Is Curious George a monkey or a chimpanzee?

[Enola Gay]

There is a major debate going on in my house and I need the straight dope. My brother insists that Curious George is not a monkey, but is a chimpanzee because he has no tail, walks upright, and has a bare face and hands. However, in the book he is described as a "good little monkey" plus he is brown, not black like most chimpanzees.

A google search has just added further confusion as I learned that not all monkeys have tails....and chimpanzees are not always black. Furthermore I read (not sure if this is true) that the author of Curious George, H.A. Rey, worked in a zoo prior to writing the books, so I would expect him to know the difference between a monkey and a chimp....and as stated previously, he describes George as a monkey.

So what do the teeming millions think-monkey or chimpanzee?

[Peremensoe]

George is a chimpanzee. Plenty of people colloquially call chimps "monkeys."

[Chronos]

George is a chimpanzee. Plenty of people colloquially call chimps "monkeys."

And not-so-colloquially. Cladistically speaking, the great apes are a subset of the monkeys. That is to say, any group based on common descent which includes both the Old World monkeys and the New World monkeys must also include the great apes, including chimps and us. So I really am a monkey's uncle.

[Johnny L.A.]

Originally Posted by spark240

George is a chimpanzee. Plenty of people colloquially call chimps "monkeys."

George is a monkey. Plenty of illustrators routinely get details wrong, if only because it 'looks better'.

Curious George's facial features look more like a monkey's to me. When I was little, in the '60s, my grandmother's neighbour 'Fireman Jim' had a monkey. Organ grinders are usually depicted with monkeys. I've always had the impression that monkeys were more popular as exotic pets than chimpanzees were. And of course I grew up knowing Curious George as a monkey instead of a chimp. So I accept him as a monkey, and that the illustrator just left off the tail.

Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga
Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga
Oh, the monkeys have no tails
They were bitten off by whales
Oh, the monkeys have no tails in Zamboanga

[Dr. Drake]

The lack of tail could also be part of the tragic accident (or simple birth defect) that caused George to be abandoned in the wild, leading to his eventual adoption by the Man in the Yellow Hat.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Enola Gay

So what do the teeming millions think-monkey or chimpanzee?

Everthing about George's appearance indicates he is modeled on a chimpanzee rather than any species of monkey.

And despite frequent attempts at hyper-correction, it is perfectly correct to refer to a chimpanzee (or any other great ape) as a monkey in both a colloquial and a scientific sense:

From Merriam-Webster:

mon·key noun \ˈməŋ-kē\
plural monkeys
Definition of MONKEY
1: a nonhuman primate mammal with the exception usually of the lemurs and tarsiers; especially : any of the smaller longer-tailed catarrhine or platyrrhine primates as contrasted with the apes

Now while a distinction between monkeys and apes is often made, it is not a necessary one, and referring to an ape as a monkey is not incorrect.

Historically speaking, in English "ape" is the older term, and monkeys were originally considered a sub-category of ape. ("Ape" was sometimes applied especially to certain tailless monkeys like the Barbary Ape/Barbary Macaque.) Later, when chimps, gorillas, and orangutans were discovered, scientists began to classify them in a category separate from the smaller monkeys. At that point, based on that distinction, some began to insist that the popular usage shoud conform to the scientific one; but there is really no reason that it needs to.

As it turns out, according to modern cladistic classification (as Chronos has already said), the previous scientific distinction was incorrect. The great apes (and humans) are more closely related to the Old World (catarrhine) monkeys than they are to New World (platyrrhine) monkeys. Therefore "monkeys" do not form a homogeneous group; if you want to refer to a group including both the Old and New World forms as "monkeys" you also must include apes in that group. So scientifically speaking, apes are a kind of monkey.

Curious George is a chimpanzee; and he is also a monkey. There is no contradiction between these terms.

[guizot]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Curious George is a chimpanzee; and he is also a monkey. There is no contradiction between these terms.

