Talk:Quadrumana

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mammals Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Useful excerpts from Wetman's Talkpage[edit]

You added the line:

The attempted division of "Quadrumana" from "Bimana" form a stage in the long campaign to find a secure way of distinguishing Homo sapiens from the rest of the great apes, a distinction that was theologically essential.

What evidence do you have for this claim? I am inclined to agree with you, but it would be useful to indicate an authority for this claim. In particular, was Blumenbach theologically motivated, or was his division merely convenient on theological grounds? Gdr 13:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's an important thread in the history of ideas, being debated between Owen and Huxley in 1861, still lively today. Read Carter Blake in Edinburgh Review, 1863: [1], occasioned by Thomas Henry Huxley's Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature that year. I haven't read Darwin's Descent of Man though I should have at my age, I know: there will be grist for your mill there too.

If you'll Google "Quadrumana distinction" as I have done, you'll find some good quotes for the article along this line, which is essential to discussing the motivation for "Quadrumana". Who has written specifically on this subject more recently? Stephen Jay Gould touched on it in The Mismeasure of Man and in several of his long series of "Reflections" for Natural History Magazine I recall. Should it be propped up with some references do you think? You give the impression that it's a bit of a bolt from the blue for you. The theology of it is not to be laid at Blumenbach's door but is caught up in the semi-angelic nature of Man's position in the Great Chain of Being— "A being darkly wise, and rudely great" as Pope said. The definition of language keeps shifting in modern times, so that chimpanzees continue to be on their proper side of the fence. --Wetman 13:47, 7 October 2005 (UTC).[reply]

The long history of taxonomical buttressing of man's special place in nature is familiar to me (I wrote the section in the hominoid article that deals with his demotion from this pinnacle), but the location of your comment suggested to me that you were imputing a primarily theological motivation to Blumenbach, which seemed slightly anachronistic to me. I will rephrase to try to make this clearer. Gdr 14:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hominoid is merely a redirect to Ape, where I see a gloss on the usage "ape" and a few lines of "Cultural aspects" that don't address this issue in the least. ... nevertheless I have amended the text to read "a distinction that was culturally essential." The real story of "Quadrumana"—not yet addressed— lies not in the fact that it's "an obsolete division of the primates" but precisely in the debate about this human/ape distinction, which is what motivated such mediocre science. --Wetman 15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Four hands for Apes and two hands and two feet for humans?[edit]

This doesn't sound right. A lot of people say that apes also have 2 hands and 2 feet (Almost 90% would say so, it seems). I know that the hand/foot looks and operates exactly like a hand, but there's just not something right about saying it's a hand (for now). I won't revert anything just in case, but it still seems strange. Chins Up 18:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation[edit]

There is also a fluorescent dye called bimane. Can someone please dab? --Kupirijo 01:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]