Talk:Great ape

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Primates Great ape is part of WikiProject Primates, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use primate resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.

Archive1 - pre-October 2004 discussions


Contents

[edit] Marskell vs. UtherSRG

Fellow Wikipedians, would you mind explaining why you are opposing each others' edits to the Hominid page here on its talk page? Then perhaps your colleagues like me might be able to help you reach consensus... Mamawrites 12:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The discussions are in progress on the talk for WP:PRIM. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:59, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3D image

This is a scholarly page, and speaks well of Wiki's potential for science. I have added a compatible 3D image of a Gorilla Skull, so that the structural differences from the human can be noted, but also to appeal to kids with the 3D to take a serious interest in Anthropolgy and Primatology. Please leave it in, and if possible, check it out with the red-cyan glasses that are used with NASA images.Nativeborncal 06:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Neat! Where can we get those glasses? - UtherSRG (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

There are several places on-line to get free paper glasses. Look under "anaglyph 3D glasses" on Google or your favorite search engine. The red-cyan kind are best. Plastic glassses give better color in most cases, but cost a few bucks. The UGSG has a terrific big site on the scenic and geological features of the U.S. National Parks with 2000+ "compatible" 3D images. Nativeborncal 23:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Compatibility is important as they are very much easier to view by those who don't have the glasses, yet still offer a good 3D stereo view of the image. This can be a "biggey" in getting kids into the use of encyclopedias, in my opinion.69.226.188.196 23:38, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Australopithecus

Does anybody know where Australopithecus fits into all this?--Silentshadow900 01:31, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean by "where"? They are in the subfamliy Homininae. See also human evolution. - UtherSRG (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
Ah, ok, sorry. I didn't see it on the graph.--Silentshadow900 01:41, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
No problem! Welcome to the 'pedia! - UtherSRG (talk) 01:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other apes lieing

According to koko.org and our entry for "lie", Koko the gorilla is able to lie, while our page says that humans are the only hominid able to do so.

68.125.196.124 23:55, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Humans / Great Apes

Hello, sorry the unthoughtful edit I made lately. Maybe this is something that doesn't need discussion anyway, but I was wondering: equating "Humans" with "Great Apes" (in English) may be taxonomically correct, but isn't it confusing as it apparently runs into conflict with common usage? Is "Great Apes" nowadays the normal/only possible translation for Hominidae? To me, this looks like calling a bird a Dinosaur - technically correct, but weird in colloquial usage. I admit though that this subject is utterly outside my field of competence, and I have been a bit too trigger-happy editing out of the blue. Iblardi 06:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Dictionaries are for denoting common use. Encyclopedias are for denoting technical correctness. - UtherSRG (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, and the reasons are well explained elsewhere in the article. It's just that the meanings of Hominidae (point of departure "human") and its counterpart "Great Apes" (point of departure "non-human") are so different in the respective languages that it looks somewhat artificial or at least very counter-intuitive. But I guess that's subjective by definition and it makes this a bit of a non-discussion. Never mind. Iblardi 19:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Discussions and non-discussions are always good. We're here to learn, eh? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to what I wrote, after giving it a second thought, I still feel the need to comment on this. I do not contest that Hominidae includes all descendants of the last common ancestor of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. What is disturbing me is probably the fact that scientific (Latin) terms seem to be treated here as if there exists an exact counterpart of them in English, or any other living language for that matter - as if those terms are supposed to be mirroring each other precisely. But was "great apes" ever meant to be an exact translation of Pongidae? And do we have, for instance, a vernacular word for the Hominini, the group that consists only of humans and chimps? While I can provide no sources to backup my opinion, it seems improbable that "great apes" was ever used as more than a loose translation, without any scientific authority, for Pongidae because both terms happened to match each other quite nicely: the animals we happened to call "great apes" were also classified as Pongidae.
In short, I can't understand why, if the scientific term Hominidae is shifted further downward on the cladistic tree to include all of the above groups, the more or less haphazard English translation should necessarily move along with it. One of the references of the article, to take an example, speaks of "hominid" meaning "the last common ancestor of humans and living apes" (here). This one is actually used as a reference for Hominidae being equal to great apes in the article Human, while it states the opposite! Or, to take maybe a more authoritative source, M.J. Benton, in Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd ed., Blackwell 2005, speaks of "apes" and "man" as different entities (as far as I can tell) but includes both in Hominidae. So my point is: wouldn't it be better to leave Hominidae untranslated instead of forcing English (or Swedish, or French) words into a strict scientific mold which they were probably never meant to be there for, and use the common English terms to refer to humans and great apes (i.e. other Hominidae) separately? Iblardi 19:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
When you ask a scientist if humans are apes, they say "of course". It's common to say "humans and apes" because "apes" in common thought is equivalent to "non-human apes". However, humans are indeed apes, and indeed great apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I find that an unsatisfying answer to my question, which I took some trouble to elaborate. The sources I provided seem to indicate that there is at least no consensus on equalling Hominidae to "great apes", and to my opinion Wikipedia should reflect this. Iblardi 08:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I think part of the worry is that if we separate humans from the great apes it will imply that homo sapiens are at a further taxonomic remove than the other species are from one another, which isn't the case. Further, frustrating arguments have arisen on this page (I think on this one—maybe on ape itself) trying to separate humans from great apes that were essentially religious.
However, Iblardi does have a point. Random searching of papers: "We show that humans differ from the great apes in having a low level of genetic variation;"[1] "spindle cells with encephalization in human and great apes lends further support to the possible association;"[2] "Human frontal cortices were not disproportionately large in comparison to those of the great apes."[3] The phrasing here separates humans ("Humans and great apes" not "Humans and the other great apes," as we write). However, search "non-human great apes"[4] and you will find the phrase in use. I actually agree with Iblardi that because "great ape" is a colloquial, not a scientific term, we shouldn't starightjacket it's usage. Wiki being what it is, we can easily solve this in a note. Marskell 09:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Just to make sure: Iblardi is a non-religious person whose main concern (in this case) is with semantics. :) I'll await a reaction from UtherSRG. Iblardi 10:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Never said you were. :) But a line has to be held so that the slippery slope isn't slid down. ;) I like Marskell's note. However, I think "Human beings are included here as homo sapiens is at not at any especial remove from other members of the biological family." needs some working. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it was a terrible sentence particularly the insufficient "as"... It's still a bit clunky but gets the point across. Marskell 15:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