Still, could we possibly regard him as both without collapsing the moral ambiguities inherent the representation of his free will? Would you simply relegate the scope of his ranging indentity--the animal-imp allegory--to a mere curiosity, rather than the process and vehicle for his proper transformation as the Bildungsroman protagonist? I think not.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Everthing about George's appearance indicates he is modeled on a chimpanzee rather than any species of monkey.

There are two different questions: What does Curious George look like, and what did H.A. Rey base Curious George on?

Curious George looks like a chimpanzee, no question.

But I happen to have a book about H.A. Rey next to me, and it says that he got the idea from the time he spent in Brazil and noticed the antics of the monkeys there: marmosets in particular.

[The Tao's Revenge]

But Curious George is a chimp doesn't that mean the Man in the Yellow Hat is either really large or George is a dwarf?

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by The Tao's Revenge

But Curious George is a chimp doesn't that mean the Man in the Yellow Hat is either really large or George is a dwarf?

Well, I guess he could be a bonobo.

He's depicted as a very young chimp, which makes him cuter. Like a lot of characters in comics and kids' books, he never grows up. And if he were a full sized chimp, he couldn't get into some of the scrapes he does.

[Polycarp]

Much as I approve of cladistics in principle, I find myself increasingly annoyed by cladists' insistence that it is improper under any circumstances to establish a clade-less-crown group taxon, even though the members of such a group may be united by a number of shared characteristics superseded in the crown group. Saying that "monkeys" constitutes Anthropoidea less Hominoidea (Hylobatidae, Pongidae, and Hominidae) makes perfect sense. Otherwise we are forced to the conclusion that Curious George, like ourselves, chimps, monkeys, thylacines, dinosaurs, hummingbirds, and axolotls, is actually a fish -- since no group includes sharks, rays, sturgeons, guppies, tunas, and lungfish which does not also include mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

[Lemur866]

Or we decide that "fish" is a cladistically meaningless term, and keep the colloquial meaning of "fish", that is, a creature that lives in the water.

But it's just silly to insist that a Chimanzee is not a monkey. Monkey is a perfectly reasonable work, and it doesn't break the word to try to insist that an ape is a kind of monkey. A human is a kind of ape, an ape is a kind of monkey, a monkey is a kind of primate, a primate is a kind of mammal, a mammal is a kind of vertebrate.

Yes, "fish" is nonsense cladistically, because to make sense it would have to be practically synonymous to "vertebrate", and we already have a good term for "vertebrate", namely "vertebrate".

But "monkey" is a perfectly natural word, and it turns out that folk usage of the term happens to match our understanding of relationship between apes and monkeys. Yes, it used to be the case that pedants would insist that apes were a sister group of monkeys and therefore technically not monkeys. However, now we know that apes are a subgroup of monkeys, and therefore apes are monkeys. When a person sees a chimp and says "Oh, the monkey is so cute!", they aren't saying anything incorrect, any more than if they said "Oh, the mammal is so cute!". It's silly to insist that apes aren't monkeys.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Polycarp

Much as I approve of cladistics in principle, I find myself increasingly annoyed by cladists' insistence that it is improper under any circumstances to establish a clade-less-crown group taxon, even though the members of such a group may be united by a number of shared characteristics superseded in the crown group. Saying that "monkeys" constitutes Anthropoidea less Hominoidea (Hylobatidae, Pongidae, and Hominidae) makes perfect sense. Otherwise we are forced to the conclusion that Curious George, like ourselves, chimps, monkeys, thylacines, dinosaurs, hummingbirds, and axolotls, is actually a fish -- since no group includes sharks, rays, sturgeons, guppies, tunas, and lungfish which does not also include mammals, birds, amphibians, and reptiles.

Colloquially, you can call anything you want a fish, as long as it's an animal that lives in the water: starfish, jellyfish, shellfish, crayfish, etc. (According to this usage whales are fish too, even though nitpickers insist they can only be called mammals.)

Scientifically, there isn't anything that is called a fish, but rather members of various clades with Latin names. So we are members of the Craniata along with the hagfish and lampreys, and the Gnathostomata along with the sharks and bony fish, and the Sarcopterygii along with the lungfish.

