MONKEY VS APE AND SPECIE VS SPECIES
By Lucy M. Warner
October 23, 2015


I will start with the mistake that annoys me most of all that I encounter even in some semi-scientific articles. The word “specie” is NOT the singular of “Species.” Species is like “deer” in that it is both singular and plural. When I heard the cute young man, whose name I can’t remember, who has a TV show about his work at a certain zoo, using the term Specie in that highly uneducated manner, my stomach began to churn. I looked him up on Google and made a complaining comment about it. I never saw his show again, so I don’t know if he modified his pronunciation.

There are many generations of kids taught to read by the “See Say” rather than the Phonetic method who can’t spell, recognize the difference between root words, and are, therefore, unable to extrapolate on the basis of spelling to include new vocabulary words. It’s much easier to learn word meanings and spellings if you can compare them with your prior knowledge base and thus make a stronger and more logical connection. Worse still, the “see say” kids are also likely to fail to recognize the usually wildly different meanings between homonyms on the basis of spellings. Since they are mistaking the word meaning as well, it is my opinion that they can’t really “read,” as a result.

Of course, it’s not “shame on them,” but shame on their teachers and the education theorists who taught them. Sure, teach reading by sight recognition if it speeds up the pace of reading, but not without accompanying that with word studies that go back to the root word. Spelling is entirely, or almost entirely, based on root words. If you don’t believe me, just look at some of the online comments that appear with articles. Using Google to verify spelling is good if we can find the deeper meanings and relationships that way, but a good collegiate dictionary is often the best place to look to for digging more deeply into the word. Don’t forget language origin also.

About that often misunderstood word “specie,” according to Google it always refers to one of several types of “money,” and “money” is even more fun to research. (See money vs currency.) See “Specie” below:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specie

Specie
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Specie may refer to:

Coins or other metal money in mass circulation
Bullion coins
Hard money (policy)
Commodity money
Specie Circular, 1836 executive order by US President Andrew Jackson regarding hard money
Specie Payment Resumption Act


About our animal cousins –- and I acknowledge that they certainly are not our “cousins,” but our very distant ancestors instead -- see below.

First of all, monkeys and apes, while related, are substantially different from each other, though the similarities are obvious, as are similarities between humans and other primates. Above all, monkey is NOT a term for a small ape, but a few species of Old World monkeys which happen to be tailless are sometimes called “apes.” They aren’t, though. They’re still MONKEYS. See Wikipedia: “Ape.”

About apes, there are Great Apes and Lesser Apes. The “most” obvious distinction is that most monkeys have tails of some sort, while apes do not. Apes also tend to be taller, stronger, heavier, and more intelligent. See the two Wikipedia articles below, one on the term “ape” and second on the descriptions “Old World Monkey” and “New World Monkey.” Not only does a New World monkey have a long tail, it is prehensile, and the animals can use it to help them keep their footing up in the trees by clinging to branches. It can also be used for balance.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape
Ape
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Apes (Hominoidea) are a branch of Old World tailless anthropoid catarrhine primates native to Africa and Southeast Asia. They are distinguished from other primates by a wider degree of freedom of motion at the shoulder joint as evolved by the influence of brachiation. There are two extant branches of the superfamily Hominoidea: the gibbons, or lesser apes; and the hominids, or great apes.

The family Hylobatidae, the lesser apes, include four genera and a total of sixteen species of gibbon, including the lar gibbon and the siamang, all native to Asia. They are highly arboreal and bipedal on the ground. They have lighter bodies and smaller social groups than great apes.

The family Hominidae, known collectively as the great apes, include orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans;[1][2][3][4] alternatively, this family clade is also known as the hominids. There are seven extant species of great apes: two in the orangutans (genus Pongo), two in the gorillas (genus Gorilla), two in the chimpanzees (genus Pan), and a single extant species, Homo sapiens, of modern humans (genus Homo).[5][6]

Members of the superfamily Hominoidae are called hominoids—which term is not to be confused with hominids, the family of great apes; or with the hominins, the tribe of humans also known as the human clade; or with other very similar terms of primate taxa. (Compare terminology of primate names.)

Recent evidence has changed our understanding of the relationships between the hominoids, especially regarding the human lineage; and the traditionally used terms have become somewhat confused. Competing approaches re methodology and terminology are found among current scientific sources. See below, History of hominoid taxonomy and see Primate: Historical and modern terminology for discussions of the changes in scientific classification and terminology regarding hominoids.

