 

[Lilandra]

ecological niche they could have been outcompeted by dingos. Like you pointed out dingos were more familiar with humans but they also employ a cooperative hunting strategy. Canids are also super at scavenging.

Although you can't really discount human intervention.

Don't know. You'd think there'd be some difference or else one would have outcompeted the other. There might be some kind of prey density difference. The canids could range farther to look for scarce primary prey while the felids might have to switch over to a secondary prey animal more quickly.

 

[I_Love_Cheese]

That's fascinating. I'm still getting the montreme/marsupupial/placental mammal thing straight in my head.
I wonder if bobcats/cougars have precisely the same niche as coyotes/wolves though.

Coyotes prefer open terrain / grasslands, Bobcats prefer wooded areas as they are good climbers. There diets don't quite overlap either except that around here they are both famous for their penchant for chickens.

 

[Aron-Ra]

I was never talking about the Linnaean system in the first place. I was always only arguing from a cladistic perspective.
You're right. The out-dated Linnaean system does allow paraphyly.

Great! So given this and your admission in post 136 that Linnaean taxonomy is the standard technical classification system, we can now agree that according to the commonly accepted colloquial and technical meanings of the terms, humans aren’t monkeys.

Not so. The commonly accepted colloquial meaning of ‘monkey’ includes apes, and only excludes humans only by preferential convention. The technical term is the cladistic one. The Linnaean term is just the old standard. Its still dominant, but it was officially overturned only a decade or so ago, and the new arrangement is definitely not a popular one, so it will take a while longer before cladistics become the norm.

So it would be extremely misleading to tell someone that technically humans are monkeys, without making sure the person to whom you were talking knew you were using non-standard definitions. Right?

But I’m not using ‘non-standard’, I’m using the NEW standard, just like you are. Its funny that you don’t realize it yet, but we’re on the same side of this already. The reason we're moving to the new standard is because the old one was (and still is) misleading. Until 'monkey' equals 'Anthropoid', it always will be. The old standard defining apes as pongids is still dominant because old traditions die hard. But does that make you “extremely misleading” when you tell people they’re apes? Even now, that’s still neither the commonly accepted colloquial nor the correct Linnaean term. So why do you use it?

Now what I’d like to do is go on to whether cladistics or Linnaean taxonomy is a better system, but I’m not going to do that until this point gets resolved. This was my original point, after all, way back in post 42.

I should probably stop there, but I’m going to go on and answer the rest anyway. I’m really hoping we’ve finally reached some common ground on this “humans are monkeys” thing though.

We will pretty soon. Accepting that humans are apes is a big step. Accepting that humans are monkeys too only seems to be a bigger step because you’re still thinking in terms of rank, or grades requiring transitional intermediates and the like, -and because you once held ‘superior knowledge’ that apes were not monkeys. The laity usually have no idea what you’re talking about there, and here’s why:

ape n.

1. tailless primate: a tailless primate such as a chimpanzee, gorilla, or orang-utan. Family Pongidae.
2. primate: a primate of any type ( informal )
--Encarta.MSN

1 a : MONKEY; especially : one of the larger tailless or short-tailed Old World forms b : any of two families (Pongidae and Hylobatidae) of large tailless semierect primates (as the chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, or gibbon) -- called also anthropoid, anthropoid ape
-Merriam Webster’s online dictionary

The colloquial and Linnaean definitions are both changing together. But according to most dictionaries even now, apes are monkeys, and humans cannot be apes. But the man on the street doesn’t keep abreast of any of this. Just as it will take decades for cladistics to replace Linnaean taxonomy, if you want to know what the man on the street thinks an ape is, you should refer to a much older source:

“A genus of quadrupeds, found in the torrid zone of both continents, of a great variety of species. In common use, the word extends to all the tribe of monkeys and baboons; but in zoology, ape is limited to such of these animals as have no tails; while those with short tails are called baboons, and those with long ones, monkeys. These animals have four cutting teeth in each jaw, and two canine teeth, with obtuse grinders. The feet are formed like hands, with four fingers and a thumb, and flat nails. Apes are lively, full of frolic and chatter, generally untamable, thieving and mischievous. They inhabit the forests, and live on fruits, leaves and insects.”
--Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Isn’t that great? Almost 200 years out-of-date, and utterly wrong, yet that was still a common definition when I was a kid. Of course I was raised by creationists living in a rural area, so that’s to be expected.