Sometimes we say that in a cladistic sense humans are apes, and apes are monkeys, and birds are reptiles, but in these cases we are using the colloquial terms in order to describe relationships in a simple form without resorting to scientific terminology. Cladists don't demand (or shouldn't, anyway) that English usage change in order to reflect cladistic classification. It's fine to talk about reptiles without including birds; however if you talk about the clade Reptilia, that necessarily includes birds.

[Markxxx]

Curious George's mum was a monkey and his father was a chimpanzee, so he is actually a Chimpankey

[Krokodil]

I have heard that when monkeys smile, it signifies aggression, not happiness. I'll never look at Curious George in quite the same way again.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by Krokodil

I have heard that when monkeys smile, it signifies aggression, not happiness. I'll never look at Curious George in quite the same way again.

But George was socialized by humans, and practically is a child who can't talk.

[Autolycus]

Curious George in real life: http://creativecreativity.typepad.co...schimp/pankun/

[Enola Gay]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Like a lot of characters in comics and kids' books, he never grows up. And if he were a full sized chimp, he couldn't get into some of the scrapes he does.

And if he were a full grown chimp, he would probably attack and mutilate the Man With The Yellow Hat, so it's probably a good thing that he never grows up....

Thanks, dopers, for fighting my ignorance

[Acsenray]

I have to say, I find the responses in this thread to be refreshingly sensible. For years, I've been annoyed by the "chimp is not a monkey" pedants.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Colibri

Now while a distinction between monkeys and apes is often made, it is not a necessary one, and referring to an ape as a monkey is not incorrect.

Tell that to the Librarian.

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by acsenray

I have to say, I find the responses in this thread to be refreshingly sensible. For years, I've been annoyed by the "chimp is not a monkey" pedants.

Originally Posted by Bosstone

Tell that to the Librarian.

The Librarian is not a chimp, so I'm not gonna do it.

That, and I like my arms better when they're attached.

[Bosstone]

Originally Posted by Maus Magill

The Librarian is not a chimp, so I'm not gonna do it.

That, and I like my arms better when they're attached.

For some reason I thought what I quoted said ape instead of chimp.

[Maus Magill]

Originally Posted by Bosstone

For some reason I thought what I quoted said ape instead of chimp.

D'oh! You're right, that's what I get for assuming you quoted the post right above yours, and not actually reading it.

[Hari Seldon]

FWIW, "monkey" has been an English word for only a couple hundred years. The older word "ape" included all monkeys and apes. I have questioned native speakers of German, Italian, French, and Italian and discovered that none of those languages distinguishes them. If you look up "ape" in my French-English dictionary, it gives the definition "grande singe sans queue" (i.e. big tailless monkey, which is also inaccurate).

Curious George is certainly monkey sized.

[kimera]

We Primatologists do not call an ape a monkey because to us they are two distinct terms. In fact, one of my professors loved to say that monkey bars should be called ape bars. While it is true that the term 'monkey' might be used by those who (incorrectly) suggest a common descent, there are many similarities between monkeys that give the term meaning and cause it to be distinctly different from ape. The term 'monkey' is paraphyletic, and I don't believe it is correct to argue that that we must completely ignore paraphyletic terminology. It has its uses.

For those of us in the field, ape refers to only to those in Hominoidea. Those who are arguing that apes should be including under the label monkey have probably never heard of the term 'simian', which is the proper term to use for the group that encompasses both monkeys and apes. A monkey is a non-ape simian.

Curious George does not have a tail and exhibits brachiation, both ape characteristics. However, he also reminds me strongly of a white-faced capuchin. I imagine he was created as a combo of those two.

[suranyi]

Originally Posted by kimera

We Primatologists do not call an ape a monkey because to us they are two distinct terms. In fact, one of my professors loved to say that monkey bars should be called ape bars. While it is true that the term 'monkey' might be used by those who (incorrectly) suggest a common descent, there are many similarities between monkeys that give the term meaning and cause it to be distinctly different from ape. The term 'monkey' is paraphyletic, and I don't believe it is correct to argue that that we must completely ignore paraphyletic terminology. It has its uses.

