Denial of evolution

And you appear to need more time looking up words in dictionaries.

So the big knowledgeable Biologist/Taxonomic expert has put me in my place?
Congratulations, except I'd say looking at that crap you seem to think has completely thrown my banal nonsense out the window, could mean you aren't even a taxonomist's asshole.

A new world monkey? So where did the idiot who dreamed up Australopithecine get that idea from?
You have no idea about that either do you?
...your 'theory' is little more than observations of such ill-defined character as to offer nothing valuable I'd say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Pitheci means ape.
Australopithecine means southern ape.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Vkothii, what the hell are you arm waving about? You consistently fail to address the central points of my posts, but go off in a random direction with more arm waving, irrelevant chanting and nothing of any apparent substance.

Let me take your last post line by line:

Is this just a trite insult? If so, for the sake of progress, I'll pretend to be insulted. If not would you care to tell me why you think I need to spend more time looking up words in dictionaries?

Are you denying that the term pithecine relates to New World Monkeys? Are you denying that you were using the term as an equivalent of australopithecine? Are you denying that you were mistaken? There is nothing sinful in being mistaken. Persistent denial is, however, unhealthy.

From an ugly combination of latin (australo = southern) and greek (pithecos = ape). What is your point?

Why are you quoting my own words back at me? I am sure it is not a subtle form of flattery.

I am confident you will respond. Would you like to try to make some sense this time.

Edit: I see Enmos beat me to it on the derivation of Australopithecus. I'll just add that, to my recollection, the genus and the term were defined by Raymond Dart based upon the Taung (or is that Tuang) skull found in South Africa almost one century ago. (Mid 1920's I think. Maybe 1923.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Not this time.
I'm waiting for you to start, as it happens.

 

Fine, answer my questions.

 

Which term was I using?
You mean: why did I first post the term 'Pithecine', and later the term "australopithecine"...?

Where exactly do New World monkeys come along, with this conclusion you've made.
You know the one.
It's the one I'm still waiting for you to start explaining, as in, how did it occur to you to jump to it, things like that.

 

I mean will you be gracious enough to admit to the incorrect use of the term pithecine? It is not an alternative to australopithecine.

You then made the statement that I did not know what a pithecine was. You were mistaken. I do know what it is. It is a member of the Order of New World Monkeys. So I brought up New World Monkeys to answer your question.

 

I know that, for FS.
But do you know, or do you not know which genus the australopithecines evolved from?

 

Australopithecines refers to two genera though.

 

I don't and I do not currently believe anyone who says that they do. The accessible fossil record is too patchy to offer a definitive answer on this at present. This will change, but I am not sanguine about it changing soon.

 

So you believe that the New World monkeys came first...??

 

...though, that would indicate a common ancestor for both, or different ancestral genera? Or no-one knows?

Someone might need to go and look for some other hairs to try to divide.
Pithecine refers to an unknown ancestral genera of the New World monkeys....?

The australopithecines died out, but Dryopithecus, Ouranopithecus. Oreopithecus, and Sivapithecus didn't. They left Africa.

Jumping to conclusions isn't exactly scientific is it?

Does anyone know the difference between a Macaque and a Spider monkey?

 

No it doesn't say anything about whether they have a common ancestor or not in itself.
But the two genera are closely related.

 

Why are you harping on about New World Monkeys? They are completely irrelevant to this thread. The only reason they got into this conversation is that one group of New World Monkeys are called pithecines. This was the term you incorrectly used when you meant australopithecines.

Obviously the current New World monkeys came after australopithecus, or they would not be current.

 

So this is what gets someone to jump to the conclusion that a post about hominids must be about monkeys?

Because I'm discussing a genus with a name that ends with -pithecine, and I've used the ending as a stand-alone term in the same discussion, which is about apes, not simians, I must be talking about monkeys?

You must have a large head.
My tiny brain could only put together the idea that I wouldn't have to write "Pithecine apes" instead, because a reasonable person would assume that the hominids were apes.

But some pedantic wannabe has to object, make a big noise with their big head.

 

Vkothii, are you being deliberately obtuse? This is a science forum. You appear - based upon your previous posting record - to have an interest in and a knowledge of science. Uncharacteristically you used an incorrect term in a manner that suggested at worst you had no idea what you were talking about, and at best was going to confuse individuals with less knowledge of the subject than yourself.