As I said, it takes time to change “the standard”, even among learned men who are interested in these things. The apathetic common laity anywhere still aren’t able to distinguish apes from the rest of their lot where you could. So you’ve praised your own greater wisdom there, and have come to view apes and other monkeys as two separate groups, just as I did once upon a time. That superior perspective makes it understandably difficult for you to reconsider. Believe me, I know. You don’t want to concede that some ignorant yokels may have been right all along. But its not really like that. And even if it was:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, "You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken," and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion."
-- Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP keynote address

 

[Aron-Ra]

Its how I'm trying to perceive your logic. There are several species of wild dogs which don't have wolves as ancestors. Wild dogs are also older than domestic dogs. Hence, (I would think) they hold more claim to the name than domestic dogs. But for some reason, colloquial tradition has decided that jackals and wolves are not dogs. So if domestic dogs descend from wolves, they shouldn't be dogs either. But then, I'm forgetting that in your terminology, everything can be polyphyletic and paraphyletic, and nothing has to adhere to any precise definition.

Aron, Dude! I never claimed that African wild dogs are dogs but wolves and jackals aren’t.

But you did say that wild dogs weren’t dogs. That’s very confusing. Is that like when SLP says that New World monkeys aren’t really monkeys, and are only called that because of the ‘tradtion’ that everyone thought they were monkeys for the last several centuries?

I never claimed domestic dogs aren’t dogs.

But you said they would stop being dogs if you could subjectively judge their descendants to be different enough.

Whatever it is you’re talking about, it’s not my logic.

I freely confess I have no idea what your logic is.

I’m not saying that using colloquial terms give carte blanche. When a colloquial term is generally understood to coincide with a technical term it is proper to point out that technically a colloquial usage is or is not correct. The problem isn’t that “humans are monkeys” is incorrect by the colloquial definitions being used;

But the colloquial definition of ‘monkey’ is “all anthropoids except us.” We are to be excluded of course, for the same reason we are deliberately excluded from the word, “animal”. even though we know we're animals as well. Humans want to consider themselves more special than we are, and often declare themselves to be unrelated to anything else. But if that is the only reason to exclude humans from monkeys, then that’s not good enough, because we are related to everything else whether we want to admit that or not.

it’s that it’s incorrect by the associated technical definitions (assuming the standard technical classification system is being used). Humans are in family Hominidae, superfamily Hominoidea. Living old-world monkeys are in family Cercopithecidae, superfamily Cercopithecoidea. The extinct propliopiths you refer to farther down are (according to your cite) in family Propliopithecidae, superfamily Propliopithecoidea. There is no overlap.

This feels a bit like Carl Sagan’s hypothetcal two-dimensional people trying to undersand the concept of depth. Try to understand that -on paper- Linnaean taxa are listed side-by-side. But in the evolutionary scheme it cannot be really be that way, and virtually everyone who is aware of Propliopithecoidea concedes that they are basal to Hominoidea, Cercopithecoidea or both. As I tried to explain before, Propliopithecoidea is currently classed as a superfamily, but taxonomists already know that classification is inaccurate, and are in the process of correcting it right now.

Actually in addition to the wolf-like canid clade and the vulpine fox clade you’re presumably thinking of, there’s a clade of South Amercan canids and some monotypic genera that aren’t closely related to any of the three main clades. (See here) Several South American canid species look like foxes (for instance the pampas fox, culpeo fox and Argentine grey fox), and many of these were previously in the genus Dusicyon until it was realized the were actually more closely related to the wolf-like canids. Dusicyon has since been renamed Pseudalopex, meaning false fox. There are also some South American canids with wolf-like common names, including the maned wolf, the bush dog, the small-eared dog and the Falkland Islands wolf (which is now extinct). The Falkland Islands wolf was originally named Canis antarcticus by Charles Darwin, who first saw it during the voyage of the Beagle. The monotypic canid genera include the grey fox (genus Urocyon), the bat-eared fox (genus Otocyon), and the raccoon dog (genus Nyctereutes).

So the South American canids were most closely related to the “dog” clade, and some are still called “dogs” but some have evolved into foxes, hardly distinguishable from the “fox” clade. This is exactly what you said could not happen to new-world monkeys –

That’s right, and that’s exactly what didn’t happen here either. Why else would they change the name to “false fox”?

Baring in mind that Canidae originally emerged (from the fox-like Hesperocyon) in what is now Latin America, then we should expect the greatest possible diversity there. So what you’re talking about is to be expected. If it is a fox, (related to foxes and descended from foxes) and we decide to call it something else, is it still a fox? Are you saying here that if they call it a fox, then it is a fox? Even if it wasn’t a fox before, and isn’t related to other foxes? What kind of bear is a koala? Is a Tasmanian wolf really a wolf? Is Smilodon fatalis a sabre-toothed tiger?

Is Thylacosmilus atrox?

