Talk:Ape

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 January 2022 and 11 March 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CastanonIbarra (article contribs).

Prefer preferred spelling[edit]

The preferred spelling of "catarrhine" is with two Rs. Please fix. 2601:200:C000:1A0:50A5:DDF:73A6:A4D3 (talk) 04:29, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Peter coxhead (talk) 05:42, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How are apes native to Africa and Southeast Asia?[edit]

The first sentence in the article claims that apes are native to Africa and Southeast Asia. Since humans are also apes (which is how it is treated in the article), the first sentence cannot be true. It is true that humans originated in Africa, but that doesn't mean they're native to Africa Pajo96 (talk) 15:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC) Pavle[reply]

I assume the article is using the term "ape" to exclude humans.--Mr Fink (talk) 15:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A native species is a species that is found in a certain ecosystem due to natural processes, such as natural distribution and evolution. So humans originating in Africa, does mean that they're are native to Africa. But since it is unclear what exactly natural means when talking about ecology of humans their range outside of Africa is left out. The natural range is about the other extant species of apes besides humans - gibbons and orangutans in Southeast Asia; Chimpanzees, Bonobos and Gorillas in Africa.Kardoen (talk) 15:59, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the term "native" in the biological sense is useful applied to humans, since it is opposed to "introduced" meaning 'introduced by human agency as opposed to the species' own agency'. This makes no sense when "species" = "human". Peter coxhead (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Threatened extinction[edit]

I expanded the last paragraph of the lead, and removed the citation needed tag. Citing references would put 27 tags here, one for each of the non-human species. This seems like overkill, when the references can be found on the relevant species articles. I think my expanded text will help the reader reach the references more applicably than just inserting a large block of references. However, I'm not opposed to finding a better way. - UtherSRG (talk) 14:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2023[edit]

Request to remove "(though this is the subject of much debate)" in refrence to apes also being part of the clade catarrhini and therefore called monkeys in addition to apes. There is no debate in the scientific community that we are part of the nested hierarchy that includes both apes and monkeys. 2600:1700:72A5:C010:CCCC:1D9F:3D90:42DA (talk) 00:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Paper9oll (🔔📝) 05:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it has already been done by GliderMaven. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no debate that it's correct according to strict cladistics, but there's sometimes debate as to whether strict cladistics is always useful for practical terminology. AnonMoos (talk) 21:29, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]