quote:

---

Proposed changes in the primate order are stirring up evolutionary debate. Humans and chimpanzees should be grouped in the same genus, Homo, according to WSU researchers in a May 19 article (#2172) published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Although WSU’s Morris Goodman, PhD, has already proven with non-coding DNA sequences that chimpanzees are closest in kinship to humans rather than to gorillas, evolutionary traditionalists say chimps and humans are functionally markedly different and therefore belong on different branches of the family tree.

New analyses show humans and chimpanzees to be 99.4 percent identical in the functionally-important DNA, which codes for proteins and is shaped by natural selection. This provides further evidence for revisions in our genus classification. Dr. Goodman proposes that all living apes should occupy the family Hominidae (which currently contains only humans), and that both humans and chimpanzees should occupy the genus Homo.

---

Upon reading the article I see that I've forgotten more biology than I thought. I clearly remember now seeing the taxonomic chart for mammals and the monkeys, chimpanzees, etc, were slotted into Pongidae.

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: DrConway ]

[ 21 May 2003: Message edited by: verbatim ]

Er, this is as of 2000 (the publication date on the evo/bio textbook I am ever-so-shamelessly lifting this info from.) All are considered Anthropoids, as are both New & Old World monkeys; the Apes and Hominids - that would be Humans & our direct ancestors - are all considered hominoids. Chimps are believed to have diverged from hominids (please forgive my anthropocentric point of view) c. 5M years ago, Gorillas, c. 7-9M years ago, Orangs c. 10-12M years ago, Gibbons c. 15M years ago.

The earliest fossil evidence of bipedalism - a major distinguishing characteristic of hominids - is from c. 4M years ago, which really puts the chimps quite close to us (perhaps even closer given margins of error, not to mention the undiscovered,) even without DNA. I think the debate over whether to classify chimps (and bonobos, or pygmy chimps) in the same genus as humans has been going on for a while, though I am not exactly in on the discussions.

Ed. because I've never heard of Gobbons or Girillas either.

[ 22 May 2003: Message edited by: Flowers By Irene ]

quote:

---

Upon reading the article I see that I've forgotten more biology than I thought. I clearly remember now seeing the taxonomic chart for mammals and the monkeys, chimpanzees, etc, were slotted into Pongidae.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mohamad Khan:
as a one-time aspiring zoologist, i must protest that there are no monkeys in Pongidae.

---

Well, the textbook I was using at the time had been printed in 1987, if that helps. I may be confusing the definition by not remembering if the textbook slotted the higher-order primates into Pongidae and the rest into other families.

apes are human.
and monkeys are apes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mandos:
How would you classify them? Do you consider the very concept of taxonomy to be "fascoid"? How would we talk about evolution in any meaningful sense at all?

---

i was kidding, man! the whole thing was tongue-in-cheek. i don't actually think taxonomical trees are "fascoid." jeeeeeez.

edited to add: i thought the little would have made that clear.

[ 28 May 2003: Message edited by: Mohamad Khan ]

anyhow, as i was saying, Comrades, let us overturn the fascoid anthropocentric taxonomical hierarchy and grant the centre to the noble and majestic poriferans!

Aha...

quote:

---

Originally, a species was defined as all the individuals in a group able to breed with one another and produce progeny that were still of that species. [...] Others define species as a group of individuals that has its own distinctive role in nature, occupies a particular habitat, or displays different activities. [...] A species therefore, is generally defined as as a group of organisms that is unlike other such groups and that does not integrate extensively with other groups in nature.

---

And you know what they can be liked if they feel snubbed.

And the Chimps are off trying to teach termite fishing to the Baboons, while the Gorilla's and Mandrill's are off to the beach.

But seriously, although our genetic structure may be quite alike, are the differences in mental capacity and physical appearance not enough to seperate humans from chimps?

[ 29 May 2003: Message edited by: Gir Draxon ]

quote:

---

But seriously, although our genetic structure may be quite alike, are the differences in mental capacity and physical appearance not enough to seperate humans from chimps?

---

On the species level, most certainly. On the level of genus, however, the debate (apparently) rages.

quote:

---

But seriously, although our genetic structure may be quite alike, are the differences in mental capacity and physical appearance not enough to seperate humans from chimps?

---

Problem is, whenever we try to define some separating behavior, some smart ass anthropologist sees a Chimp doing it too.

And, as far as physical differences go, a casual observer from another planet would probably put myself and Julia Roberts in different species, at least before all the probing started.

quote:

---

(It's the Bonobos, I tells ya. Those pygmy chimps screw it up every time!)

---

More like screw everytime. It seems sex is the Bonobo sexual currency.