"If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a dog have? Four.
Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."
--Abraham Lincoln

I’ve asked this question several times before, but nobody wants to answer it. Can anything ever switch from one lineage to another?

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is exactly what you said could not happen to new-world monkeys – that they might have evolved into something looking like a monkey independantly of the old-world monkeys. That is also exactly what this site claims probably occurred with old and new-world monkeys.

Not quite. First of all, even they list Propliopithecus as basal to both Cercopithecidae and Hominidae, stating rather blatantly that apes evolved from those monkeys in particular!

“A primate group known as Propliopithecus, one lineage of which is sometimes called Aegyptopithecus, had primitive catarrhine features—that is, it had many of the basic features that Old World monkeys, apes, and humans share today. Scientists believe, therefore, that Propliopithecus resembles the common ancestor of all later Old World monkeys and apes. Thus, Propliopithecus may also be considered an ancestor or a close relative of an ancestor of humans.”
--Dr. Richard B. Potts, curator of Anthropology at the Smithsonian's Museum of Natural History.

There are a number of contadictions on your cited source, which of course would be inevitable when trying to defend such indefensible polyphyly. First of all, what do they mean when they say these forms “probably reached a monkey level of adaptation independently?” What is the "monkey level?" Let’s find out:

“Monkeys are hard to characterize as a group be-cause of their great diversity, and because much of the discussion reflects a comparison with the apes.”

For some reason, they do their taxonomic comparisons backwards, or (from their perspective) sideways. Were they to add comparative traits in the direction of descent, rather than going backward through the tree of life, then monkeys would be easy to characterize despite their diversity. I’ve already done a much better job of that than this site did, and that was just in this thread!

“Both monkeys and apes contrast with the prosimian grade in that they are typically large, diurnal animals that live in social groups.”

So they’re the same thing so far.

"Monkeys differ from apes in their possession of a tail, a smaller brain, quadrupedal pronograde posture, and a usually longer face."

So squirrel monkeys and capuchins aren’t monkeys then, even though one of the distinguishing characteristics of monkeys is that they have a generally flatter face than most prosimians. And I guess the barbary ape really is an ape then? Because its as tailless as we are.

"They are generally smaller than apes, but large monkeys outweigh gibbons."

So they’ve rendered this character meaningless too.

"Like almost all pri-mates, monkeys are pentadactyl, with nails rather than claws on the digits in most cases. They have pectoral mammary glands and well-developed vision. Monkeys are primarily vegetarian and inhabit forested tropical or subtropical regions of Africa, Asia, and South America."

So they can't be distinquished from apes after all. Got it.
But best of all:

“The Parapithecidae (about 35–33 Ma) are monkeylike in adaptation and may be considered a third type of monkey that is not closely related to either living group.”

Thank you! Yet another confirmation of monkeydom outside of, and basal to, both Platyrrhini and Catarrhini. More proof that apes descend from ancestors recognized even by scientists as monkeys.

 

[Aron-Ra]

Despite your jaw-dropping claim to the contrary in post 120, no single creature can be in two Linnaean taxa of the same rank. We can’t be in both family Cercopithecidae and family Hominidae, nor can we be both in class Osterichthyes and class Mammalia.

Yes we can be, the same way we are humans and apes. You yourself said we were, did you not?

I said “Linnaean taxa of the same rank”, did I not? We are in genus Homo and family Hominidae (humans and apes) and there is nothing wrong with that because a genus is not a family.

What do you mean, “humans and apes”? What is the difference between these two groups?

But we can’t be in class Osteichthyes if we are already in class Mammalia,

Fine. Then show me a boneless mammal, and I’ll concede the point. Otherwise, the standard itself is misleading, and that’s why it won’t be the standard anymore, and is already clearing out its cubicle.

nor can we be in family Cercopithecidae if we are already in family Hominidae.

Again, no one ever said we were Cercopiths, except this one lady I met at the laundrymat.

What I said was that Homonoidea (and Cercopithecidae too) are nested within Propliopithecoidea, a second group of Catarrhine “Old World monkeys” -even according to your own sources. These represent the ancestors of both clades, the first Old World monkeys –the ones who were still in the Old World when the Platyrrhines moved onto the New one.

