pfft, wiki's could be written by anyone. the just got their info from textbooks. this guy right, he told me that textbooks are all wrong anyway, it's like chemistry - it's all wrong and nobody really knows but it's fun to learn and stuff anyway.

to be honest bo, i don't think you really do know what you're talking about. you just seem like you do cus you sound so self assured. but it's all a farce, unfortunately.

but i'll deffo pm you the number

TBH I just can't believe this topic has hit 3 pages. That's the single reason I skimmed the posts.

Anywho, I have no problem with people calling apes monkeys mostly because, right or wrong, no one likes to be told they are wrong about such insignificant things.

Now if you work at a zoo or a dictionary (yes people- at a dictionary) then fine, be specific. Otherwise one would just come off as a pedant.

Well first I want to apologize to everyone, especially sumisem for responding angry buzzed. I have to work on that and I am sorry.

@insultobot and anyone else who agrees with him
I respect that this topic is genuinely of little interest to most people. The reason however that I am adamant that it is not however essentially a meaningless point is because of my (previously hidden) agenda with which I fully intended to disclose later but now is probably the best time.

Anyone can give any name to any object they want, but in so doing, they tend to believe things about that object that may or may not apply.

We are familiar with the negatives of labeling someone. Oftentimes it leads to outright prejudice and discrimination but it can even lead (and usually does) to subtle biases that can have effects maybe even drastic ones eventually.

I will continue to maintain the position firmly that academically and intellectually albeit maybe not socially, monkeys and apes are not equivalent beings. We can continue to disagree and welcome that arguement, but here is the much larger point.

A chimpanzee is the ape that probably is most referred to as a monkey. The chimpanzee (and here is the real point everyone) is more closely related to the human than it is to the monkey.

So think about what one is actually doing when they call a chimp a monkey. If it really doesn't matter that we call one animal the type of another, then people may more accurately in their misnomer call a chimp a human. Do you see what I am getting at?

We are reinforing through a lack of education and a general apathy a prejudice against a living being that is thought of more as a monkey than as a human even though it is more like us than like a monkey.

But that is only the tip of the iceberg...

The Librarian in Terry Pratchett's Discworld series has a fit if anyone calls him a 'monkey' and not an 'ape'.

And something that has a connection to the Discworld series is, by definition, good to know.

So there.

[spoiler]Yes I'm biased.[/spoiler]

I would like to point out that I feel Monkey "furs" are kind of redundant, IMHO.

I think i can settle this.

Ape = Monkey. It really IS interchangeable. The question you should be asking is if the primate in question is Simian or not. That is the main difference. Prosimians are "Monkeys," Presimians are things like bushbabies, tarsiers, and lemurs, and finally, Simians proper are what one would define as "apelike." (Chimps, Gorillas, Humans, etc...)

Zomg, secrets! What is this secret that Bo hides so discreetly? Find out next time, on My Seemingly Pointless Debates!

This is incorrect.

It is correct that there are simians and prosimians, but prosimians are not monkeys because first of all monkeys are simians so if prosimians were monkeys, prosimians would be simians so the question you suggest we should asking would be pointless.

Second, prosimian are well know primates that are less 'complex' (i.e. "lesser primates") and less human-like than old world monkeys, new world monkeys, or apes and are found almost exclusively in Madagascar. They are so different from other primates that they are not considered proper to be grouped with monkeys, apes, including humans.

Now within the simians are moneys and apes. Monkeys and apes are nonequivalent subsets of the set of simians.

Are you guys still arguing about this?

Yeah, it's a hot topic.
Bo is still going on like he knows what he's talking about. He doesn't even know that Madagascar is a kids film, not a place. *shakes head* kids these days, i tell ya.

Two kids films.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madagascar

What, you didn't think they made the place up, did you?

I'm almost sure she did know.

oh right yeah, two kids films.
of course i know they didn't make up the place, they based it on the mythical 'madagascar' that is rumoured to be off the east coast of africa. but it doesn't actually exist - it's like atlantis, you know how it is. didn't you know this??

Yeah, everyone knows that that little island off to the side of Africa is Jamaica.

By the way, Africa is really big for a country, isn't it?

yeah, well they couldn't decide on where to draw borders with all the internal fighting so it was the simplest solution. besides, they gained fame being the only country in the world that is also a continent, it's all about how you sell it.