Some and, recently, all, hominoids are also called "apes", but the term is used broadly and has several different senses within both popular and scientific settings. "Ape" has been used as a synonym for "monkey" or for naming any primate with a humanlike appearance, particularly those without a tail.[7] Thus the Barbary macaque, a kind of monkey, is popularly called the "Barbary ape". Biologists have traditionally used the term "ape" to mean a member of the superfamily Hominoidea other than humans,[1] but more recently to mean all members of Hominoidea. So "ape"—not to be confused with "great ape"—now becomes another word for hominoid including humans.[4][8]

Except for gorillas and humans, hominoids are agile climbers of trees. Their diet is best described as frugivorous and folivorous, consisting mainly of fruit, nuts, seeds, including grass seeds, leaves, and in some cases other animals, either hunted or scavenged, or (solely in the case of the humans) farmed—along with anything else available and easily digested.[9][10]

Historical and modern terminology[edit]

"Ape", from Old English apa, is a word of uncertain origin.[12] The term has a history of rather imprecise usage—and of comedic or punning usage in the vernacular. Its earliest meaning was generally of any non-human anthropoid primate,[7][13] as is still the case for its cognates in other Germanic languages.[14] Later, after the term "monkey" had been introduced into English, "ape" was specialized to refer to a tailless (therefore exceptionally human-like) primate.[15] Two tailless species of macaque still have common names using "ape": the Barbary ape of North Africa (introduced into Gibraltar), Macaca sylvanus, and the Sulawesi black ape or Celebes crested macaque, M. nigra. Thus, the term "ape" obtained two different meanings, as shown in the 1910 Encyclopædia Britannica entry: it could be used as a synonym for "monkey" and it could denote the tailless humanlike primate in particular.[7]

The primates called "apes" today became known to Europeans after the 18th century. As zoological knowledge developed, it became clear that taillessness occurred in a number of different and otherwise distantly related species. Sir Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was one of those primatologists who developed the idea that there were trends in primate evolution and that the extant members of the order could be arranged in an ".. ascending series", leading from "monkeys" to "apes" to humans. Within this tradition "ape" came to refer to all members of the superfamily Hominoidea except humans.[1] As such, this use of "apes" represented a paraphyletic grouping, meaning that even though all species of apes were descended from a common ancestor this grouping did not include all the descendant species, because humans were excluded from being among the apes.[16]

Modern biologists and primatologists use monophyletic groups for taxonomic classification;[18] that is, they use only those groups that include all descendants of a common ancestor.[19] The superfamily Hominoidea is such a group—also known as a clade. Some scientists now use the term "ape" to mean all members of the superfamily Hominoidea, including humans. For example, in his 2005 book, Benton wrote "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the gibbons and orang-utan ... the gorilla and chimpanzee ... and humans".[4] Modern biologists and primatologists refer to apes that are not human as "non-human" apes. Scientists broadly, other than paleoanthropologists, may use the term "hominin" to identify the human clade, replacing the term "hominid." See terminology of primate names.

See below, History of hominoid taxonomy, for a discussion of changes in scientific classification and terminology regarding hominoids.

The lesser apes are the gibbon family, Hylobatidae, of sixteen species; all are native to Asia. Their major differentiating characteristic is their long arms, which they use to brachiate through trees. Their wrists are ball and socket joints as an evolutionary adaptation to their arboreal lifestyle. Generally smaller than the African apes, the largest gibbon, the siamang, weighs up to 14 kg (31 lb); in comparison, the smallest "great ape", the bonobo, is at 34 to 60 kg (75 to 132 lb).

Formerly, all the great apes except humans were classified as the family Pongidae, which conveniently provided for separating the human family from the apes; see The "great apes" in Pongidae. As noted above, such a definition would make a paraphyletic grouping of the Pongidae great apes. Current evidence indicates that humans share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee line—from which they separated more recently than from the gorilla line; see Gorillas the outgroup

The superfamily Hominoidea falls within the parvorder Catarrhini, which also includes the Old World monkeys of Africa and Eurasia. Within this grouping, the two families Hylobatidae and Hominidae can be distinguished from Old World monkeys by the number of cusps on their molars; hominoids have five—in the "Y-5" molar pattern, where Old World monkeys have only four in a bilophodont pattern.

Further, in comparison with Old World monkeys, hominoids are noted for: more mobile shoulder joints and arms due to the dorsal position of the scapula; broader ribcages that are flatter front-to-back; and a shorter, less mobile spine, with greatly reduced caudal (tail) vertebrae—resulting in complete loss of the tail in living hominoid species. These are anatomical adaptations, first, to vertical hanging and swinging locomotion (brachiation) and, later, to developing balance in a bipedal pose. Note there are primates in other families that also lack tails, and at least one, the pig-tailed langur, is known to walk significant distances bipedally. The front of the ape skull is characterised by its sinuses, fusion of the frontal bone, and by post-orbital constriction.

Although the hominoid fossil record is still incomplete and fragmentary, there is enough evidence now to provide an outline of the evolutionary history of humans. Previously, the divergence between humans and other living hominoids was thought to have occurred 15 to 20 million years ago, and several species of that time period, such as Ramapithecus, were once thought to be hominins and possible ancestors of humans. But later fossil finds indicated that Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orangutan. And new biochemical evidence indicates that the last common ancestor of humans and non-hominins (that is, the chimpanzees) occurred between 5 and 10 million years ago, and probably nearer the lower end of that range; see Chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA).

