(urth) Reptiles

[António Pedro Marques]

Lee Berman wrote (07-01-2011 14:21):
> Antonio Pedro Marques:
>> Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?
>
> Well, the primate order includes prosimians (lemurs, pottos, etc.) and
> simians which are monkeys and apes (and humans depending on how you want
> to divide). There is a significant difference between monkeys and apes,
> which is easiest to recognize by presence or absence of a tail (with
> some exceptions- a couple monkeys have no tail, a couple fossil apes do
> have a tail, but generally the rule holds).
>
> I realize my background makes me a bit pedantic on the subject but I
> sometimes wish the general public could at least get the tail part
> right. Apes (esp. the "great" ones) are so much closer to us humans than
> monkeys.

So 'monkey' and 'ape' are synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?

> I usually hold my tongue on the subject in casual conversation but I am
> glad to think Wolfe isn't getting it wrong.

Scientists can't expect the general public to follow their terminology 
accurately even when their terminology is original, let alone when it's a 
redefinition of lay terms.

Though it irks me that people call palms trees, as some here possibly 
already know.