I think you’re still seeing it this way:

CATARHINNI
._
|_| Propliopithecoidea
._
|_| Hominoidea
._
|_| Cercopithecoidea

But this is a static arrangement, constructed as it was unaware that evolution even occurs.
Now try to see it cladistically:

.............................................................................................Me
....................................................................................Homoine_/__
............................__Parapithecid monkeys__.....…..........._Homindiae____/___________
.........................../......................................../"Great apes"..\_Pongo_____
........................../......Propliopithecoidea. Hominoidea____/...............(orangutan)
........................./......_(converted clade) /.."apes"..\______Hylobatidae_______________
............. ....Anthropoidea./...Catarrhini......\................"lesser apes"......\_______
................___"monkeys"__/."Old World monkeys".\..........................._______________
__Haplorhini___/..Eosimias....\......................\_Cercopithecoidea________/_______________
"Half monkeys".\"dawn monkey"..\_____Platyrrhini_______________________________________________
................\................."New World monkeys"...........\______________________________
.................\_Tarsii______________________________________________________________________

As I showed you before, Propliopithecoidea may soon become the parent clade for all Catarrhines, although ‘Catarrhini’ will probably remain the clade name as a matter of tradition.

And since Pongidae is a remnant of Linnaean taxonomy, then why do you believe humans are apes? By your system, we cant be. The colloquial definition doesn't include us, the Linnaean taxon doesn't include us, and you said its impossible to be in two different classes at the same time. How do you explain this?

Since you hold this position, and since you like colloquial defintions, you'll love this: Several dictionaries define "animal" as exclusively terrestrial, mammals only, "other than a human being." Get that? We can't be animals! Its impossible to be in two different taxa, right? Do you believe that humans are animals?

Pongidae wasn’t colloquial, it was Linnaean.

Technically, no. Linnaeus originally classified humans as apes and apes as humans, remember? But that was at a time when colloquial convention ruled the day, and that convention demanded that we be excluded as special. Pongidae was constructed deliberately to isolate extant non-human apes in their own non-human category. It was known even then that this was inappropriate. I think Darwin remarked on that too.

And prior to about 1989 it would have been correct to say that we are not apes.

Don’t forget that Linnaeus said we were apes more than 200 years before that, and was hushed, his taxonomy revised. That revised standard was overturned more than a decade ago, but only began to noticeably wane about five years ago, and is still dominant.

But human-ape taxonomy was revised in the 1990’s based on genetic data, and the great apes (without the gibbons) were moved into family Hominidae. The gibbons were given their own family – Hylobatidae.

I remember in 1971, when my family asked me why I didn’t believe the Bible’s account of creation, I answered that it didn’t explain why we were apes. The Pongid class was already destroyed logically by the fact that the Hylobatids (which were already their own family for ages before then) were described as “lesser apes” while pongids were restricted only to still-living forms. In fact, the word “extant” sometimes even appeared in the definition. But once fossil apes like Proconsul started cropping up, it created a quandary. How could something start out in the realm of lesser apes, (which proconsul was said to be) and evolve into great apes without being an ape itself? Similarly, if Proconsul was itself an ape, and we also evolved from it, (or another ape very similar to it) then how could we not be apes ourselves? When I looked into what an ape was, I didn’t care what family people wanted them to belong to, I looked at the traits which define them. Its nice to know that it only took 30 or 40 years for the rest of the world to agree with an ignorant eleven year-old. I wonder how fast they’ll agree with me now?

I’m not actually sure I agree with the elimination of Pongidae, since the only explanation I’ve ever seen has been cladistic rather than comparitive, but unlike you I recognize what the accepted standard now is and I act accordingly.

Unlike me, you do NOT recognize what the standard is now where I do. That’s why I’ve become something of an activist on this subject. Someone has to plead the case or else the stale old standard will linger even longer!

If I were to tell someone I thought humans weren’t apes, I would first tell them that by the standard taxonomy we are.

No they’re not, still! According to pg. 9 of my current college textbook on cellular biology, chimpanzees are still classified the family, Pongo; genus, Pan.

This textbook was fresh-off-the-press, brand-new just last year, and its one of the leading texts on biology for science majors! So according to “the standard” humans can't be in Hominidae and Pongidae at the same time. Nor can chimpanzees be in the same two -as SLP (and several others) suggest they should be. Why then do you use these misleading and deceptive terms since they are clearly not those of the still-dominant standard being replaced? Or is there a “double” standard at work here?

Regarding your other points on colloquial terms, as I’ve already said, it’s reasonable to correct a colloquial term if that term is understood to coincide with a technical term. But if you’re using a non-standard classification system you have to tell them that.

I do, and I have throughout this discussion. But your classification of humans as apes is cladistic, and you don’t even try to clarify that. You’re trying to juggle this one cladistic term in concert with the failed Linnaean system which doesn’t agree with it, and you’re not clarifying that the way I am.

