Talk:Hominidae

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)

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)

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)

I think it means the age adulthood is reached when it says "maturity". I think concepts like "sexual maturity" and other things that have ages of consent mean maturity in your mind. And I agree that 13 year olds can be mature enough to consent to sex if they so choose (they certainly do in the UK if you watch the news there!). That for me is the purpose of ages of consent: to protect children until they are ready to make that decision on their own without being coerced into it. And I think 13yr olds are mature enough to not be coerced as a general rule. I also think it's hypocritical that in the UK, the age you can buy alcohol is different than the age you can learn to drive, or consent to sex etc. Why should these ages be different?

Anyway, I don't think the fact that Great Apes or other hominids become mature at age X means that humans become mature at that age also. There may be some correlation and crossover, but we are a different species, so there are differences between us. Deamon138 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Civil rights for Great Apes

Apparently Spain has extended rights to Great Apes. Should this be reflected somewhere in the article? 74.56.236.39 (talk) 04:42, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a verifiable and reliable source you can [[WP:CITE|cite]? - UtherSRG (talk) 07:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

This guys vandalized a few places. Check his contributions. So it's best to treat this post here as a "joke", although I wouldn't blame anyone if they considered it racist. Deamon138 (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

we have a dedicated article for this, Great ape personhood. dab (𒁳) 19:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

On July 11 I added a "Legal status" section to this article to summarize this. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 20:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Virunga

the official Virunga National Park website added because it is the only park in the world with three taxa of great apes. The site is critical to great ape conservation. While the external link was removed as spam, I think it is justified. Unless you disagree, please revert.

I deleted the link in question as it promotes a product (namely the Park and its funding), and is only tangentially connected with the subject of the article. The link would, in my view, be appropriate at the Virunga National Park page itself, but it seems to serve no useful purpose here - many parks and zoos feature apes, and since Wikipedia is not a collection of links, we can't link to all of them.Anaxial (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Humans?

My concern with this article is whether or not humans should be classified as great apes. There is much debate about our (that is, humans) status among the apes. We are correctly classified under homininae, but should this article go as far as placing us under "Great Apes"? We do share a close tie with chimpanzees and bonobos than we do with the other apes, but there are clear distinctions between us and chimps, physically and genetically; there is a 94% commonality between us and chimps - "Close, but not that close."

The main differences reflect the acquired traits, or specializations, among the hominins in three areas: brain, teeth, and locomotion. For example, the dental arcade of apes and humans are very different: In panins and gorillas, there are U shaped arcades; in humans, there are parabolic shaped arcades. This is only one of many differences. This is just my opinion and it does not have to be taken by the writers of this article, but it is something that should be taken into consideration. -Ano-User (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is pretty much based upon what is published. Current taxonomy places Homo sapiens in the family Hominidae, also known as the Great Apes, of which Homininae is one of the two extant subfamilies. However you think humans should be classified the issue cannot be addressed in an encyclopedia article. You might try one of the human evolution discussion boards on-line to find a place to discuss your opinions about the taxonomy of Homo sapiens. --KP Botany (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I understand that the article is based upon what is published, but I think it would be better for it to be moved and named as, as dab said, the "unambiguous Hominidae". This term would be of more educational use than "Great Apes" would be, but that is only my opinion. Whether humans "should" be classified as great apes, the issue cannot be addressed in an encyclopedia article; THIS is exactly my point, and is why the name "Great Apes" should be re-named "Hominidae". "Great Apes" should be a "sub-article" within the main article. It could be set up as a sub-article that addresses the question of whether humans "should" be classified as a species of Great Ape. --Ano-User (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

This issue has been plaguing the article for ages. I think the problem is the implication that "Hominidae" is equivalent to "Great apes". Now "Hominidae" is the scientific term, while "great ape" is the common English term. "Hominidae" being an artificial term for taxonomical classification, its definition is not under dispute. But it just so happens that spoken English, over which taxonomists have no defining power, does not include humans under "apes", so the issue will keep coming up. The solution imho would be to move this article to the unambiguous Hominidae.

