In simple terms, “ape” is a layman’s term, not a scientific one. The closest scientific clade is Hominoidea (which includes all the critters the average Joe would usually associate with the word “ape” – chimps, gorillas, orangutans and gibbons – along with humans). So, if you want to consider “ape” synonymous with Hominoidea, knock yourself out. No one can really tell you you’re wrong, but neither can you point to any particular resource that says you’re right. Under such a definition, yeah, we’re apes.
In cladistics, the exclusion of groups is generally frowned upon. Thus, if you do consider “ape” synonymous with “Hominoidea”, then we are, by that definition, apes as well. Most folks, including the aforementioned Hawks fellow, do not consider the two terms synonymous, therefore humans are not apes (the English term “ape” being synonymous with Hominoidea - Homo, in this case).
Edit: You are certainly free to use either definition for “ape”, but what trips up these sorts of discussions is when you don’t explicitly state which definition you are using. The same is true for a good many vernacular terms - fish, whale, amphibian, reptile, etc.
I’ve heard actual primatologists and anthropologists refer to “apes” in this sense (qualifying it as “non-human apes” for statements that don’t include humans, or making comparisons between “humans and other apes”).
“Ape” is also a layman’s term, in exactly the same sense as “animal.” In each case, the scientific application unquestionably includes humans, while the layman’s is pretty much defined by the exclusion of humans.
Eh, its obvious that people find it useful to have a word that means “all members of Hominoidea minus humans”. The word is “ape”. The fact that it doesn’t line up exactly with a clade is kind of the point. If it did, we wouldn’t need a separate word.
As a personal preference, yes, I consider them synonymous. I prefer the vernacular terms to mesh with the scientific terms whenever possible. So when I use them, terms like “ape”, “whale”, “reptile” coincide with clades Hominoidea, Cetacea, and Sauropsida, respectively, which means humans are apes, bottle-nosed dolphins are whales, and birds are reptiles.
But, again, there’s no scientific requirement to do so. It’s all about making clear what you are (and are not) talking about when you use a specific term.
Humans and chimps/bonobos have a more recent common ancestor with each other than either do with gorillas. So any group with chimps and gorillas in it must also include humans. Humans, chimps, and gorillas have a MRCA with each other then any of the three do with orangutans, so any group with gorillas and orangutans in it must also include humans and chimps.
I actually had a thread with a similar question on it a little while ago- not only are humans apes, we’re also monkeys, some grouping that would include all primates along with rodents and a few other groups (but not bats, which I was surprised to find), and further up the tree of life, we’re Eutherian mammals, tetrapods, and lobe-finned fish.
Simplicio: I disagree. When I say “ape” I include humans. If I want to exclude humans, I will say non-human apes. A bit cumbersome, but I think a lot of people understand humans to be included in the term “ape”, and I prefer to avoid confusion.
As already noted, this is not true. It is true for cladistics, but cladistics isn’t the only way to classify things. It is become more and more the preferred way, but it needn’t be the only way.
If you ever in your life have discussed the movie “The Planet of the Apes,” you didn’t then. I assure you at some point in your life you’ve used to word “ape” to mean “primates that are not monkeys but also not humans.” Which is fine. Indeed, in some contexts it’s okay to refer to apes as monkeys.
I’m not picking at you, just pointing out that the term “ape” is, like a lot of words in English, context-sensitive. The author of the OP’s cite, John Hawks, to be perfectly blunt, sounds like he’s just kind of a jackass who is out to prove he’s smarter than other people. And he probably is, but going out of your way to prove it on an issue of semantics is a good way to make yourself look much less smart than you really are. Mr. Hawks may know a lot about anthropology but he’s either a shitty linguist or he’s carrying the torch for an issue that nobody cares about.
