Editing Primate (section)

==Etymology==
The English name ''[[wikt:primate#English|primates]]'' is derived from [[Old French]] or French {{lang|fr|primat}}, from a noun use of Latin {{lang|la|primat-}}, from {{lang|la|primus}} ('prime, first rank').<ref>{{cite encyclopedia | title=Primate | encyclopedia=Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary |publisher= [[Merriam-Webster]] | url=http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/primate | access-date=2008-07-21}}</ref> The name was given by [[Carl Linnaeus]] because he thought this the "highest" order of animals.<ref>{{cite book|title=The Book of Popular Science|page=257|year=1963|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=qNtjfh57ipsC&q=primate+carl+linnaeus+highest}}</ref> The relationships among the different groups of primates were not clearly understood until relatively recently, so the commonly used terms are somewhat confused. For example, ''ape'' has been used either as an alternative for ''monkey'' or for any tailless, relatively human-like primate.<ref name=EB11Ape>{{cite EB1911|wstitle= Ape | volume= 02 | page = 160 }}</ref><ref name="CNN-20240323">{{cite news |last=Weisberger |first=Mindy |title=Why don't humans have tails? Scientists find answers in an unlikely place |url=https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/23/world/humans-tails-genetic-mutation-junk-dna-scn/index.html |date=March 23, 2024 |work=[[CNN]] |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.today/20240324031927/https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/23/world/humans-tails-genetic-mutation-junk-dna-scn/index.html |archivedate=March 24, 2024 |accessdate=March 24, 2024 }}</ref>

Sir [[Wilfrid Le Gros Clark]] was one of the [[primatologists]] who developed the idea of trends in primate evolution and the methodology of arranging the living members of an order into an "ascending series" leading to humans.<ref name=Dixson1981>{{Citation |last=Dixson |first=A.F. |year=1981 |title=The Natural History of the Gorilla |location=London |publisher=Weidenfeld & Nicolson |isbn=978-0-297-77895-0}}<!--pp needed--></ref> Commonly used names for groups of primates such as ''[[prosimian]]s'', ''[[monkey]]s'', ''[[lesser ape]]s'', and ''[[great ape]]s'' reflect this methodology. According to our current understanding of the evolutionary history of the primates, several of these groups are [[paraphyletic]], or rather they do not include all the descendants of a common ancestor.<ref>Definitions of [[paraphyly]] vary; for the one used here see e.g. {{Citation |last=Stace |first=Clive A. |author-link=Clive A. Stace |year=2010 |title=Classification by molecules: What's in it for field botanists? |journal=Watsonia |volume=28 |pages=103–122 |url=http://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf |access-date=2010-02-07 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726104027/https://www.watsonia.org.uk/Wats28p103.pdf |archive-date=2011-07-26 }}.</ref>

In contrast with Clark's methodology, modern classifications typically identify (or name) only those groupings that are [[monophyletic]]; that is, such a named group includes ''all'' the descendants of the group's common ancestor.<ref>Definitions of [[monophyly]] vary; for the one used here see e.g. {{Citation |last=Mishler |first=Brent D |year=2009 |editor-last=Ayala |editor-first=F.J. |editor2-last=Arp |editor2-first=R. |contribution=Species are not Uniquely Real Biological Entities |title=Contemporary Debates in Philosophy of Biology |pages=110–122 |isbn=978-1-4443-1492-2 <!--|access-date=2011-04-19 -->|doi=10.1002/9781444314922.ch6 |name-list-style=amp}}.</ref>

All groups with scientific names are [[clade]]s, or monophyletic groups, and the sequence of scientific classification reflects the evolutionary history of the related lineages. Groups that are traditionally named are shown on the right; they form an "ascending series" (per Clark, see above), and several groups are paraphyletic:

* Prosimians contain two monophyletic groups (the suborder Strepsirrhini, or lemurs, lorises and allies, as well as the tarsiers of the suborder Haplorhini); it is a paraphyletic grouping because it excludes the Simiiformes, which also are descendants of the common ancestor Primates.
* Monkeys comprise two monophyletic groups, New World monkeys and Old World monkeys, but is paraphyletic because it excludes hominoids, superfamily Hominoidea, also descendants of the common ancestor Simiiformes.
* Apes as a whole, and the [[great ape]]s, are paraphyletic if the terms are used such that they exclude humans.

Thus, the members of the two sets of groups, and hence names, do not match, which causes problems in relating scientific names to common (usually traditional) names. Consider the superfamily Hominoidea: In terms of the common names on the right, this group consists of apes and humans and there is no single common name for all the members of the group. One remedy is to create a new common name, in this case ''hominoids''. Another possibility is to expand the use of one of the traditional names. For example, in his 2005 book, the [[vertebrate]] [[palaeontology|palaeontologist]] Benton wrote, "The apes, Hominoidea, today include the [[gibbon]]s and [[orangutan]] ... the [[gorilla]] and [[chimpanzee]] ... and [[human]]s";{{Sfn|Benton|2005|p=371}} thereby Benton was using ''apes'' to mean hominoids. In that case, the group heretofore called ''apes'' must now be identified as the non-human apes.

{{As of|2021}}, there is no consensus as to whether to accept traditional (that is, common), but paraphyletic, names or to use monophyletic names only; or to use 'new' common names or adaptations of old ones. Both competing approaches can be found in biological sources, often in the same work, and sometimes by the same author. Thus, Benton defines ''apes'' to include humans, then he repeatedly uses ''ape-like'' to mean 'like an ape rather than a human'; and when discussing the reaction of others to a new fossil he writes of "claims that ''[[Orrorin]]'' ... was an ape rather than a human".{{Sfn|Benton|2005|pp=378–380}}