The article is aware to this point, "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"). but for some reason it prefers to stash the admission into a footnote and hit the reader with "you ape" in the lead, so people can gloat over the uneducated complaints on talk rather than putting it straight up front. The unambiguous term is Hominidae. Whether you want to include humans in the common name "great ape" is pretty much up to your taste.

--dab (𒁳) 08:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is an unusual problem with a common name that I had not contemplated. I am used to thinking of Homo sapiens taxonomically as Great Apes, but I realize it's a vernacular term, also, and, yes, it may offend people, or rather, as dab put it, "is pretty much up to your taste."

Still WP:Mammals uses common names as standard on articles in their categories, maybe this should be posted there (this being the proposal). --KP Botany (talk) 08:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I am sure this can be recognized as a special case, due to the asymmetry of H. sapiens being the one species doing all the taxonomic classification. --dab (𒁳) 09:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You are right in saying that it may offend people, but that is an emotional reaction. Calling someone an "ape" is usually taken to mean that he/she is a brute or moron, but this shouldn't be the case for taking offence. Instead, it should be viewed in regards to the commonalities that we have with chimps, bonobos gorillas, and orangutans, not by someone's feelings or stereotypes. However, there is no doubt that we share much of our genetics and social capabilities with the African and Asian apes.

The names "Great Apes" and "Hominidae" should not be synonymous, but separate. Physically, homo sapiens and apes (as we know them) are very different. The name "Hominid" is also used synonymously with "Great Apes", but this must be changed also. But yes, as dab said, it is pretty much up to your taste. --Ano-User (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether hominid and similar terms "should" be changed is really not something we can do anything about here. The scientific consensus is what it is, and until and unless it changes, the article can only report on the current taxonomy. It's the ICZN you'll need to complain to, not us, I'm afraid. Anaxial (talk) 08:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I understand that it is not within our power to change nomenclature, but as you said below, changing the name on the article may help to minimize confusion. It could also help avoid disputes like this. As I have stated above, we can create "The Great Apes" as a sub-article within a newly titled article named "Hominidae." Just a suggestion. --Ano-User (talk) 10:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd prefer a redirect, rather than a sub-article. Obviously, we'd have to explain the different uses of the terminology in a slightly different way than we do at present, but we wouldn't want to make a definitive statement that humans are not great apes (or that they are, for that matter), since many people do use the term to include humans. Anaxial (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, a redirect would be a better option in this case. I agree that it is not in our power to make a definite statement to whether homo sapiens should or should not be classified as "Great Apes". Many anthropologists and paleoanthropologists may still use the term to include homo sapiens, but admittedly, the argument is still there and should not be abandoned, especially within encyclopedias. The article itself makes it clear in a foot note that classification is a subject of debate, but as I agreed, a redirect would be a better option. Thanks for the discussion! --Ano-User (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be adverse to this move, as it might help minimise the confusion. In scientific circle, "great ape" is generally (though not exclusively, per some comments elsewhere on this Talk page) used as a synonym for "Hominidae", but in vernacular parlance, it generally isn't - it's a paraphyletic grouping, like reptile or fish. Hominid might be another compromise name, since that is sometimes used as if it were the common name for the group, but seems to be rather against the trend of article names, and possibly unsatisfactory for that reason. And, of course, it would require merging with the article that already exists under that name. Anaxial (talk) 09:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I have tried to make the same point as dab earlier on this discussion page. I would support a move. Iblardi (talk) 10:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have implemented the move. The question remains, what to do with the Hominid article. Should it become a disambiguation page? A full article? Merged here? Merged into Humanoid? --dab (𒁳) 08:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I think the article Hominid (term) is fine just the way it is, and should NOT be merged into Humanoid or the Hominidae article. It may just be my own ignorance, but whenever I hear the word "humanoid", I always tend to think of creatures from science fiction novels or aliens, not things that pertain to science fact. I don't think it should be merged into Hominidae because the article itself already addresses the revisions the term has gone through, and could be of historical/taxonomic use, if thats understandable. --Ano-User (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Help! (unparseable sentence)

I can't comprehend the following sentence:

The lack of morphological corroboration of the molecular similarity of humans and chimpanzees is widely assumed to reflect a false evolutionary signal from the morphology, but an alternative possibility is that the molecular evidence is misleading because it represents overall similarity rather than uniquely shared molecular characters.