I guess you haven't yet read either of my most recent posts. But if you refer to SLP's preferred authority reference, John G. Fleagle, you'll see that in his taxonomy of extinct primates, Propliopithecoidea is a third option within Catarrhini. These are also 'Old World monkeys' in the literal sense, and since apes are perceived as nested within that group, then we can say that apes are monkeys.

See my discussion above regarding propliopiths.

I did. It failed to address this point.

 

[Cirbryn]

The technical term is the cladistic one. The Linnaean term is just the old standard. Its still dominant, but it was officially overturned only a decade or so ago, and the new arrangement is definitely not a popular one, so it will take a while longer before cladistics become the norm.

Please support your claim that the Linnaean system was “officially overturned” in favor of the cladisitc system.

I think you’re still seeing it this way:

[FONT=&quot]CATARHINNI[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]_[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]|_| Propliopithecoidea [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]_[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]|_| Hominoidea [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]_[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]|_| Cercopithecoidea[/FONT]

That’s the way it is under the Linnaean system, as presented by your own cited web page. You haven’t provided anything that suggests otherwise. You can argue all you want that Hominoidea evolved from Propliopithecoidea, and that the Propliopiths were "monkeys". All it would mean if you’re correct is that Hominoidea evolved out of Propliopithecoidea and established its own superfamily. As things currently stand under the Linnaean system, no Hominoids are Propliopiths, nor are they Cercopiths. So show how the Linnaean system is no longer the standard taxonomic system, or give it up.

 

[SLP]

Hoo boy...

Nice smoke screen. Almost no one noticed that you still haven't answered any of those simple short-answer questions I gave you.

Oh, well, since I did not address each and every statement written by you, it clearly means that I cannot do so and that you are absolutelty right about everything, just like you were in the 2003 200-odd TO thread.

Just a student with no degrees yet, remember?

And no publications. Which makes it doubly odd that you would comment on things you have no experience in doing.

My problem with it is that your phylogeny depicts New World monkeys and Old World monkeys sharing a common ancestor that was not a monkey itself (as if that were possible) and also is not a common ancestor with apes either. Since every analysis I've yet read for any pre-Catarrine anthropoid describes its morphology as similar to Platyrrhine monkeys, then I don't see how any phylogenies I've seen from your perspective can claim what they do.

Clearly, you did not read/understand either what was in the paper or what I wrote in response to your uninformed commentary (let me guess - you *know* that. you *knew* that). Perhaps I overestimated you. I shall not do that anymore.
AGAIN, an actual scientist, one that pays attention to DETAIL and uses actual data in analyses, does not include taxa in a phylogenetic analysis for which he/she does not actually have data for. The phylogenetic trees can only contain the taxa for which the algorithm received data for. Armchair experts need to understand the analytical techniques they are criticizing BEFORE they criticize them.
I cannot understand why that simple fact keeps eluding you. If you had bothered to read the paper for something other than 'damning quotes', you might have noticed that.

As I said before, if you follow the link they provide for Cercopithecoidea, you will not find Propliopithecoidea listed within that group.

And so it must be ancestral? Harshman was right.

And if you refer to your preferred authority, John G. Fleagle's taxonomy of extinct primates, you will again see that Propliopithecoidea is not any subset of Cercopithecids, but is rather another superfamily all its own.

Which means, clearly, that it is not considered to be an ancestor! Superfamilies do not nest within each other.

In this one discussion with you, I have conceded a handful of errors at least. I was wrong about Tarsiers being reclassified as Haplorhines for example. I was wrong about the class paper being written by a student rather than a lecturer. There were at least a couple other errors I had conceded to you which I don't remember right now. But how many points have you conceded?

None, as I have not been making errors. I have been pointing out the the same facts that Harshman was 3 years ago - that you do not seem to know how to read a cladogram. My opinion differs from Harshman's, yet we have been making many of the same arguments - and enduring much of the same unwarranted condescension, to boot. Funny, that.

Because there were several times I noted when you were obviously, blatantly, and demonstrably wrong and would not yeild anything.

Such as? Differences of opinion are not errors (you had that problem in the TO thread, too). Citing a web site because the title of a page is "Catarrhines Old World monkeys" despite the fact that it lists your fixated "ancestral" taxon as a sister group is an error of interpretation and an example of not paying attention to details..

The one and only exception was when you admitted to calling John Harshman a "computer guy" just because you didn't know what a systematist was.

LOL!
Yeah, I did not know that. Wait - I *know* what a systematist is. I *knew* what a systematist is. You are merely jumping to conclusions again.

Perhaps you should pay more attention, and not jump to such conclusions.

Ironic.

Got to get back to actual work. Wish I had the free time to sit around and pump my ego by writing thousands of internet discussion board posts, but such luxuries are out of my sphere of reality.