Question about HIV1 HIV2 and SIV

I have a question I cannot seem to get a straight answer on the internet.

Basically all the websites agree that HIV1 and HIV2 are the viruses that cause AIDS.

That is fine. But then I read that certain types of SIV (and AIDS like virus that effects moneys) are closer the HIV-2 than HIV-1 is to HIV-2

I’ve also read sites tht say some strains of SIV are closer to HIV-1 than HIV-2

SIV doesn’t cause AIDS in humans. I don’t understand why they labled SIV as such and why isn’t it called something like HIV-3.

It makes no sense. If SIV can be closer genetically to HIV-1 or HIV-2, than the two HIV viruses are to each other why lable one SIV.

I tried to Google this and all I can get it was done for political reason as when HIV-2 was discovered, some papers were printing HIV crossed over from SIV because Africans were having sex with monkeys.

Which I guess can be a reason but you don’t call rabies something else because it is in a human and not a dog.

Another site I read said it wasn’t labled an HIV virus because there was concern that calling SIV a name like HIV-3 you would lead people to believe certain kinds of HIV didn’t cause AIDS.

But I now Ebola consists of four kinds and the “reston” type of Ebola doesn’t cause a disease while the other three kinds of ebola are very deadly…

Thanks for any info, know I see why everyone is so confused about HIV, the information out there is horrible and no one seems to have any concensus.

A slight help, I suppose, but it was only an accident that they discovered the Reston strain of ebola didn’t infect humans. While they were performing necropsies on the monkeys in the Reston facilities, a couple of the scientists became exposed to the virus and never developed symptoms of the disease. By that point, everyone knew the monkeys had ebola, so it was probably easier to refer to it as ebola Reston, rather than by a new disease name.

With SIV, there’s not really any point in calling it HIV-3, since it doesn’t affect humans, and IIRC, it was only discovered by people looking for a source for the original virus, so by calling it SIV, they emphasize the fact that it was the precursor to HIV, whereas calling it HIV-3 would make it seem that it was a variant which appeared after HIV, when that’s not the case.

SIV doesn’t infect humans, so why would they name it a HUMAN immunodeficiency virus?

I don’t think it would imply that to me. These things are numbered in order of discovery, right? And SIV, I presume, was discovered after HIV-1

Of course, I agree that since the H stands for human, calling anything that doesn’t infect humans HIV doesn’t make much sense.

S = Simian = Ape or Monkey

H = Human

There is the whole answer.