Should we insist on phylogenetic animal descriptors?

[Freddy_the_Pig]

And specifically, should we refer to humans as “apes”? Inspired by the recent GQ thread.

My answer to both questions is “yes”.

Of course, people have been referring to humans as apes metaphorically for some time: Desmond Morris wrote a book called The Naked Ape. My proposal is that we adopt this usage as literal truth, and that doing so (and insisting on phylogenetically correct language in general) will promote correct understanding of evolution.

Polls show that a plurality of Americans don’t accept the theory of evolution as valid. Some of them are fundamentalist Christians, who won’t be reached by any argument. But others simply don’t understand the process; the only thing they know about evolution is that it holds that “man descended from apes”, and this strikes them as ridiculous. How can you descend from something you’re not?

Even among people who accept evolution, man-descended-from-apes promotes misunderstanding. “If that is so, why are apes still here?” “Since humans are more advanced than apes, will we evolve into some sort of super-human in the future?”

But when we say that humans are apes, we gain a deeper understanding. We’re a refinement of the basic ape body plan, just like the chimp and the gorilla—not something completely new and different and better.

I don’t know whether the most recent common ancestor of chimps, gorillas, and humans looked more like a chimp or a gorilla or a human. In some superficial sense it probably looked more like the former—it had hair and didn’t write symphonies or post to the Straight Dope.

But that doesn’t mean it was any more closely related to gorillas than humans; it was the ancestor of both. My brother may look more like my father than me, but it doesn’t make him more closely related to my father. And let’s not use a word (apes-excluding-humans) that implies that he is.

Are birds descended from dinosaurs? Then expand your concept of “dinosaur” to include birds. There’s no such thing as a reptile? Then let’s stop using it—there are amniotes, and there are mammals and birds and chelonians and crocodilians (or whatever the appropriate clades are), but no reptiles.

As Lemur866 points out, Melville said that a whale was a fish. Nobody would say that today; we’ve absorbed the concept that lungs and lactation are more fundamental (because based on phylogenetic descent) than living in the water. We can make the effort if we try.

[Giles]

Yes, but … There are some groups that makes a sort of sense, even if not phylogenetic sense. One is reptiles, even though their common ancestor was also the ancestor of the birds. At least in common usage, if not in scientific usage, it makes sense to talk about reptiles. But I have no problem with my being an ape.

[ultrafilter]

@Freddy the Pig

Of course, people have been referring to humans as apes metaphorically for some time: Desmond Morris wrote a book called The Naked Ape.

Morris was speaking metaphorically?

[Giles]

What I do like to do with people not knowing some of the subtleties of phylogeny is say things like, “Look at the nice dinosaurs singing in my back yard” or “I’m going to cook some curried dinosaur meat tonight.”

[Loopydude]

You might get less resistance if you call 'em all “hominids”. “Apes”, full stop, leads to confusion, as there are so-called “great apes” and “lesser apes” (more formally Hominidae and Hylobatidae, respectively). You might get away with “great apes”, but I suspect many will resist being lumped in with gorillas so explicitly, even when you imply they are “great”. “Hominids” is technically correct, and slides under the radar of most chauvinists.

[Lemur866]

No, “birds” is a perfectly fine phylogenetic category. Those creatures twittering on your patio can quite scientifically be described as birds. They’re still dinosaurs though. All birds are dinosaurs, not all dinosaurs are birds. Sparrows are passarines and birds and dinosaurs and amniotes (that is, reptiles) and tetrapods, just like dogs are carnivores and eutherians (placentals) and mammals and amniotes and tetrapods, and humans are apes and eutherians and mammals and amniotes and tetrapods.

The problem would be if somebody insisted that since birds fly, ostriches and penguins weren’t birds, but bats were. That’s the same level of confusion as people insisting birds aren’t dinosaurs but pterodactyls are.

[John_Mace]

@Loopydude

You might get less resistance if you call 'em all “hominids”. “Apes”, full stop, leads to confusion, as there are so-called “great apes” and “lesser apes” (more formally Hominidae and Hylobatidae, respectively). You might get away with “great apes”, but I suspect many will resist being lumped in with gorillas so explicitly, even when you imply they are “great”. “Hominids” is technically correct, and slides under the radar of most chauvinists.