Behaviour and cognition

Although there had been earlier studies, the scientific investigation of behaviour and cognition in non-human members of the superfamily Hominoidea expanded enormously during the latter half of the twentieth century. Major studies of behaviour in the field were completed on the three better-known "great apes", for example by Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Galdikas. These studies have shown that in their natural environments, the non-human hominoids show sharply varying social structure: gibbons are monogamous, territorial pair-bonders, orangutans are solitary, gorillas live in small troops with a single adult male leader, while chimpanzees live in larger troops with bonobos exhibiting promiscuous sexual behaviour. Their diets also vary; gorillas are foliovores, while the others are all primarily frugivores, although the common chimpanzee does some hunting for meat. Foraging behaviour is correspondingly variable.

All the non-human hominoids are generally thought of as highly intelligent, and scientific study has broadly confirmed that they perform very well on a wide range of cognitive tests—though there is relatively little data on gibbon cognition. The early studies by Wolfgang Köhler demonstrated exceptional problem-solving abilities in chimpanzees, which Köhler attributed to insight. The use of tools has been repeatedly demonstrated; more recently, the manufacture of tools has been documented, both in the wild and in laboratory tests. Imitation is much more easily demonstrated in "great apes" than in other primate species. Almost all the studies in animal language acquisition have been done with "great apes", and though there is continuing dispute as to whether they demonstrate real language abilities, there is no doubt that they involve significant feats of learning. Chimpanzees in different parts of Africa have developed tools that are used in food acquisition, demonstrating a form of animal culture.[20]

Distinction from monkeys[edit]

Apes do not possess a tail, unlike most monkeys. Monkeys are more likely to be in trees and use their tails for balance. While the great apes are considerably larger than monkeys, gibbons (lesser apes) are smaller than some monkeys. Apes are considered to be more intelligent than monkeys, which are considered to have more primitive brains.[21]

. . . .”




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_World_monkey

Old World monkey
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“The Old World monkeys or Cercopithecidae are a family of primates, the only family in the superfamily Cercopithecoidea in the clade (or parvorder) of Catarrhini.

The Old World monkeys are native to Africa and Asia today, inhabiting a range of environments from tropical rain forest to savanna, shrubland and mountainous terrain, and are also known from Europe in the fossil record. However, a (possibly introduced) free-roaming group of monkeys still survives in Gibraltar (Europe) to this day. Old World monkeys include many of the most familiar species of nonhuman primates, such as baboons and macaques.

Characteristics[edit]

Old World monkeys are medium to large in size, and range from arboreal forms, such as the colobus monkeys, to fully terrestrial forms, such as the baboons. The smallest is the talapoin, with a head and body 34–37 cm in length, and weighing between 0.7 and 1.3 kilograms, while the largest is the male mandrill (the females of the species being significantly smaller), at around 70 cm in length, and weighing up to 50 kilograms.[2]

By superficial appearance, Old World monkeys are unlike apes in that most have tails (the family name means "tailed ape") and, unlike the New World monkeys (platyrrhines), in that their tails are never prehensile. Technically, the distinction of catarrhines from platyrrhines depends on the structure of the nose, and the distinction of Old World monkeys from apes depends on dentition (the number of teeth is the same in both, but they are shaped differently). In platyrrhines, the nostrils face sideways, while in catarrhines, they face downward. Other distinctions include both a tubular ectotympanic (ear bone), and eight, not twelve, premolars in catarrhines, giving them a dental formula of: 2.1.2.3.

Paracolobus chemeroni fossil

Several Old World monkeys have anatomical oddities. For example, the colobus monkeys have stubs for thumbs to assist with their arboreal movement, the proboscis monkey has an extraordinary nose, while the snub-nosed monkeys have almost no nose at all.

The male mandrill's penis is red and the scrotum is lilac; the face is also brightly colored. The coloration is more pronounced in dominant males.

Most Old World monkeys are at least partially omnivorous, but all prefer plant matter, which forms the bulk of their diet. Leaf monkeys are the most vegetarian, subsisting primarily on leaves, and eating only a small number of insects, while the other species are highly opportunistic, primarily eating fruit, but also consuming almost any food items available, such as flowers, leaves, bulbs and rhizomes, insects, snails, and even small vertebrates.[2] The Barbary macaque's diet consists mostly of leaves and roots, though it will also eat insects and uses cedar trees as a water source.[3]

Gestation in the Old World monkeys lasts between five and seven months. Births are usually single, although, as with humans, twins occur from time to time. The young are born relatively well-developed, and are able to cling onto their mother's fur with their hands from birth. Compared with most other mammals, they take a long time to reach sexual maturity, with four to six years being typical of most species.

In most species, daughters remain with their mothers for life, so that the basic social group among Old World monkeys is a matrilineal troop. Males leave the group on reaching adolescence, and find a new troop to join. In many species, only a single adult male lives with each group, driving off all rivals, but others are more tolerant, establishing hierarchical relationships between dominant and subordinate males. Group sizes are highly variable, even within species, depending on the availability of food and other resources.[2]

. . . .”