84:
74:
53:
22:
175:
closer to the order. To have both a suborder and an infraorder would make them both feel closer to the order than to the family below. Also, taxonomists try to align similar branchings at the same taxonomic ranking. Finally, I'm trying to keep things aligned with the taxonomies listed on the
Project. -
174:
Yes and no. They are all ranks between Order and Family. However, they have technical differences: suborder is higher than infraorder, which is higher than superfamily. there s also the non-technical feel: a superfamily "feels" closer to the family than to the order above it, while the suborder feels
405:
Does anyone have a source for the given pronunciation? I ask because the way that "-ini" is pronounced in
Catarrhini, according to the IPA given in the article, contradicts the way the same suffix is pronounced according to the article for Strepsirrhini. No source is given for either article, so I'm
223:
I suggest this article is too technical. One indication is simple: count the specialized technical terms in the first paragraph. I count 11 out of 32 words. For a lay reader, that's daunting. This paragraph might be okay as the first part of a technical discussion but not the intro. Please try
369:
Agree entirely - bizarre that an article about catarrhines should talk about species that are included by citing an article that clearly shows they are not (in Figure 4). The information is in itself quite important, and needs to be placed somewhere - just not here!I'll try to find a 'correct' home
245:
Anyway, I've simplified the lead section by removing what is merely a narration of the classification section (much easier to follow in tree form) and using everyday terms (e.g. New World monkeys rather than
Platyrrhini). I've also separated out the description section and provided some much-needed
445:
For a large grouping that includes many various extant and extinct species, featuring a picture of one or another of those species is likely to be arbitrary, at best. I have therefore changed the picture of a chimpanzee to a picture of Homo sapiens. Humans are by far the largest extant catarrhini
239:
I agree, though to be fair to previous contributors, this parvorder is somewhat technical by its very nature. It's a collection of quite diverse creatures, interesting because it's a clade, but if you want to know about the animals, it's probably better to look at the families or
425:
Sometimes with catarrhine monkeys, the
Cercopithecoidea appear to be meant, as if by "monkey", apes are excluded. But please not this only really works when presuming a continued use of paraphyletic monkey, and excluding extinct branches. IMHO testifying a lack op perspective.
301:, but not as a catarrhine, but as an argument for anthropoids in general having thrived in times and parts of Asia where this formerly was not the case. The discussion about possible catarrhini connection seems mostly to be based on the similarity between
346:
parallel is to peripheral to be retained in the section, and that the conclusions should be weakened a bit. Moreover, we should clarify that the discussion is about anyhow extinct groups of catarrhini, not about fore-runners to exant groups as
296:
I'm not sure that it is relevant. The main source for this section is an article from 2005 about some
Pakistani finds, which also contains an overview over other recent Asian finds, and discusses the possible consequences. It also does mention
182:
Since
Catarrhini exists below a suborder and included two superfamilies, I would call it an infraorder; but, of course, this is merely my lay opinion. So why is this group listed as "unranked"?
370:
for the information but meanwhile will move it, firstly because it's mis-leading, but also citing a source but saying something different to what that source says is really bad practice
495:
140:
130:
500:
335:
present an hypothesis, but more raise a question as whether the "striking similarities" are phylogenetically relevant, or caused by functional
453:
106:
490:
97:
58:
468:
Thank you. That was well said. But no, we don't need to put people on this image. We have them up at a higher level taxa. -
33:
224:
to rewrite this in ordinary language with adequate explanation. The same for the rest of the introduction. Thanks.
307:
457:
162:
I don't know if i should call
Catarrhini infraorder or superfamily, i found both in litrature. Who can help?
39:
316:
449:
336:
166:
as far as I am aware, an infraorder/suborder is the same thing as a superfamily. I might be wrong.--
21:
387:
371:
105:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
472:
391:
375:
360:
327:
belong to a common Asian based primate group. However, they also note that instead studying the
196:
431:
411:
229:
379:
89:
378:) 13:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC) OK, moved the valid parts of the information into articles on
406:
curious to see if this discrepancy is indeed true and if there is any evidence for it.
