337:
category names has been variable in this group. Authors almost invariably incorrectly deleted an 'r ' from
Strepsirrhini (i.e. Strepsirhini), yet retained it in the other two names created by E.Geoffroy (1812a) -- Platyrrhini and Catarrhini." The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not cover taxonomic ranks above the family-group, so one cannot say that this is "official", but what Paula Jenkins did was to point out the different treatment of Geoffroy's three names, and that the elimination of an 'r ' from just one of them is inconsistent and (etymologically) incorrect. I have not done any counts, but it is my impression that people have on the whole accepted her argument, and turned to using the correct Strepsirrhini. Including me (for example, in the Wilson & Reeder Mammal Species of the World)! -Colin Groves
546:
governed by consensus from the sources. If you can write a paper about misspellings in the biological sciences and mention this case in a reliable source, I'll gladly put it to use in the
Haplorhini article. For now, I don't think I have access to the Jenkins & Napier paper I cited in Strepsirrhini, so I'm not sure if they talked much about Haplorhini... otherwise I'd write something about it.
84:
74:
53:
22:
627:"general use" discussion above), "Anthropoidea" / "anthropoid" are used nearly universally by specialists. A search for "Anthropoidea" recovers 148 peer-reviewed journal articles on Web of Science; "Simiiformes" recovers only 6 papers, starting with Hoffstetter in 1974. Also, "anthropoid" nets 855 papers; "simiiform" nets 5.
545:
I completely agree—few seem to know much about Latin and/or Greek, myself included. That is why I usually find an expert, have them explain it, and then take up a stance that advocates correct spellings. However, doing that here on Wiki requires reliable sources, though the primary usage is always
394:
So while I agree with you that consistency is important, I submit that consistency in
Knowledge should never come at the expense of accuracy. In this case, the correct answer is clear - "haplorhine" is spelled with one "r". (My only question now if how to correct the spelling the title of this entry
314:
But of course, don't take my word for it just because I am an expert on this topic -- if you search Google
Scholar for "haplorhini" (correct spelling), you get 17,900 hits. If you search "haplorrhini (incorrect spelling), you get 217. (In Web of Science, you only get 3 peer-reviewed journal articles
626:
This is an easy issue to resolve. First, "simian" is an informal term used to refer to non-human anthropoids. The clade "Anthropoidea" was named by Mivart in 1864. "Simiiformes" was named 2 years later (1866) by
Haeckel to describe the same group (i.e., monkeys, apes, humans). More importantly (see
378:
11. An author will be required (without a ruling by the
Commission) not to displace a name which has been used as valid by at least 10 authors in 25 publications during the past 50 years, and encompassing a span of not less than ten years, by an earlier synonym or homonym which has not been used as
336:
Jenkins, P.D. 1987. Catalogue of
Primates in the British Museum (Natural History) and elsewhere in the British Isles. Part IV: Suborder Strepsirrhini, including the subfossil Madagascan lemurs and Family Tarsiidae. London: British Museum (Natural History). She stated on p.1, "The spelling of higher
971:
The last sentence of the introduction suggests (without citation) that haplorhini birth size and length of childhood dependence are based on "increased complexity of their behavior and natural history", which I feel needs clarification. What does "complexity of their natural history" mean? Or does
310:
I changed the entry from two "r"s to one "r" because the clade (correct spelling "Haplorhini" - one "r") was mis-spelled throughout the entry. ( I am tired of my undergrad students mis-spelling the name
Haplorhini because Knowledge has an error, so I decided to correct it myself.) This spelling is
592:
Taxonomy is usually controversial, particularly primate taxonomy... unless, of course, you have your head stuck in the sand, which is one of the big reasons for all the controversy. Anyway, I've written to Colin Groves again to get his opinion on the matter. Some people use the term anthropoid,
382:
12. In most cases an author will be required to maintain the particular spelling in prevailing usage for a name, even if it is found not to be the original spelling; for example, the spellings of family-group names currently in use are to be maintained even if formed from grammatically incorrect
364:
The major goal of any scheme of taxonomy is the ability for specialists to know what species are being referred to, and to meet this goal stability is key. Here's a quote from the INTERNATIONAL CODE OF ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE: "biological nomenclature has to be an exact tool that will convey a
281:
Someone just went through the article and changed "haplorrhine" back to "haplorhine." Despite the mixed use in the literature, we need to stick to the latter per the reasons above. If someone has time to revert it back, please do. Otherwise, I will try to take care of it after work tonight.
