I was taught that monkeys have tails, apes do not. Which, unless you’re a biologist type, seems a bit pedantic. Penguins can’t fly but they’re still considered birds, after all. So I guess I’m not interested in the scientific answer so much as how the teeming millions bandy the term in the vernacular.
So what are your thoughts?
I think of apes and monkeys as different. They are however both primates. Sort of like I think of horses and zebras as different even though they are both equine.
I would have answered “No” but it wasn’t an option - just some business about tails which doesn’t really factor into my thinking. (I break it down by size, mostly - the bigger the monkey, the more it’s an ape).
Does this mean that I divide the categories differently than you? Probably. Does that mean I categorize the animals wrongly? No; I’m write about everything. It’s the stupid scientists that are wrong.
In any case, with no “No” option to pick, I chose the banana creme pie. I do like me a good banana creme pie.
(Irrelevant side note - as I’m reading the Discworld series right now, this thread caught my eye.)
You did that on purpose, didn’t you. And the Wicked Witch had some pretty big flying primates that are typically referred to as flying monkeys. You telling me you call them flying apes?
Actually it was [del]a Freudian slip[/del] an omnipotent redefinition of the language so the word that was formerly spelled “right” shall now be spelled as “write” forever more.
Its the start of an ongoing campaign too make things simpler buy shifting awl homophones too share won spelling. Yew no, like “seal” (loch closed) and “seal” (the animal). It’ll bee bettor awl around, yule sea.
I just assume that 'Flying Monkey" is the official name of the species, whether or not they are actually monkeys - just like I don’t hold the Kimono Dragon’s inability to breathe fire against it.
Also, the internet tells me that not all “old world” monkeys have tails, whatever “old world” means in this context.
Finally I get my pie so I went for it!
But monkey, ape, or Monkee for that matter ------ all the same to me.
All monkeys have tails…except the ones in Zamboanga.
So how are you supposed to delineate differences between two groups without describing differences between two groups?
Some monkeys are monkier than others.
I’d always learned since elementary school that monkeys are different from apes, and confusing them was a sign of ignorance which I studiously avoided. Now I hear, according to Wikipedia, that “The New World monkeys and the Old World monkeys are each monophyletic groups, but their combination is not, since it excludes hominoids (apes and humans). Thus the term “monkey” no longer refers to a recognized scientific taxon.” Or basically, monkeys can’t be distinguished from apes. As a result of learning this, my plan is to go burn down my elementary school.
Actually, the first image to come to my mind is a spider monkey. I’m not sure why.
But I have referred to chimpanzees as monkeys. More off-handedly, than from ignorance.
I don’t really think of baboons as monkeys. Again, not sure why.
That can be done here.
It’s complicated. There are monkeys without tales (I believe the monkeys still living in Gibraltar, for instance). Also, apes share a common ancestor with extant monkey species which, by all appearances, should be classified as a “monkey” itself. With the shift from your (and my) elementary school “Domain, Kingdom, Phillip, Came, … , Species” that was born out of Linnaean taxonomy and pre-dates even Darwin’s understanding of evolution, to the phylogenetic tree in which life is classified according to its evolutionary lineage and so contains many more than the classical seven subdivisions from Kingdom to Species.
Whereas Linnaean taxonomy was based on grouping life forms according to attributes (ie: these primates have tales, and these primates don’t), phylogenetic clades are more nearly a “once an X, always an X” kind of classification: a sort of “nested hierarchy.” So if you at some point descended from a Eukaryote, you’re still a Eukaryote; if you descended from a “chordate”, you’re still a chordate; and if you descended from a so-called “monkey” (here now using the layman’s term), then, by gummit, you’re STILL a monkey.
But then there’s these things called paraphyletic groups, whereby they (whoever “they” is) decide a group has changed enough from its ancestors, and so we want to pretend like it’s somehow not in the same clade, even though it really ought to be.
IANAB, but with all that said, I consider myself a monkey. I mean, you may not be interested in the scientific answer, but I am, and since you asked for my opinion…
Those monkeys are boring. I don’t even like to invite them to dinner parties. Give me a monkey that knows how to tell a ripping good tale, that’s what I always say.
My two youngest grandchildren are definitely my “monkeys”.
Actually, if you say Monkeys, I think of Peter, Michael, Mickey and Davy. That’s what I thought of when I saw the thread title.
Though thinking it through, I don’t put monkeys and gorillas/apes in the same group really. I think of monkeys as more of a tree dweller, while gorillas are more of an animal that lives on the ground. :shrug:
(Now I have Last Train to Clarksville in my head. Sorry every one).
I’m almost certain that only one primate has tales.
That’s a Monkee, not a monkey.
I’m so persnickity (sp?) today.
I encountered one of those in a Japanese whorehouse. 'Twas a night to remember.
Excuse me? The baboon in Lion King? That ape (Orangutan?) which I maintain is also a monkey in Jungle Book?
Clearly more than one.