Talk:Hominidae/Archive 1

Indigenous
I removed the claim that some consider Great Apes to be indigenous people. I would want to see evidence, and a description who holds this view and who doesn't, and why. AxelBoldt 11:52, 21 March 2002‎
 * No need for a citation -- because the removed comment is misleading nonsense. We all belong to a totally different family called Homididae.--maveric149 13:29, 21 March 2002‎
 * deleted contents they related to a pre-conversion situation where nonsense was deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eclecticology (talk • contribs) 17:44, 28 August 2002

Table
Alternate, easier to code table.

This adds extra white space to the left of the table (because of the use of indent instead of the br tag). I'm not sure if this is better than the more complicated table with the line border and br tags. This will be much easier to code and update. Is the prettier table worth the extra effort? I say we should aim toward simplicity because of the number of articles that need to be coded for. --maveric149 14:44, 12 July 2002‎

Expanded test table and moved to Hominid/Temp. Please leave comments here (the temp page shares this talk with Hominid). --maveric149 19:56, 12 July 2002
 * I like the box better. I think the box should contain just KPCOF when the common name is not the scientific name; a list of species (or other child taxon) should be added when it is. --phma — Preceding unsigned comment added by PierreAbbat (talk • contribs) 20:01, 12 July 2002
 * Trouble with the box is that it has all those darn br tags which are tedious and are visually distracting when viewing the raw text in an edit window. I don't think that having separate table formats for the common vs scientific name would logically flow very well -- especially when the scientific name will be just a redirect to the common name. However, in cases where there is enough of a difference between the use of the common vs scientific name to warrent having separate articles, then it would be redundent to have the exact same info in both tables (or even have a table at all in the common name entry). --maveric149, Friday, July 12, 2002

I still would like to see an example where having separate common and scientific name entires is a good idea. Hominids/Hominidae sure as heck isn't one. Would any of those people who want a systematic presentation of taxonomy object if Hominidae simply redirected to Hominids, with the format it presently has, the format presently on Hominid/Temp, or some close relative thereof with more sections? --Josh Grosse


 * I can't think of a significant scientific vs common name naming conflict right now either and am content to deal with any such ambiguities on a case-by-case basis. I think its great that the genus info in right next to the text so that a reader can refer to it while reading. For example, at the end of the first paragraph it says something about closely related human relatives form the Homininae subfamily. Now, when I read that, I imediately wanted to look at a list of the members of this subfamily - and there it was, just to the right of the text. --maveric149

The table is a beautiful start, but is unfortunately somewhat cramped as far as the genus list goes. There are important critters out there with scientific names longer than Gigantopithecus and common names longer than orangutan, and the indentation for subdivisions like Homininae is important.

Hard-lining for KCOFGS is good. In such a case, should we add colons, as in Kingdom: Animalia? --Josh Grosse


 * Thanks! As for the crampness, that can be dealt with by using a -1 font and if that doesn't work, then possibly using two rows per child in some visually appealing and informative mannor. The table will scale. --maveric149

Actually, the colons are an improvement (I just compared the two versions side-by-side). --maveric149
 * I just removed them again since that part of the table now has a vertical line separating the two columns (therefore making colons a bit redundent -- not particularly important either way). --maveric149

I pasted the new table into the article - not because I think it is either perfect or done, but because I think most of the major work has been done and we can now risk edit conflicts because the table is not in such heavy development. --maveric149

I have an idea on use of color that I think is cool -- assign a different color for each of the 5 kingdoms. Then when you enter an article you can know right away what general type of organism is being presented (unfortunately there are way too many phyla and divisions to use different colors there). This is similar to the color scheme Bryan and I have set up for the periodic table (with each series having its own color on the table and each element's table headings will have the color of its series. --maveric149

What happened to keeping the table simple? I think the dividing line between Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order and Animalia, Chordata, Mammalia, Primates could be difficult, because it ends up separating corresponding elements in the raw text. Besides, we're not doing that with the subgroups, thank goodness. -- JG
 * Feature creep took over -- however, if you look under the hood of barium for example, you will see that that table is totally insane compared with the relative simplicity of this table. I forsee that templates for each of the levels of classificiations would eventually have to be made (easy enough to do). The one in this article, for example, would only have to have the family name changed and the genera list swapped out to work for all the other primates.