251:
484:
469:
356:
209:
193:
176:
427:
183:
407:
225:
205:
167:
83:
383:
282:
271:
79:
352:
247:
73:
52:
315:. The authors find them to to be more similar to each others than to the
102:
348:
312:
475:
461:
435:
415:
395:
364:
331:
molars might lead to the opposite conclusion. Therefore, they do
287:
255:
233:
212:
199:
186:
192:
Some classification scheme give it a rank, but most do not. -
15:
311:, and in particular by comparing the morphology of upper
274:. I separated the following sentence from the rest:
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
204:It is apparently a subdivision of the infraorder
8:
446:species and therefore should be featured.
339:], ultimately due to dietary similarities.
447:
47:
319:, which in itself might suggest that the
280:"Discovered in 2001, the early primate
49:
19:
7:
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
270:I've tried to improve the section
14:
496:High-importance Primate articles
272:Catarrhini#Late Asian catarrhini
82:
72:
51:
20:
135:This article has been rated as
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Primates
1:
501:WikiProject Primates articles
476:21:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
462:20:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
365:22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
308:Dionysopithecus shuangouensis
200:18:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
187:13:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Primates
109:and see a list of open tasks.
416:19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
290:came from Asia, not Africa."
286:led to the assumption that
256:20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
517:
436:16:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
342:My conclusion is that the
213:01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
158:Infraorder or superfamily?
141:project's importance scale
234:14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
179:01:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
491:C-Class Primate articles
396:17:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
170:23:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)
28:This article is rated
441:Changing cover image
382:(Bugtipithecus) and
98:WikiProject Primates
34:content assessment
464:
452:comment added by
421:Catarrhine monkey
317:propliopithecidae
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
508:
219:Highly technical
123:
122:
121:Primate articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
516:
515:
511:
510:
509:
507:
506:
505:
481:
480:
443:
423:
403:
386:(Phileosimias).
380:Amphipithecidae
325:Dionysopithecus
268:
221:
160:
137:High-importance
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
90:Primates portal
88:
81:
62:High‑importance
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
514:
512:
504:
503:
498:
493:
483:
482:
479:
478:
454:71.121.192.199
442:
439:
422:
419:
402:
401:Pronunciation?
399:
294:
293:
292:
291:
267:
260:
259:
258:
242:
241:
220:
217:
216:
215:
202:
172:
171:
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
513:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
488:
486:
477:
474:
471:
467:
466:
465:
463:
459:
455:
451:
440:
438:
437:
433:
429:
420:
418:
417:
413:
409:
400:
398:
397:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
373:
367:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
345:
340:
338:
334:
330:
326:
322:
321:Bugtipithecus
318:
314:
310:
309:
304:
303:Bugtipithecus
300:
289:
285:
284:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
273:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:citations. --
244:
243:
238:
237:
236:
235:
231:
227:
218:
214:
211:
207:
203:
201:
198:
195:
191:
190:
189:
188:
185:
180:
178:
169:
165:
164:
163:
157:
142:
138:
132:
129:
128:
125:
108:
104:
100:
99:
91:
85:
80:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
448:— Preceding
444:
424:
404:
368:
343:
341:
332:
328:
324:
320:
306:
302:
298:
295:
281:
269:
266:belong here?
263:
222:
181:
173:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
337:convergence
206:Simiiformes
485:Categories
384:Eosimiidae
353:orangutans
344:Bugtilemur
299:Bugtilemur
283:Bugtilemur
264:Bugtilemur
262:Does the
470:UtherSRG
450:unsigned
388:Rhillman
372:Rhillman
357:JoergenB
323:and the
210:Ardric47
194:UtherSRG
177:UtherSRG
112:Primates
103:Primates
59:Primates
428:Jmv2009
349:gibbons
184:Archola
139:on the
30:C-class
473:(talk)
408:AnyGuy
313:molars
288:lemurs
240:lower.
226:Zaslav
197:(talk)
168:Mishac
36:scale.
329:lower
458:talk
432:talk
412:talk
392:talk
376:talk
361:talk
305:and
252:talk
248:Stfg
230:talk
131:High
351:or
333:not
487::
460:)
434:)
414:)
394:)
363:)
355:.
254:)
232:)
208:.
456:(
430:(
410:(
390:(
374:(
359:(
250:(
228:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