638:
In this case, I submit that, for all of the reasons discussed here as well as the thread above regarding the correct spelling of "haplorhine", Knowledge and its users would be best served by using the correct taxonomy that is in near universal use among experts - the clade
Haplorhini has two
634:
but then again Groves has never been afraid to buck the prevailing taxonomic trends. In this case, the effect has laid bare the difference between authoritative peer-reviewed sources used by experts (e.g., in the biological anthropology and mammalogy primary literature - nearly everyone uses
390:
This issue also inspired me to pull out my copy of Pocock 1918, and contrary to the claim of "Jack" above (2009), the original spelling of
Haplorhini was with a single "r". So in the case of Haplorhini, the correct spelling is clear-cut. One "r" has priority, AND it is in general use.
742:
I agree - the old language was problematic because all clades are defined by shared derived features (including Strepsirrhini). I changed the entry to read "Haplorhines share a number of derived features that distinguish them from the strepsirrhine "wet-nosed" primates..."
386:
14. If it is found that a name currently in general use for a family-group taxon is later than the name currently in use for one of its subordinate family-group taxa, the name used for the higher rank taxon is not to be displaced by the name of the subordinate taxon."
635:"anthropoid") and non peer-reviewed online sources (e.g., Knowledge and Animal Diversity Web, which have followed the online Mammal Species of the World page - probably because it is easier to access without library privileges at a research university).
449:, somebody goofed and didn't see the connection with the other terms (how is that possible, one wonders). But that doesn't mean that it's too late to fix the goof. Suppose some scientist is coining a term for a new species of monkey and wants to use the
764:
Darwinius is listed as 47 million years old and being characterized as a Strepsirrhine Adapiform. Haplorrhini is considered to have branched from Strepsirrhini around 63 million years ago. So how could Darwinius possibly be the oldest true
812:
I deleted the reference to Darwinius here because the claim that it is an early haplorhine has been thoroughly debunked. It therefore was not relevant to the entry on Haplorhini (note that Darwinius has its own entry in Knowledge). See:
576:
Note that the correct names of the two clades that constitute Haplorhini are (1) Tarsiiformes and (2) Anthropoidea. As with the correct spelling of haplorhini, these are non-controversial issues among mammalian taxonomists.
330:
Taxonomy, particularly at the higher levels, is more of a matter of opinion. I will admit that you're right about the frequency of use, and therefore won't revert. I asked Colin Groves about this over email, and here is is
162:
I'm confused: the article is called 'Haplorrhini' (two 'R's) and yet the text uses the words Haplorhini and haplorhines (one 'R') throughout.. the opening line even specifies a single R. Any experts know the correst usage?
800:
That's as maybe, but the very title of the article is highly misleading to anyone who doesn't know taxonomy very well, and almost nobody does! I'd say that link is due for removal or flagging as a highly unreliable
413:. I agree that sometimes Knowledge follows MSW3 too slavishly. We should follow the preponderance of sources, and as you say it is clear that "Haplorhini" is used overwhelmingly in the peer-reviewed literature.
951:
I am layman reading this, so maybe this is a dumb question, but how is it possible that the suggested beginning of this suborder (70 mya) is before the beginning of the above order of primates at 55 mya?
315:
for the incorrect spelling). This spelling is not an even remotely controversial issue among students of mammalian taxonomy. The current title of the section (which still has 2 "r"s) is not correct.
531:
Thanks for your reply. It seems to me that a huge problem in the scientific community is that, while the scientific nomenclature is all in Greek and Latin, no one knows any Greek or Latin any more.
727:"Haplorrhines are considered to be less primitive than the strepsirrhine" – is there a citation for this? "Less primitive" without context sounds decidedly un-evolutionary and hence unscientific.--
630:
Therefore: "Anthropoidea" has priority over "Simiiformes", AND it is in far greater general use. It's not clear to me why Groves has endorsed "Simiiformes" in Mammal Species of the World online:
664:
As a non-expert can I point out that the way the information on taxonomy is arranged it makes no sense, presenting simiiformes as a sub-section of PRIMATES. It needs cleaning up by an expert.
