(Ron) Natural Man [drifting inexorably off topic]
Achilles Sophia achillesz@usa.net
Thu, 24 Sep 1998 16:01:20 -0400 (00906685280, 20012055427441@cfagroup.com)
<snip>
SJANE
>The USDA agrees with your classification. I work at a veterinary
>hospital and occasionally fill out health certificates for the
>transport of dogs and cats and one of the catagories of animals that
>are legal to transport are non-human primates. I've always found that
>to be very interesting.
>
ACHILLES
Actually they don't. It's a minor point I suppose, but there is no
disagreement about humans being primates. The argument was as to proper
classification within the primate sub-order of anthropoids.
Primates are divided into two suborders: Prosimii (including the most
ancient forms, Lemurs, tree-shrews, and Tarsiers; and Anthropoidae.
Anthropoidae is then split into 5 Families, each of which contains several
geni, each of which contains at least one species. They are;
Cebidae (New World monkeys)
Cercopithecidae (Old World monkeys)
Hylobatidae
Pongidae (Great apes)
Hominidae (Humans)
My proposal was to collapse Hominidae (or rather the single genus contained
in Hominidae, genus homo) into Pongidae. As it is hominidae sticks out like
a sore thumb of human conceit, IMHOP.
Pongidae is currently considered to include several geni, Gorilla (gorilla),
Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos - our closest living relatives,) and Orangutan
(orangutans.)
I noticed on the web one site that seems to have accepted my thesis, though
in reverse as it were, listing the pongids along with humans as hominidae.
http://www.selu.com/~bio/PrimateGallery/primates/Hominidae/
Either way IMHOP this is a more scientifically accurate classification, if
less politically correct. I expect it to be universally accepted withing a
generation.
Achilles
"...we are not simply contending in order that my view or that
of yours may prevail, but I presume we ought both of us to be
fighting for the truth..."
from Philebus, the Dialogues of Plato