 * I will think about what to do for the higher level stuff, but for now do you have any ideas on what colors should be used for which kingdoms? Here is my idea (all colors will be subdued tones -- see periodic table for examples); Plants (Green -- obvious reasons), Animals (red -- color of blood), bacteria (tan -- reminds me of the color of nutrient medium agar), fungi (gray -- many fungi cultures are a similar color -- I know, usually darker), and protests (light blue -- water-borne single-celled organisms that can be seen with a simple dissecting scope -- yeah, I know, this last justification is weak but I can't think of anything better).--maveric149

I like green plants and red animals (though not too many animals have red blood). Fungi I would make blue, I suppose the color of certain molds, but more importantly the third primary as it completes the multicellular kingdoms. Protista could be yellow, the next most prominent color, or brown, which is sort of a mix, either representing those algae whose colors haven't been taken already. I don't know about bacteria, but they might as well be gray - no nucleus, no color. :) -JG
 * Looks like any shade of red won't work becuase it is too similar to the color of followed links. Does this mess up your logic? I have no strong feelings on this (except in having plants being green -- but we both agree there). There should be some easy to remember logic in whatever we decide though. --maveric149

I hadn't thought of that. Red works fine on my computer, because followed links are dark magenta. Which, of course, brings to attention that link colors are a browser preference, which means that any colored background could potentially cause problems. People didn't hesitate to use red on Periodic table, though.
 * Well I guess it wouldn't hurt to have red then -- the link will only be invisible to those with my same browser preference after visiting the article behind the link (at which point the link has already serverd its purpose). Although I think salmon works just as well as red with the bonus that very few people will probably have their browsers set to display any links that color. I am warming to gray for bacteria -- most people will associate bacteria with filth and filth with gray (very few people have much experience with agar petri dishes so I guess tan is out for bacteria). Also, arguably the most important fungus to humans is penecillium whose colonies are blue (as is common bread mold, the most visible mold for most people). So blue works for fungi. I'm not sure about protists -- either tan or yellow works for me (although I am more partial to tan for some reason). --maveric149

So...with the table in place, does anyone object to Hominidae redirecting here? -- Fait accompli! Yay!
 * Already did that before I saw you message. I really like the new format -- they classification info is really important to have to the right of the text. Most useful. -- maveric149

I've mostly had to be quiet on this part of the discussion since I've had no experience with box design, and how much can I possibly add when something seems to be heading in a positive direction? Does anyone have any opinion about showing Taxonomic Serial Numbers (TSN's) in the chart? ITIS has been happily assigning serial numbers to every taxon. The intent and justification is comparable to the one about FIPS for geographical names. Eclecticology, Sunday, July 14, 2002
 * Yes, I think that would be most useful. I have been thinking about adding another section to the table just above the classification that has the common name and scientific name. TSNs could go right below that. --maveric149

I don't think it's a good idea. Taxonomists in general don't use them, and there's no accepted authority from which they can be assigned, or in many places even a standard classification onto which they can be affixed. Where would they come from, and what good would they do? We would have to copy ITIS directly, which limits flexibility and only really provides info about ITIS, or make them up ourselves, which provides nothing. -- JG
 * OK, if its not used much at all, then its presence really isn't needed in the table. What do you think about having a separate section with the common and scientific names? I know this info is a bit redundent, but I am trying to think of a better place to put images and if we had another section above the classification then the image could go into a cell right under the name section. --maveric149

If we want the images above the classification, mav, why don't we just put them at the top, like I just did on Nematoda? It seems to me we want the table as short as possible, first to leave room for the classification, second because tables running on beyond articles are aesthetically unappealing, and third because clarifications are not possible within such a short space (e.g. the classification on Mollusca). So if you think adding the common name is genuinely a good idea, I will by all means support that, but don't do it because of formatting. -JG
 * That will work -- I really like the way Nematoda looks now. However, I will experiment with a name section and see if that works for the table. --maveric149

It remains to be seen just how much the TSN's will be used. It is a North American interagency initive, which is working to expand on a worldwide basis. As standard references they must necessarily have a single source. Any discussion to somhow include common names shold include something about how to treat synonyms. Eclecticology, Sunday, July 14, 2002