425:
With all due respect, you guys may be scientists, but I am a professional linguist, and I happen to know about Greek word-formation rules. When the second element of a compound begins with
780:
The claim was highly publicized but scientifically criticized. I have added information to clarify. Thanks for catching that. I apologize, but this article is in terrible shape. –
515:, and after one person tried to correct it, the academic community largely ignored it... so we're kind of stuck. You're welcome to take this up with the academics all you want.
861:
416:
I will move the article by using the "Move" button (next to "Edit" and the others). It may not yet appear to you because very new accounts are not allowed to move pages.
247:
discussing the difference in spelling. The original taxonomy was Haplorrhini (Pocock, 1918) which was subsequently corrected (to improve the Greek) to Haplorhini by Maw
593:
others use the word simian. There may be differences in frequencies of use, but just because you favor one over the other, that does not mean the usage is universal.
822:
Williams, Kay, Kirk. 2010. New perspectives on anthropoid origins. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 107: 4797-4804.
893:
889:
875:
972:
complexity refer just to their behavior? In which case there is no relevant information given about their "natural history", whatever that is supposed to mean.
445:
have the double 'r'. It is not because the scientists who coined those terms were having fun with those words. So, evidently, when it came time to coin
259:(2007). As MSW3 used Haplorrhini we should probably stick with two r's for the moment unless someone has a better source (or can verify Klein (1999)).
232:
140:
372:
You're correct that the ICZN only officially covers taxa up to superfamily, but the principles for deferring to "general use" are clear nonetheless:
1000:
819:
Williams, Kay, Kirk, Ross. 2010. Darwinius masillae is a strepsirrhine – a reply to Franzen et al. (2009). Journal of Human Evolution. 59: 567-573.
130:
216:
1005:
862:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051017104817/http://portals.conservation.org/downloads/storedfile/Document/0x8f66917c80b3f44f979766ceaf90fb62.pdf
816:
Seiffert, Perry, Simons, Boyer. 2009. Convergent evolution of anthropoid-like adaptations in Eocene adapiform primates. Nature 461,1118–1121.
255:(1994) and Rosenberger (2006); other authors recognise the original form including McKenna and Bell (1997), Poux and Douzery (2004) and Bloch
766:
179:
728:
686:
it's quite correct that infraorder Simiiformes are a subsection (subgroup) of order Primates. So why do you say that it makes no sense?
106:
865:
499:
Unfortunately, the governing body that rules over taxonomy doesn't deal with suborders, infraorders, etc. Yes, I would rather see two
311:
not only standard usage in the scientific literature, it is the rule according to the accepted principles of zoological nomenclature.
995:
871:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
654:
I agree that Knowledge should use Anthropoidea, since it is in more common use (although I'd personally prefer Simiiformes).
97:
58:
936:
33:
178:
I think two r's is correct per the Wikispecies link, the interlanguage links, and other indicators. An anonymous user,
212:
827:
750:
644:
582:
400:
320:
892:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
631:
770:
732:
927:
853:
691:
395:
and eliminate the "redirect" from "Haplorhini" - perhaps you more experienced Wikipedians can help me out.)
182:
decided to change names with two r's to have one r's in a few articles on primates, for no apparent reason.
977:
823:
746:
640:
578:
396:
316:
788:
612:
601:
350:
290:
208:
911:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
899:
39:
852:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
507:
article. Of course I managed to piss off several leading scientists in doing so, since they favor one
240:
204:
866:
http://portals.conservation.org/downloads/storedfile/Document/0x8f66917c80b3f44f979766ceaf90fb62.pdf
21:
712:
669:
264:
200:
One 'r' is correct - see Klein (1999) "The Human Career", a standard textbook on human evolution.
105:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
957:
702:
687:
536:
482:
188:
896:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
912:
782:
606:
344:
284:
236:
168:
973:
655:
417:
919:
89:
878:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
708:
681:
665:
597:
260:
918:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
989:
953:
532:
504:
478:
375:"Measures empowering authors to act in the interests of preserving established usage
184:
511:... but you can't please everyone. Unfortunately, Haplorhini was defined with one
164:
433:
is automatically doubled in composition. It is not an option at all. That is why
885:
411:
366:
244:
83:
884:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
845:
79:
632:
http://www.vertebrates.si.edu/msw/mswcfapp/msw/taxon_browser.cfm?msw_id=1335
550:
519:
73:
52:
967:
Clarification on last sentence of introduction: birth size and dependence
102:
410:
Pocock (1918) does indeed use Haplorhini; see the online version at
981:
961:
941:
831:
795:
774:
754:
736:
716:
695:
673:
658:
648:
619:
586:
557:
540:
526:
486:
420:
404:
357:
324:
297:
268:
220:
193:
172:
15:
856:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
849:
596:
P.S. - Welcome to Knowledge. I'm glad that you are
342:
The important part here is that we're consistent. –
101:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
888:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
639:constituent clades: Anthropoidea and Tarsiiformes
365:precise meaning for persons in all generations" (
469:spelling of that new species must forever have
465:. After that, you're going to tell me that the
874:This message was posted before February 2018.
8:
367:http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/
844:I have just modified one external link on
47:
760:Second Paragraph claims about Darwinius
600:in your edits. I do suggest reviewing
49:
19:
503:s. In fact, I addressed this in the
7:
251:(1979); this was then used by Beard
95:This article is within the scope of
38:It is of interest to the following
14:
848:. Please take a moment to review
473:rather than the actually correct
82:
72:
51:
20:
1001:Top-importance Primate articles
135:This article has been rated as
115:Knowledge:WikiProject Primates
1:
1006:WikiProject Primates articles
982:12:50, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
796:21:11, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
775:08:54, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
173:12:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
118:Template:WikiProject Primates
109:and see a list of open tasks.
942:22:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
461:) but misspells it, e.g. as
737:11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
1022:
947:how many million year ago?
905:(last update: 5 June 2024)
841:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
717:09:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
141:project's importance scale
696:20:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
674:08:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
269:15:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
221:10:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
194:12:57, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
134:
67:
46:
996:C-Class Primate articles
962:14:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
832:19:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
755:19:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
659:18:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
649:17:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
620:13:16, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
587:19:34, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
558:21:05, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
541:17:15, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
527:21:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
487:21:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
421:17:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
405:16:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
358:13:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
325:18:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
306:On the correct spelling:
298:14:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
837:External links modified
231:There are links at the
808:Darwinius not relevant
602:Knowledge:Five pillars
572:Other taxonomic issues
339:
28:This article is rated
334:
233:Paleobiology Database
886:regular verification
241:Taxacom mailing list
98:WikiProject Primates
876:After February 2018
930:InternetArchiveBot
881:InternetArchiveBot
379:valid since 1899.
277:Spelling revisited
34:content assessment
906:
224:
209:Chris London 1955
207:comment added by
