Gorillas, orangutans, chimpanzees (including Bonobos), gibbons, and siamangs are NOT monkeys. They are apes.

It is factually inaccurate to refer to any of the animals listed above as monkeys.

Please spread the word.

Donkey Kong is an ape.

Can we call them primates?

Yes. Apes and monkeys are both different types of primates.

Psh... yeah right. Next thing you tell me is that Pluto isn't a planet.


=P

The difference is that at one time it was factually accurate to refer to pluto as a planet even if the designation has now been changed. It was never factually accurate to refer to an ape as a monkey even though a lot of people thought (maybe even were taught) it was and/or ignored the facts.

no no no.. it's a hominoid.

but it could be eine Menschenartige.

but in italian they just say Hominoidea ... so really thats the most correct isn't it?

but i quite like the polish Małpy człekokształtne

=D i'm factually accurate.

The point is that apes have many factually accurate descriptions, none of which is 'monkey'.

You know what's not accurate either? Saying "sweating like a pig", since they don't sweat at all. If they did, they didn't have to roll in the mud to keep themselves cool.

the point is, it probably doesn't matter.

@Guarionex
Yes, I agree with you and I wish people would take that into consideration because I always think it helps to not spread inaccuracies.



But in this case I think the inaccuracy is quite substantial only most people don't realize it. This reply is evidence to me of the need to promote this idea. This topic is my first step.

sure, if you're a biologist writing something substantial.

your topics make me dress press bo.

What does "dress press" mean?

it means that my inaccuracy is substantial enough.

True.

Here's another fun fact:

Bo is really, in reality...

CAPTAIN OBSERVO: MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS!!!!!

@Staffy

Maybe I don't understand what you are saying but if it is really obvious that apes are not monkeys, then why do people keep referring to them as monkeys?

Because people are lazy and like to generalize sh*t.

It's sort of the same idea as calling a Lion or a Puma a "kitty" when in fact they are Leonids, not Feilids.

It doesn't sound to me like laziness in your example, but it does sound like a generalization due to a lack of accurate information.

In other words, I don't think either of our examples are obvious. Obviousness doesn't require additional information but are rather known at face value.

How about this: Anyone who is going to talk about apes in any context that is semi-professional, we probably already know the difference and won't make said mistake. But for those it really who really don't think it makes a difference in the price of rice in China, it's just not that large of concern.