I like the new table. Should Sahelanthropus be added to it? Vicki Rosenzweig, Sunday, July 14, 2002
 * Thanks. Very good question - I contemplated that myself, but haven't a clue as to where that genus should go. Its "discovery" is so new and hasn't been really confirmed yet beyond passing the peer review needed for publicaiton. It may turn out to be false lead, but if it is true, then the whole list will have to be redone -- it may turn out that some of the Homininae will have to be moved out of that subfamily (posibly out of Hominids altogether).--maveric149

I'm thinking of redirecting Pongo to the orangutan article, along the same lines as gorilla (which badly needs expansion, but that requires research, not just linking). Before I do, is there a reason not to? Vicki Rosenzweig
 * No objection here - unless I am mistaken genus Pongo only has one species in it so there is no need to have separate articles for the genus and the species. There might be an extinct member of Pongo though... --maveric149

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)

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)

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)

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)

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;" "spindle cells with encephalization in human and great apes lends further support to the possible association;" "Human frontal cortices were not disproportionately large in comparison to those of the great apes." 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" 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)

The claim that all scientists identify humans as apes is incorrect. I wanted to edit the reference page to include this:

"What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee" Jonathan Marks

Jonathan Marks is well-qulaified to hold a contrary opinion.

I can't figure out how to add a reference nor to edit the main page, which dores not seem to save my edits. Gene Ward Smith (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Why it's not saving your edits, I don't know, but to add a reference simply type at the appropriate place in the text. You may find the templates here help organise the information typed for the ref, but they aren't essential. Anaxial (talk) 10:44, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

We can go even further back in biohistory. Several hundred million years ago, a group of ﬁsh developed specializations of their limbs that enabled some of their descendants to venture out of the sea and on to land. A living representative of that group of ﬁsh is the famous “living fossil,”  the  coelacanth. Since all  living  land  vertebrates  (or tetrapods) are descended from that particular group of ﬁsh, it follows that if you compare a coelacanth, a human, and a tuna, the closest relatives are the coelacanth and the human, not the two ﬁsh.

Let’s return  to  the  apes. The argument  is  that humans are apes, because  we  belong  to  the  group  that  produced  chimpanzees  and orangutans;  and  because  we  are  more  closely  related  to  some  apes than those apes are to other apes, we fall within that category. That argument is structurally identical to the argument that humans are ﬁsh, because we belong to the group that produced coelacanths and tuna, and  because  we  are  more  closely  related to some ﬁsh (coela- canths) than those ﬁsh are to other ﬁsh (tuna). We fall (by virtue of being tetrapods) within that category as well.

In other words, we are apes, but only in precisely the same way that we are ﬁsh Gene Ward Smith (talk) 23:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

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


 * It's been pushed out as follows:


 * Praeanthropus tugenensis => Orrorin tugensis
 * Praeanthropus africanus => Australopithecus africanus
 * Praeanthropus bahrelghazali => Australopithecus bahrelghazali
 * Praeanthropus anamensis => Australopithecus anamensis
 * Praeanthropus garhi => Australopithecus garhi
 * - UtherSRG (talk) 20:03, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. - 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)


 * If this were an article on taxonomy it would be called Hominid. Then the whole arument would be moot. If the article is going to use a common name as title then the text should accurately reflect the meaning of that common name. Not the meaning of a seperate (albeit similar) scientific term. As it is Wikipedia simply looks silly. Can anyone find a real encyclopedia that makes this same mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.169.227.73 (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. does, for one. I'm sure we can find some more. Anaxial (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above user. Hominidae includes both humans and non-human apes, but "great ape" is usually used to refer to the non-human members of Hominidae (chimpanzee, bonobo, gorilla, and orangutan).  Yes, it's paraphyletic, but so is reptile.  Paraphyletic groups are OK in common usage (and even have advantages when you care about functional definitions rather than evolutionary ones); they're only unacceptable if evolutionary relationships are what you're interested in.Vultur (talk) 22:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I too agree with user:12.169.227.73. It is exactly the incongruency between taxonomic and colloquial terms which offers opportunities for wordplays such as the title "The naked ape", which plays with this tension area between different registers. "The naked Hominoid" would not have been a catchy title at all. Iblardi (talk) 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)