155:
154:
151:
150:
147:
146:
1013:
940:
931:
904:
903:
882:
824:PorfirioPhoonman
791:
785:
747:PorfirioPhoonman
723:"Less primitive"
706:
685:
641:PorfirioPhoonman
615:
609:
579:PorfirioPhoonman
556:
553:
525:
522:
455:Australopithecus
397:PorfirioPhoonman
353:
347:
317:PorfirioPhoonman
293:
287:
223:
201:
191:
123:
122:
121:Primate articles
119:
116:
113:
92:
87:
86:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
1021:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1012:
1011:
1010:
986:
985:
969:
949:
934:
929:
897:
890:have permission
880:
854:this simple FaQ
839:
810:
789:
783:
762:
725:
700:
679:
613:
607:
574:
551:
547:
520:
516:
351:
345:
308:
291:
285:
279:
202:
189:
160:
120:
117:
114:
111:
110:
90:Primates portal
88:
81:
61:
32:on Knowledge's
29:
12:
11:
5:
1019:
1017:
1009:
1008:
1003:
998:
988:
987:
968:
965:
948:
945:
924:
923:
916:
869:
868:
860:Added archive
838:
835:
809:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
767:96.240.136.173
761:
758:
741:
724:
721:
720:
719:
698:
662:
661:
625:
623:
622:
594:
573:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
492:
491:
490:
489:
453:suffix (as in
414:
363:
361:
360:
340:
332:
307:
304:
302:
278:
275:
274:
273:
272:
271:
226:
225:
197:
196:
180:70.171.203.154
159:
156:
153:
152:
149:
148:
145:
144:
137:Top-importance
133:
127:
126:
124:
107:the discussion
94:
93:
77:
65:
64:
62:Top‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1018:
1007:
1004:
1002:
999:
997:
994:
993:
991:
984:
983:
979:
975:
966:
964:
963:
959:
955:
946:
944:
943:
938:
933:
932:
921:
917:
914:
910:
909:
908:
901:
895:
891:
887:
883:
877:
872:
867:
863:
859:
858:
857:
855:
851:
847:
842:
836:
834:
833:
829:
825:
820:
817:
814:
807:
799:
798:
797:
794:
792:
786:
779:
778:
777:
776:
772:
768:
759:
757:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
734:
730:
729:77.188.16.131
722:
718:
714:
710:
704:
703:Peter coxhead
699:
697:
693:
689:
688:Peter coxhead
683:
678:
677:
676:
675:
671:
667:
660:
657:
653:
652:
651:
650:
646:
642:
636:
633:
628:
621:
618:
616:
610:
603:
599:
595:
591:
590:
589:
588:
584:
580:
571:
559:
555:
554:
544:
543:
542:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
524:
523:
514:
510:
506:
505:Strepsirrhini
502:
498:
497:
496:
495:
494:
493:
488:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
464:
460:
459:Cercopithecus
456:
452:
448:
444:
443:strepsirrhini
440:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
419:
415:
412:
409:
408:
407:
406:
402:
398:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
373:
370:
368:
359:
356:
354:
348:
341:
338:
333:
329:
328:
327:
326:
322:
318:
312:
305:
303:
300:
299:
296:
294:
288:
276:
270:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
246:
242:
238:
234:
230:
229:
228:
227:
222:
218:
214:
210:
206:
199:
198:
195:
192:
187:
186:
181:
177:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
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:
970:
950:
928:
925:
900:source check
879:
873:
870:
843:
840:
821:
818:
815:
811:
784:VisionHolder
781:
765:Haplorrhini?
763:
745:
740:
726:
663:
637:
629:
624:
608:VisionHolder
605:
575:
548:
517:
512:
508:
500:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
442:
438:
434:
430:
426:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
371:
362:
346:VisionHolder
343:
335:
313:
309:
301:
286:VisionHolder
283:
280:
256:
252:
248:
183:
161:
136:
96:
40:WikiProjects
974:Andraste733
447:haplorrhini
439:platyrrhini
203:—Preceding
990:Categories
937:Report bug
846:Haplorhini
598:being bold
435:catarrhini
920:this tool
913:this tool
709:Mens Sana
682:Mens Sana
666:Mens Sana
475:-pithecus
471:-pythikus
463:-pythikus
451:-pithecus
243:and more
954:Dg21dg21
926:Cheers.—
533:Pasquale
479:Pasquale
217:contribs
205:unsigned
158:Spelling
112:Primates
103:Primates
59:Primates
850:my edit
801:source.
467:correct
383:stems.
245:Taxacom
165:Kaid100
139:on the
30:C-class
656:Ucucha
441:, and
429:, the
418:Ucucha
331:reply:
257:et al.
253:et al.
249:et al.
239:, the
185:Graham
36:scale.
790:talk
614:talk
352:talk
292:talk
978:talk
958:talk
828:talk
771:talk
751:talk
733:talk
713:talk
692:talk
670:talk
645:talk
604:. –
583:talk
552:Maky
537:talk
521:Maky
483:talk
401:talk
321:talk
265:talk
261:Jack
237:MSW3
213:talk
169:talk
894:RfC
864:to
707:OK
427:rh-
131:Top
992::
980:)
960:)
907:.
902:}}
898:{{
830:)
773:)
753:)
735:)
715:)
694:)
672:)
647:)
585:)
549:–
539:)
518:–
501:r'
485:)
477:?
457:,
437:,
403:)
369:)
323:)
282:–
267:)
235:,
219:)
215:•
190:87
171:)
976:(
956:(
939:)
935:(
922:.
915:.
826:(
793:»
787:«
769:(
749:(
731:(
711:(
705::
701:@
690:(
684::
680:@
668:(
643:(
617:»
611:«
581:(
535:(
513:r
509:r
481:(
431:r
399:(
355:»
349:«
319:(
295:»
289:«
263:(
211:(
167:(
143:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
