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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

*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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Actually, the ancestors of tarsiers and non-tarsiers would be stem Haplorrhini, not stem Primates - tarsiers and non-tarsiers being most parsimoniously grouped into the monophyletic Haplorrhine suborder, rather than the Order primates which would also include strepsirrhines (Lemurs, Lorises, Galagos, and Chiromyiiformes) . Source: I'm a primatologist-in-training. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.119.73.49 (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Simian and monkey are not synonyms. Monkey refers to specific kinds of simians classed as:

old world monkey (superfamily Cercopithecoidea in parvorder Catarrhini
new world monkey (superfamily Ceboidea in the parvorder Platyrrhini.

Apes are definitely not monkeys. Monkeys can actually be defined as "non-ape simians". They're every kind of simian other than the apes. Y12J (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cladistically, apes are monkeys. Jmv2009 (talk) 12:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC) [1][reply]

Classification of humans

Are we Primates and also Simians, or just simians? I said that biologists classify human beings as primates? [2] but Visionholder reverted me 20 minutes later. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:01, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We are both, humans are apes, members of the hominoid superfamily which is part of the simian infraorder which is part of the primate order. Y12J (talk) 00:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Apparent contradiction with another WIkipedia entry

According to this entry, Simians comprise several families. According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simia however, reads:

"Homo, Lemur, and Vespertilio have survived as generic names, but Simia has not. All the species have since been moved to other genera, and in 1929, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature ruled in its Opinion 114 that Simia be suppressed.[2] The genus Simias is distinct and remains valid, containing a single species, the Pig-tailed Langur (Simias concolor)."

An expert should check if the two entries are consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HRThomann (talk • contribs) 14:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Simia as a genus may be suppressed, but Simiiformes as an infraorder is not. – Maky ^« talk » 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simian. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121018195118/http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/mouse-sized-primates-shed-light.html to http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/10/mouse-sized-primates-shed-light.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What does RIYA mean?

Opening sentence says that RIYA is a synonym for simian. Is it an acronym? Couldn't find it on a quick google search. What's the source for this tem? Mateussf (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A single-edit editor inserted it in without explanation or source earlier this month, so I went ahead and reverted it under the assumption that it's just a vandal's nonsense.--Mr Fink (talk) 20:33, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]