How Does Evolution Explain Birds?

[Chronos]

If it’s really important to talk about the Old and New World monkeys together while excluding apes, how about the term “tailed monkeys”? And then, if necessary, you can include the Barbary Ape in a footnote, if it comes up.

[Mijin]

@Colibri

Originally monkeys were considered to be just a sub-category of apes. Gradually apes became considered to be a subset of monkeys, those without tails. And it wasn’t until the great apes became known, much later, that scientists began to make the technical distinction that now exists. But this is a quite artificial one and entirely arbitrary one considering the original English usage.

Perhaps. But while the etymology of a word is interesting, it has no bearing on its current meaning.

in my opinion it is pedantic to chastise someone for calling a chimp a monkey.
…
As has been said, apes are simply a subset of monkeys. So if you want to make a technical distinction, the best you can do is say that all apes are monkeys, although all monkeys are not apes.

So it’s not pedantic to insist that apes are monkeys?

We’ve been through this before on SD: most cites seem to specify that “monkey” excludes apes. Arguments about taxonomy seem irrelevant in the face of this.

To re-iterate though: I wouldn’t pull up someone for either use of the term (any more). I’m saying both meanings are acceptible.
It would be nice if there were a single agreed-upon meaning. But there isn’t. As with many English words.

[Lemur866]

Here’s the trouble.

We can see that what we call “apes” form a natural clade. Gibbons, chimps, orangs, gorillas, and humans are all more closely related to each other than they are to any other species. It used to be that humans were excluded from this group because of our distinctive superficial differences, but since we now know that chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than they are to any other group, any group that includes chimps and gorillas but excludes humans is a nonsensical group.

Therefore, we can say quite easily that humans are apes.

Now, we notice that apes are different than monkeys. And so scientists have insisted for quite a while that while apes are closely related to monkeys, apes are not monkeys.

But we now know that old world monkeys are more closely related to apes than they are to new world monkeys. Therefore the old system where we thought new world monkeys and old world monkeys formed a clade, and apes formed a sister clade is wrong. There is no clade we can call “monkeys” that excludes apes unless we want to say that either spider monkeys aren’t monkeys, or baboons aren’t monkeys.

You could argue that the solution is to discard “monkey” as a scientific term, and realize that it’s just a descriptive term like “fish”. But why? Just because we’re so used to insisting that apes aren’t monkeys?

We got used to the notion that humans are a member of the ape clade, rather than a sister clade. We can get used to the notion that apes are a member of the monkey clade, rather than a sister clade. And the advantage is that this classification scheme corresponds to colloquial use.

[Giles]

@Lemur866

We can get used to the notion that apes are a member of the monkey clade, rather than a sister clade. And the advantage is that this classification scheme corresponds to colloquial use.

And i’ll be a monkey’s uncle (to be precise, the uncle of several monkeys).

[Colibri]

@Mijin

Perhaps. But while the etymology of a word is interesting, it has no bearing on its current meaning.

So it’s not pedantic to insist that apes are monkeys?

I should make it clear that I am referring to the non-technical use of the words. In common usage many if not most people do not make a distinction between monkeys and apes. Only scientists insist a distinction be made (either way, according to whether according to traditional taxonomy or cladistics). So it is not pedantic to say that monkeys and apes are the same, because in common, non-technical English, they are.

We’ve been through this before on SD: most cites seem to specify that “monkey” excludes apes. Arguments about taxonomy seem irrelevant in the face of this.

Are you discounting dictionaries as cites? Most don’t insist on the distinction, but accept monkey as being synonymous with ape, while recognizing that the narrower definition also exists:

From Merriam-Webster

Main Entry: 1ape
Pronunciation: \ˈāp\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English apa; akin to Old High German affo ape
Date: before 12th century
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
2 a: mimic b: a large uncouth person

From TheFreeDictionary:

ape (p)
n.
1.
a. Any of various large, tailless Old World primates of the family Pongidae, including the chimpanzee, gorilla, gibbon, and orangutan.
b. A monkey.
2. A mimic or imitator.
3. Informal A clumsy or boorish person

From YourDictionary.com

ape (āp)

noun

1. any gibbon or great ape
2. loosely any Old or New World monkey
3. a person who imitates; mimic
4. a person who is uncouth, gross, clumsy, etc.

I think that the majority of dictionaries are similar in treating monkey as an acceptable synonym for ape, though also recognizing the other usage.

To re-iterate though: I wouldn’t pull up someone for either use of the term (any more). I’m saying both meanings are acceptible.
It would be nice if there were a single agreed-upon meaning. But there isn’t. As with many English words.

That’s really what I was saying. It’s pedantic to insist that a common usage is wrong just because it deviates from the technical usage, when the common usage has both strong historical precedent and is accepted by most dictionaries.

I would also say that in a formal context, I would be careful to use the terms according to their current scientific meaning. But in less formal contexts, there’s no good reason to insist on a difference.