For those of us in the field, ape refers to only to those in Hominoidea. Those who are arguing that apes should be including under the label monkey have probably never heard of the term 'simian', which is the proper term to use for the group that encompasses both monkeys and apes. A monkey is a non-ape simian.

Curious George does not have a tail and exhibits brachiation, both ape characteristics. However, he also reminds me strongly of a white-faced capuchin. I imagine he was created as a combo of those two.

As I said above, H. A. Rey was thinking mainly of the marmosets he saw in Brazil when he first starting writing those stories.

Is this really a question for zoologists or literary historians?

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by Hari Seldon

FWIW, "monkey" has been an English word for only a couple hundred years. The older word "ape" included all monkeys and apes.

True. "Ape" goes back to before the 12th century, while "monkey" appears in English about 1530.

Originally the term "ape" only applied to what are now called monkeys, since the great apes had not yet become known to Europeans. Topsell's History of Four-Footed Beasts (1607), the first bestiary in English, mentions 10 different varieties of apes, one of them being "monkeys." Eventually, the term ape began to be used mainly for the tailless varieties of monkeys, such as the Barbary Ape (Macaque). The great apes began to be known to science starting in the late 1600s with the orangutan. Eventually they were recognized as a group separate from monkeys, and the term ape became restricted to them.

I have questioned native speakers of German, Italian, French, and Italian and discovered that none of those languages distinguishes them. If you look up "ape" in my French-English dictionary, it gives the definition "grande singe sans queue" (i.e. big tailless monkey, which is also inaccurate).

If you consider singe to be the generic term for non-human primate in French, I don't see why it would be inaccurate. In fact, the usage is the same as the basic colloquial one in English.

From Merriam-Webster:

ape noun \ˈāp\
Definition of APE
1a : 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

[kimera]

Oh, I forgot to mention, personality-wise, Curious George is very much a capuchin, rather than the one semi-brachiating monkey: the spider monkey. I've observed both in the wild, and white-faced capuchins are very much like 6 year old boys who constantly get into mischief. Capuchins are incredibly curious and highly intelligent, and I'm sure capuchin owners would have many stories of their pets getting into trouble.

I've never worked with chimps, so I can't say what they are like, personality wise.

[rhysf]

I just turned my Curious George calendar over to May and this is what I saw:

George ambling past a billboard which reads 'This way to the monkeys' and underneath, a picture of two monkeys looking virtually identical to George except with tails.

So HA and Margaret Rey weren't averse to drawing tails, they just didn't want one on George, either for aesthetic reasons or due to some undislcosed backstory involving amputation.

The illustrations for the first story involving George, 'Cecily G and the Nine Monkeys,' show that all eight of George's siblings are missing tails.

[Zany Zeolite Zipper]

If it doesn't have a tail it's not a monkey
Even if it has a monkey kind of shape!
We can very plainly see if it's a monkey, if it doesn't have a tail, it's not a monkey it's an ape!

[elfkin477]

Originally Posted by Dr. Drake

The lack of tail could also be part of the tragic accident (or simple birth defect) that caused George to be abandoned in the wild, leading to his eventual adoption by the Man in the Yellow Hat.

Is TMITYH supposed to be a poacher? I ask because I've had that impression most of my life because of George's capture in the first book.

[Colibri]

Originally Posted by elfkin477

Is TMITYH supposed to be a poacher? I ask because I've had that impression most of my life because of George's capture in the first book.

The Man in the Yellow Hat appears to be a hunter (he carries a rifle) and is probably also an animal dealer. Saying he was a poacher implies that what he was doing was illegal, but at the time there were few if any laws about collecting animals from the wild. The Man in the Yellow Hat lures George to be captured with his hat; there is no indication in the first book that George was abandoned. He later "gives" George to the zoo (but probably actually sold him). He may be modeled to some degree after Frank "Bring 'Em Back Alive" Buck, the famous animal dealer who caught animals in the wild and sold them to zoos and circuses.