A bit late to the party, but I think what people are confusing here is the difference between how scientists use words in the common sense, and whether they actually meant to convey anything by that usage. Yes, many scientists may refer to great apes (or apes) and humans in the common sense including in scientific papers. But as I remarked elsewhere, if you were to ask most of these scientists whether humans are apes (or great apes) most would probably say yes and indeed would probably think you're an idiot if you suggested their paper implied they weren't. Similarly, it is fairly common especially in medical papers to refer to humans and animals or animal testing as discreet from testing in humans. However this doesn't mean that writers of said papers don't think humans are animals Nil Einne 12:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but that is exactly the core of the problem (well, mine at least): "apes" is naturally ambiguous because it wasn't "invented" for science the way "Hominoidea" was. That's why you shouldn't treat the vernacular term as if it was perfectly interchangeable with the scientific one. Iblardi 12:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
But IMHO there's nothing wrong with writing an encylopaedia article from the the scientific meaning of the words while acknowledging in that they are used differently in the vernacular which is already done here, in ape and in animal Nil Einne 00:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's fine to acknowledge that "great apes" is used differently, if incorrectly, elsewhere. BUT people used to think whales were fishes, but everyone has moved on to a more sophisticated understanding. It's perfectly reasonable for Wikipedia's entry on great apes to reflect their correct taxonomy and classification. As a whole organism biologist, I personally object to toning down the correct meaning of great ape. I am proud to be an ape.

A great many medical or cell and molecular journal articles refer to whole organisms -- humans and primates, included--somewhat informally, knowing and using no-more-exact taxonomy than they absolutely need to talk about what they are really interested in, which is subcellular biochemistry etc.. I would not use such papers as the last word on taxonomy. Referring to humans as separate from the other great apes is either ignorance or a wish to placate people who might be offended by the thought, especially since the term "great apes," which in reality is in contrast to the lesser apes, sounds humorous and people writing scientific papers tend to shy away from anything that might distract readers from their seriousness. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eperotao (talk • contribs) 01:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Praeanthropus

How does the genus Praeanthropus fit into the taxonomic equation?. - 17:36, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

It's been pushed out as follows:
- UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cororapithecus abyssinicus

Just looking at this news story and found my way here to read more. From my tentative investigations of the abundance of links within this article, I could not find reference to either Cororapithecus abyssinicus (the subject of the news report) or Samburupithecus also cited in the same report as a key milestone in ape evolution. Any chance these can be rendered in the article or am I missing content that is already there? Cheers Dick G 23:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empathetic deception?

