Author Topic: Episode #682  (Read 745 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline brilligtove

  • Stopped Going Outside
  • *******
  • Posts: 5583
  • Ignorance can be cured. Stupidity, you deal with.
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2018, 08:27:34 PM »
Cara is normally pretty good with etymology, but this time I don't think she went far enough. Scutoid derives from scutum, the Latin word for "shield". I believe the shield-shaped part of the bug carapace is also named for the same source, as are other animal parts that are vaguely shield-shaped.

Turns out, nope.



Toward the end of the interview with one of the people who defined the object (about 13 mins in), she explains how the name was based on the name of the lead researcher.
evidence trumps experience | performance over perfection | responsibility – authority = scapegoat | emotions motivate; data doesn't

Offline The Latinist

  • Cyber Greasemonkey
  • Technical Administrator
  • Too Much Spare Time
  • *****
  • Posts: 6156
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2018, 08:45:19 PM »
It was a very quick comment during science or fiction but I would have to disagree with Cara.  Apes appear to be monkeys.

No, apes are not classified as monkeys. Apes are the members of the clade hominoidea, except that in the popular, non-scientific context the term ape usually excludes members of the genus homo, and therefore is not monophyletic.  Monkeys are a paraphyletic group including members of the family Cercopithecidae (the old world monkeys) and the superfamily Ceboidea (the new world monkeys).  While all are primates and simians, not all are monkeys.

Generally one can distinguish monkeys from apes in that monkeys have tails while apes do not.

Paraphyletic and polyphyletic groups don't make since with cladistics. Apes are monkeys and so are we.

I’m all for a cladistic understanding of taxonomy, but I strongly disagree with redefining terms of paraphyletic and polyphyletic terms of common usage to conform to clades. My all means, we should rigorously define taxa to create meaningful clades; and we are doing that.  But what reason is there to equate non-scientific terms like monkey and ape which were never cladistic in nature with those clades?  Simiformes is a perfectly fine clade and can be used in the scientific literature without boorishly insisting that popular usage of the term “monkey” must change to match.
I would like to propose...that...it is undesirable to believe in a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true. — Bertrand Russell

Offline arthwollipot

  • Too Much Spare Time
  • ********
  • Posts: 7198
  • Observer of Phenomena
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #17 on: August 08, 2018, 10:35:14 PM »
Toward the end of the interview with one of the people who defined the object (about 13 mins in), she explains how the name was based on the name of the lead researcher.

Well there you go.
Self-described nerd

Online God Bomb

  • Keeps Priorities Straight
  • ***
  • Posts: 450
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #18 on: August 08, 2018, 11:37:55 PM »
guys i think we can all agree that apes and monkeys are basically the same thing
Fell deeds awake. Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn.

Online 2397

  • Well Established
  • *****
  • Posts: 1681
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #19 on: August 09, 2018, 12:31:42 PM »
"Nothing matters. We're essentially all highly evolved monkeys clinging to a rock that's falling through space. And the rock itself is dying." - Frankie Boyle

Offline PabloHoney

  • Off to a Start
  • *
  • Posts: 55
  • How many pits are in a pear?
Re: Episode #682
« Reply #20 on: August 09, 2018, 04:20:34 PM »
guys i think we can all agree that apes and monkeys are basically the same thing

They are both marsupials; members of the marsupial family.

 

personate-rain