is this correct?

[beinginiteslf]

This is verbatim from "Primates in Question: The Smithsonian Answer Book"

 

Under the question of "How closely are humans related to other primates?" it says:

 

"Within the order primate, humans and the prosimians have the greatest evolutionary distance from each other and therefore the lowest level of relatedness. In increasing levels of relatedness to humans, the New World monkeys are next, followed by the Old World monkeys, and then the gibbons. The closest relation exists between humans and the other members of the family Homindae, the great apes."

 

 

I thought chimpanzees and bonobos were Old World monkeys, and a google search shows that they Old World Anthropoids. So how does it makes sense to say humans are less related to Old World monkeys than to gibbons when as far as I know humans are more closely related to chimpanzees and bonobos (I believe human % of genomic relation is about the same to each?) than any other animal? The Old World monkeys and Old World anthropoids are not more closely related than Gibbons are to Old World monkeys?

 

 

So it would be correct to say it is something like prosimians- New World monkeys- Old World monkeys- Gibbons- great apes (of which humans are a member) in terms of relation to humans?

 

Maybe I am mixing up the taxonomy or something? But this is saying humans and chimpanzees (and other great apes) share a gibbon ancestor, which isn't technically a monkey?

 

Sorry if this is a dumb question it just confused me as I've never really heard of humans and the other great apes sharing a gibbon ancestor

Edited February 10, 2017 by beinginiteslf

[delboy]

The quote is correct. Chimps and bonobos are apes not monkeys, and our closest relatives. Gibbons are also apes (but not great apes).

The best guide is that apes have no tail, monkeys (and other primates) do. Though there are a few monkeys that have lost their tail.