Talk:Simian

Why revert my change?

It currently reads, "the 'higher primates' very common to most people: the monkeys and the apes, including humans."

You realize that that makes it sound like humans are included in the category of monkeys or apes. Replacing "including" with "and" shows we are among the higher primates, but we are not apes. It would also make sense to say "the 'higher primates' very common to most people, including humans, as well as monkeys and the apes." When you reverted me without an explanation, that makes me look like a vandal. I don't like that. CanadianCaesar 20:27, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

My apologies if you think I'm calling you a vandal. I'm not. As to the meat of your issue, humans are apes, from the biological perspective, and this is a biological article. - UtherSRG 20:50, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Aren't we hominids? I've heard biologists say hominids are not apes. Are there two different biologies? CanadianCaesar 21:53, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Did you even look at the listed taxonomies? Look at the last two sections of ape in particular. - UtherSRG 22:03, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I feel really bad about this. For the record, I thought I was correcting grammar, not biology. The last point was just a question ("Are there different perspectives?" would have been better wording), not an argument. *bangs head on desk, banishes self from Simian article* CanadianCaesar 22:06, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry again CanadianCaesar 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

*grins* Not a problem! The problem is that "correcting" the grammar changes the biology, hence the reason for the grammar usage. - UtherSRG 22:12, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

What does common to most people mean?

The opening line is "The simians (infraorder Simiiformes) are the "higher primates," and are common to most people.

Common in what way, and why 'most' but not all people? I don't mean to be provocative, I am truly baffled. My change was reverted; I would ask when edit-reversions are made an explanation would be helpful.

No offense taken, we're all simians here :) CeilingCrash 02:09, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the usage either. Slow Graffiti 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps they mean "familiar to most people"? "Common" here is rather ambiguous, or at best awkward. 151.203.127.78 19:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there a scientific name for...?

Is there a scientific name for the (probably extinct) group of monkeys that are the direct ancestors to both the old world and new world monkeys?--80.141.218.16 (talk) 15:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Another question: Is there a name for the ancestors of tarsiers and non-tarsiers?--80.141.218.16 (talk) 15:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Good question. They can be called stem Simiiformes and stem Primates, respectively. Fences&Windows 21:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Interwikis

As many languages have a trivial word for monkeys and apes together, the interwikis in the margin do not provide an adequate picture of which languages this article is also available in. The German Wikipedia article de:Affen is rightly mentioned here, but many others are linked with the paraphiletic monkey article instead (e.g. the Dutch nl:apen article, to name just one). Fixing that would take great efforts, as interwiki bots instantly destroy the work done if not performed profoundly, so I think I should discuss the matter here first. Steinbach (talk) 10:31, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Simians are monkeys

Why two separate articles. They're the same thing. Despite that many people claim apes aren't monkeys, they are, from a cladistic point of view. 209.86.226.18 (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Classification of humans

Are we Primates and also Simianss, or just simians? I said that biologists classify human beings as primates? [1] but Visionholder reverted me 20 minutes later. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)