Too scientific sounding. It’s hard to introduce such a term into common usage when a perfectly good (or almost perfectly good) vernacular word exists. Ape it will be if we want to lump humans in with chimps and other great apes. I’m cool with that. But you’re not going to get our vernacular to align with strict caldistic categories.

BTW, even scientist often still use the term “hominid” to mean only humans and our upright walking ancestors.

However, if anyone refers to Bush as a chimp in the future, we should call that an ad hominid fallacy.

[Loopydude]

Just wait 'til they find out we’re all homos…

[jawdirk]

Why would you want to refer to something that you know specifically is a human, by the wider category, “ape?” That doesn’t add information, it removes it. How about if we refer to humans as “fish,” or “bacteria?”

[begbert2]

@jawdirk

Why would you want to refer to something that you know specifically is a human, by the wider category, “ape?” That doesn’t add information, it removes it. How about if we refer to humans as “fish,” or “bacteria?”

No, those are inaccurate. “Thing.” That’s the ticket.

[Lemur866]

@jawdirk

Why would you want to refer to something that you know specifically is a human, by the wider category, “ape?” That doesn’t add information, it removes it. How about if we refer to humans as “fish,” or “bacteria?”

There’s no need to use the word “ape” when you really mean human. Likewise, there’s no need to use the word ape when you specifically mean chimpanzee, or specifically mean gorilla, or specifically mean orangutan.

But what if you want to refer to the group of organisms we belong to? Surely it makes sense to call humans vertebrates, right? Surely it makes sense to call humans mammals, right? Surely it makes sense to call us primates, right? It makes just as much sense to call us apes.

[Freddy_the_Pig]

@Giles

There are some groups that makes a sort of sense, even if not phylogenetic sense. One is reptiles, even though their common ancestor was also the ancestor of the birds. At least in common usage, if not in scientific usage, it makes sense to talk about reptiles.

It seems natural to need a word that includes crocs, snakes, and turtles, but not frogs, because we’ve been conditioned to think that way. But crocs are more closely related to birds than to snakes. If we stop talking about reptiles, and properly split up the “reptile house” at the zoo, pretty soon it won’t seem like a “natural group” any more.

@ultrafileter

Morris was speaking metaphorically?

I was assuming; I haven’t actually read him. I hadn’t encountered any serious argument for classifying humans as apes until recently.

@Loopydude

You might get less resistance if you call 'em all “hominids”.

Hominoids, actually, since that’s the clade that includes humans and non-human apes. And I’d be happy to use it, provided we stop talking about “apes” in any context involving any rigor. In fact, I’d go hominoidshit over it.

@jawdirk

Why would you want to refer to something that you know specifically is a human, by the wider category, “ape?”

For the same reason that I sometimes refer to a gorilla as an “ape”. Sometimes one needs to refer to the larger group.

@John Mace

But you’re not going to get our vernacular to align with strict cladistic categories.

No, but scientific usage can influence the vernacular over time. Scientists stopped using “tidal wave”, because it doesn’t involve tides, and “tsunami” seems to have displaced “tidal wave” even in casual conversation. Likewise with “shooting stars” and “meteors”. And then there’s the Melville-fish example.

I’m running with humans-as-apes and I’m not using the r-word any more. At least, not without quote marks.

[jawdirk]

@Freddy the Pig

For the same reason that I sometimes refer to a gorilla as an “ape”. Sometimes one needs to refer to the larger group.

Well, yeah, but you haven’t given any support for the need to refer to humans-as-apes as relates to your OP. Some people don’t have much use for your humans-as-apes. Most people don’t care if we evolved from apes or pigs. What matters to them is their current social status. Socially speaking, apes are things that you see in the zoo, not in your living room. Therefor, socially speaking, apes are more related to lions than humans (lions and apes are at the zoo).

[Loopydude]

@Freddy the Pig

Hominoids

Well, that includes all apes. I figured you were talking about hominids since nobody’s brought up gibbons, and usually nobody does during such discussions.

