Talk:Catarrhini

Infraorder or superfamily?

I don't know if i should call Catarrhini infraorder or superfamily, i found both in litrature. Who can help?

as far as I am aware, an infraorder/suborder is the same thing as a superfamily. I might be wrong.--Mishac 23:29, 20 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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 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. - UtherSRG 01:22, 21 Feb 2004 (UTC)

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"? Archola 13:43, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Some classification scheme give it a rank, but most do not. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

It is apparently a subdivision of the infraorder Simiiformes. Ardric47 01:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Highly technical

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 to rewrite this in ordinary language with adequate explanation. The same for the rest of the introduction. Thanks. Zaslav (talk) 14:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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 lower.

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 citations. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Does the Bugtilemur belong here?

I've tried to improve the section Catarrhini#Late Asian catarrhini. I separated the following sentence from the rest:

"Discovered in 2001, the early primate Bugtilemur led to the assumption that lemurs came from Asia, not Africa."

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 Bugtilemur, 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 Bugtipithecus and Dionysopithecus shuangouensis, and in particular by comparing the morphology of upper molars. The authors find them to to be more similar to each others than to the propliopithecidae, which in itself might suggest that the Bugtipithecus and the Dionysopithecus belong to a common Asian based primate group. However, they also note that instead studying the lower molars might lead to the opposite conclusion. Therefore, they do not present an hypothesis, but more raise a question as whether the "striking similarities" are phylogenetically relevant, or caused by functional convergence], ultimately due to dietary similarities.

My conclusion is that the Bugtilemur 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 gibbons or orangutans. JoergenB (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

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 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 practiceRhillman (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2017 (UTC) OK, moved the valid parts of the information into articles on Amphipithecidae (Bugtipithecus) and Eosimiidae (Phileosimias).Rhillman (talk) 17:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation?

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 curious to see if this discrepancy is indeed true and if there is any evidence for it. AnyGuy (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Catarrhine monkey

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. Jmv2009 (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Changing cover image

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 species and therefore should be featured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.121.192.199 (talk) 20:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

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. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. There is absolutely no reason why we wouldn't. Humans are old world monkeys. I think as long as we pick an image of humans that is appropriate and sensitive this would be a good idea. Dhantegge (talk) 00:42, 23 October 2024 (UTC)