•  dogsoahC   ( @dogsoahC@lemm.ee ) OP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        13 months ago

        What I’m getting at is taxonomy. A valid taxon has to include all descendents of the crown group. That means that for monkeys to constitute a valid taxon, apes must be included. Same reason why birds are technically dinosaurs.

        • A monophyletic clade must include all descendants. A taxonomic group itself can hold anything.

          Viruses can also integrate DNA into cells and it sticks there forever sometimes, thus bypassing the tree entirely (making it a network, i.e. no longer acyclic thus no longer a tree).

          There is a lot of weirdness in the world, stranger than people have dreamed.:-P

          •  dogsoahC   ( @dogsoahC@lemm.ee ) OP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            Fair enough. I just belong to the people who require a valid taxon to be monophyletic. (Btw., “clade” already implies monophyleti…city? Monophyleticness?)

            Also, shut up about viruses, they make a mess of everything and are beautifully chaotic and I hate them and I love them. xD

    •  juliebean   ( @juliebean@lemm.ee ) 
      link
      fedilink
      English
      13 months ago

      so, frequently people will conflate monkeys and apes, and use the terms interchangably (that’s the left end of the graph), people with a bit more knowledge may be aware of the common definition that monkeys have tails while apes do not (that’s the middle part), while those with more knowledge of biological taxonomy argue that, since new world monkeys and old world monkeys share a more distant common ancestor than old world monkeys and apes, if we want to define a term ‘monkey’ that encompasses both new and old world monkeys, it would have to also include all apes (including humans). so, according to the right side of the graph people, chimpanzees are apes are monkeys (though lots of monkeys are not apes, it’s a squares and rectangles kinda thing).