In the paragraph that discusses criteria for inclusion, the "theory of mind" is mentioned, with several abilities pertaining to it. The last one in the comma-separated list is "empathetic deception". Right after that it says something like "humans acquire this ability at four and half years". I assume the ability referred to there is empathetic deception, but it is not explicit, and it reads kind of weird. I defer first to someone who more regularly edits this article. Jlaramee 18:21, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article's defintion of great ape is wrong

See Encyclopedia Britanica on Hominidae:

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9399873/Hominidae

"Hominidae

"in zoology, one of the two living families of the ape superfamily Hominoidea, the other being the Hylobatidae (gibbons). Hominidae includes the great apes—that is, the orangutans (genus Pongo), gorillas (Gorilla), and chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan)—as well as human beings (Homo). Formerly, humans alone (with their extinct forebears) were placed in Hominidae, and the great apes…" Heathcliff 02:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitions change with time. Humans are certainly great apes. - UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
The quote is not from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britanica. It's from the current one.Heathcliff 17:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
For those interested the Columbia Encyclopedia, while more or less agreeing that humans are probably apes, is unambiguous about the fact that the great apes are orangutans, gorillas, and two species of chimpanzees. http://www.bartleby.com/65/ap/ape.html
Furthermore, Wikipedia's insistance on including humans as a great ape has lead to a very strange description of the gibbon in it's article.
"Also called the lesser apes, gibbons differ from great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and humans) in being smaller, pair-bonded, not making nests...."
So according to Wikipedia differences between humans and gibbons include that gibbons pair-bond and do not make nest.Heathcliff 17:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)


Excluding ourselves from the Great ape definition is paraphyletic, as the Gorillas and Chimpanzees are closer to us that to the Orangutans, and the Chimpanzees are closer to us that to either genus. Not to mention that your source places Chimpanzees in the same tribe as Gorillas, yet another paraphyletic error. Eriorguez (talk) 21:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And humans do not pair-bond in the way that gibbons pair-bond. Theirs is an exclusive monogamy, as far as I can recall, while humans not only have serialized monogamy, but they also have various forms of nonmonogamy. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:19, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, see Hominoidea#History_of_hominoid_taxonomy. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

And we do make nests. Unless you're telling me humans don't usually live in houses with beds etc Nil Einne (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I think our note on this is perfectly sensible and should avoid confusion for the reader: "'Great ape' is a common name rather than a taxonomic label and there are differences in usage. Subtly, it may seem to exclude human beings ('humans and the great apes') or to include them ('humans and non-human great apes'). Homo sapiens is not at any especial remove from other members of the biological family, and humans are therefore described here as great apes." Marskell (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

hm, I am not sure I understand this debate. Obviously, humans are not referred to as "apes" in common usage. But this happens to be an article on zoological taxonomy, on the Hominidae family, also known as "great apes", which patently includes humans. If there is so much confusion with former applications of "great ape", we should move this article to Hominidae, let great ape redirect here and link to a great ape (disambiguation). It is confusing to have the intro harp on details of former terminology. This is not a matter of dispute, it's a matter of disambiguation to account for obsolete terminology. dab (𒁳) 17:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why aren't there any photos of humans in this article?

Shouldn't we add some? If humans are apes, then it is logical to include at least one photo. I only see photos of other non-human apes. 64.236.121.129 (talk) 19:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bonobo

The intro doesn't include Bonobo as a Great Ape. I keep trying to change it but apparently the edit is "unconstructive". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.147.216 (talk) 00:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Read the comment just after the portion you are trying to edit. To wit, "chimpanzee" covers both species of chimps: the Common Chimpanzee, and the Bonobo (also known as the Pygmy Chimpanzee). The listing only includes the genus-level common names. There are two species of chimpanzees (as I've just mentioned), and there are also two species of gorillas and two species of orangutans. For simplicity, we don't list all of the species, just the common names for the genera. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maturity

According to the article, hominids do "not [become] fully mature for 8-13 years in most species (longer in humans)." Am I correct to assume it means physical/sexual maturity? If so, wouldn't it be about the same in humans, about 13? It seems to me that this article should treat humanity from a biological, animal perspective (something I will admit is counter-intuitive for most people), and as much as society likes to pretend people aren't physically mature until 18/21/insert age of majority here, we are physically and sexually mature about 13 or so. Should the parenthetical at the end of the quote be removed? If I'm misreading what this passage means (such as if we are also going by the social structures of the other hominids for their maturity ages, rather than physical means), let me know. J0lt C0la (talk) 21:53, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Humans are not fully grown at 13, though. They may be able to reproduce, but that's not the same thing. I think that's why it says 'fully mature' rather than 'sexually mature'. Anaxial (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)