[Contrapuntal]

@Loopydude

Just wait 'til they find out we’re all homos…

My second really good laugh today. Thanks.

[Apos]

I think being more strict cladistically would do a lot to help people understand what evolution and biology are really all about. But old habits die hard.

Humans were classed as apes even before Darwin (in fact, Linneus even placed chimps in the same genus as homo sapiens!). I don’t think apes is as big a problem as “monkey.”

We are Haplorhini. Haplorhini is the closest thing in the cladistic classification system to “monkey.” But most people will insist that we are not monkeys, even though we are apes and primates, and even though we had ancestors that were monkeys. And yet, everything that distinguishes Haplorhini from other primates applies to us. Do we have pendulous penises no longer attached to our abdomens? Check. Two pectoral mammae, even in males? Yep. And so on. So, we are Haplorhini. And yet, we’re somehow not monkeys.

But it gets even worse with fish. The LOWEST grouping that includes all “fish” is vertebrata, and the tetrapods are nested WITHIN fish: they branch off a particular line of fish after fish had already diverged. So, we are fish. Worse, dolphins are a type of fish, despite all those people who knowingly correct kids when they call dolphins fish!

But of course, “fish” isn’t really synonymous with vertebrata. Fish is not a good clade, its a paraphyletic group. Which means that it’s in some sense basically a totally arbitrary nonsense word, a lousy sloppy group. Like reptile. Like maybe even dinosaur (if you reject including birds among the dinos)

But, it’s what we’ve got. Wanna take bets on how successful we’d be in getting people to stop using “fish” the way that they are used to?

Fact is, not every term is a good monophyletic grouping. I wish it weren’t so. it’s fricken CONFUSING. But I don’t see how we are really going to convince people to switch a whole host of traditional terms.

Humans are apes though. Heck, look at your molars in the mirror. Only apes have those sorts of molars, and every ape has them…

[Loopydude]

@Apos

We are Haplorhini. Haplorhini is the closest thing in the cladistic classification system to “monkey.” But most people will insist that we are not monkeys, even though we are apes and primates, and even though we had ancestors that were monkeys. And yet, everything that distinguishes Haplorhini from other primates applies to us. Do we have pendulous penises no longer attached to our abdomens? Check. Two pectoral mammae, even in males? Yep. And so on. So, we are Haplorhini. And yet, we’re somehow not monkeys.

A cursory scan of the genome reveals quite clearly we are not monkeys. We’re great apes, simple as that. Pendulous penes are neat and all, but morphological taxonomy is old school, and increasingly obsolete these days as the definitive means of classifying living species.

[Apos]

I don’t know what you mean about a cursory scan of the genome. We share a common ancestor with all monkeys. Great apes is a much more modern and more specific group.

Would a cursory scan of the genome show that we are not mammals, since "we’re great apes? "
Nope, we’re both.

[Loopydude]

@Apos

I don’t know what you mean about a cursory scan of the genome. We share a common ancestor with all monkeys. Great apes is a much more modern and more specific group.

Would a cursory scan of the genome show that we are not mammals, since "we’re great apes? "
Nope, we’re both.

I guess I’m not sure what you’re talking about. I could do a clustal alignment of the coding sequences of 50 genes from human, chimp, and macquaque and macaque, and just by looking at it I could tell you we’re far more closely related to chimps than to macaques. It would be trivial from there to construct a cladogram with quantitative values for the degrees of divergence. How would I conclude from such data that any of them are not mammals? It’s now thought that the last common ancestor of humans and other great apes lived around 13 million years ago. The last common ancestor of all apes appeared around 24 million years ago. During the late Eocene and early Oligocene the first Anthropoidea emerged from the prosimian past, but modern monkeys have been evolving from those ancestors as long as we have, e.g. the obvious differences between Old and New World monkeys. I just don’t see how it is meaningful to refer to humans as a species of monkey. We’re just not, if the term “monkey” is to mean anything.

[cloaca]

I don’t see how we can insist on layman use of phylogenetic species descriptors if we can’t convince biologists to adopt the phylogenetic species concept.