Now if you would just graciously accept that you made a mistake and stop this interminable defensive ramble you are engaged in, we could all get back to discussing matters of substance.

For the record I have jumped to know conclusions about monkeys. I have simply pointed out - as I do again, because you seem unaware of it - you made a mistake. You used a term incorrectly. Now for **** sake will you just accept that and move on.

 

No, I won't accept any such thing.

You appear to have a mistaken idea that a New World monkey is a pithecine.

The early hominoids - after Proconsul, are where the Pithecine lineage I've been talking about arrived from. And the Australopithecines weren't the first of this (Pithecine) line.

OK?

Now, please stop insisting that pithecines are a modern genus of simians.

 

I do apologise. I had not understood that you were irredeemably foolish.

1. I have never, ever - even after searching for the last half hour, but more relevantly having been studying primates in an informal manner for three decades - found australopithecines, or any early hominid, or ancestral hominid, referred to as a pithecine. I would not rule out the possibility that the term may have been used in thios sense on some occassion, but its absence from any of the standard literature on the subject strongly suggests it is not an accepted use of the term.

2. There is a sub-family of New World monkeys called pitheciinae. i.e. pithecines. See for example,
Bonvicino,C.R. et al Morphologic,Karyotypic,and Molecular Evidence of a New Form of Chiropotes(Primates,Pitheciinae) American Journal of Primatology 61 2003
http://www.arts.auckland.ac.nz/FileGet.cfm?ID=6825f41f-eafd-4a60-a020-ef9c30e885b8

In short the pithecines are New World Monkeys; they are not early hominids, or hominid relatives. Your usage is wrong. The usage within the anthropological literature supports my usage.

Why not give up before you make yourself look even more foolish?

Edit: Or consider, Fleagle,J.G. et al Locomotor behaviour and skeletal morphology of two sympatric pithecine monkeys The Journal of Primatology 16 1980

 

In addition we have this paper from the XXI Congress of the International Primatalogical Society. (The meeting title was Pitheciins: Ecology and Conservation.)

Pithecine Taxonomy and Geographic Distribution
Silva Júnior, J.S. & W.B. Figueiredo

The pitheciine group of seed predators is composed of three genera: Pithecia, Chiropotes and Cacajao, all with essentially Amazonian geographic distributions. Chiropotes and Cacajao are mutually exclusive but Pithecia is widely sympatric with both. Parapatric distribution patterns are most common for taxa from these genera, except in a few forms of Cacajao, which exhibit apparent allopatric or disjointed distributions. The genus Pithecia is composed of eight terminal taxa, divided into two groups of species.
Five valid species, three of them composed of two subspecies, are currently recognized. Pithecia has an ample distribution, being absent only from northwestern Amazonia and the region located to the south of the Amazon river and east of the river Xingu. The genus Chiropotes is composed of five species. This genus occurs throughout eastern Amazonia, east of the rivers Orinoco-Negro and Madeira. The genus Cacajao comprises six taxa, and occurs in the flooded forests of western Amazonia. Two species of Cacajao are recognized, one comprises two subspecies, and the other four. Assessment of the diversity and geographic distribution of this group is hindered by undersampling and misinterpretation of species and subspecies concepts. Chiropotes is the only genus that has been revised in recent years using multidisciplinary techniques. Revisions for Pithecia and Cacajao date back almost 20 years, both genera now require systematic revisions using new samples and investigation methods.

Would you now be so good as to acknowledge that you were incorrect and that your attacks upon my understanding were inappropriate?

 

At this juncture, I'm not going to say anything about monkeys or apes, but Latin.

Pitheciinae or even Pitheciins, have nothing to do with Pithecine, except as a derived nominal form.

Pitheciinae, translates as "of the Pithecini". You don't understand Latin either. That heading must be a mis-spelling, the article is about The pitheciine group of seed predators.
A double "i" in Latin is a genitive inflection. The article is not about pithecine hominids, it's about pitheciine simians.

These guys are the pithecines, remember?
Dryopithecus, Ouranopithecus. Oreopithecus, and Sivapithecus