It's simply too vague, f.ex. "false evolutionary signal" (how?), "molecular evidence" (which?), "uniquely shared molecular characters" (ehhmm? "characters"?), and it might profit from being split into more than one sentence. I'm huhhing it. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 14:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Huhhing it was rather generous of you. I removed it. When it says something it can be readded. --KP Botany (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Fortunately, one of the articles used as a cite is available in full online. Having read it, I think I understand what the sentence is trying to say, and have rephrased it accordingly. Has this helped? Anaxial (talk) 10:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The current formulation is as clear and comprehensible as spring water. The point is that the "early-from-Orangutan" theory (just clumsily inventing a term, don't take seriously!) is supported by maintaining that Orangutan has gone through a heavy genetical change while keeping the general morph, and it is motivated by trying to explain why a lot of australopitechine characters ("parts of the morph") reminds us of orangutans. I could vaguely "sense" that in the sentence that I huhhed, but I couldn't get the sentence fit my "gut-feeling". ... said: Rursus (bork²) 10:25, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, generally I know where the sentence is coming from, and can guess its author even. I'll read Anaxial's input. --KP Botany (talk) 10:36, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

It is sourced by two sources, so while probably a minority theory, it is an interesting alternative, contributing to making science "fascinating!". What would science be without alternatives? But of course: the alternatives must be viable by scientific measures. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 11:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Like most "interesting" alternative theories, however, it's weight in the scientific community overall must be properly noted within the article. I think, probably, knocked out here on the talk page, probably before including the information. --KP Botany (talk) 11:21, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

True enough, it could do with more qualification as to how much support the theory has - although that's true of the whole paragraph, not just this one sentence. Even the journal article cited makes it clear that the theory is not mainstream. (And, personally, I find it a little hard to believe). Anaxial (talk) 12:09, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not about our belief systems, luckily. Should we pull the whole paragraph and discuss it here? --KP Botany (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Luckily not, no! But it does strike me that, given how fringe this theory is, we probably don't need an entire alternative list of species (i.e. presenting the same information again, in an order that almost all scientists agree is wrong). That really gives undue weight to the theory, in my opinion, because it makes it look like its on an equal footing with the generally accepted theory. So I will delete that part for the time being - it's easy enough to reconstruct if need be. Anaxial (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not on the level of completely dismissable, meaning that some evolutionary scientists will discuss the theory. I've never stood around a seminar with a bunch of evolutionary biologists and geneticists and paleontologists and geologists and discussed flood geology, but I have sat around with a similar group and discussed the orangutan theory of human origins. I suggest that if it can be credibly sourced it can be included to the level of the weight the source gives it. Unless and until then it can sit on the sidelines without real damage to this article which has other issues. --KP Botany (talk) 04:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Orangutans: Social behaviour - Solitary animals?

"Although orangutans are generally passive, aggression toward other orangutans is very common; they are solitary animals and can be fiercely territorial. Immature males will try to mate with any female, and may succeed in forcibly copulating with her if she is also immature and not strong enough to fend him off. Mature females easily fend off their immature suitors, preferring to mate with a mature male."

Because orangutans have often been observed wandering about on themselves, they have been regarded as solitary animals for a long time. Due to this assumption, at many zoos they have lived/live alone which usually led/leads to great loneliness and suffering for the animals.

As recent studies have revealed (like the observations of Willie Smits, founder of the Borneo Orangutan Survival Foundation), orangutans do enjoy the company of members of their own kind.

It is assumed that their relatively often solitary travelling is due to a shortage of sufficient food in the rainforests on Borneo and Sumatra. If they travelled in larger groups, the chances that the found food would be enough for every member would be rather small.

But it has been discovered that when there is enough food for several individuals in one place (like when a great fig tree is bearing fruit), many orangutans gather together and prove to be very sociable (playing, communicating, ...).

Besides, there are also mothers with their children, who were seen, travelling in the company of a few younger males. The risk that they ate so much that there would not be enough left for the mother is not that high. Also young males without their own territory have been watched wandering together.

Actually all versions of forming groups have been observed, except for two dominant males due to them being territory.

--AnnaMaria15 18:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)