This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is anyone aware of the relationship between continental drift and primate evolution?
Someone should add a section about how the new world monkeys managed to get there. Ashwinr 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at the continental drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana It is only about ~1800 miles/ 2800km from Brasil to West Africa now - the 4500km does not make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E+6_m <-- wikipedia has it at 2800km for narrowest point 4800km is the widest width from US to N. Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.28 ( talk) 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My anthropology TA - this is why I'm here - says it's thought that a chunk broke off and floated across the ocean. Still may sound improbable, but as Carl Sagan pointed out, what seems impossible in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million (or ten million or WHATEVER) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.93.33 ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doing some research on the very subject (how the heck there are monkeys in S. America and Africa). So far it looks unexplained, if S. America and Africa were apart before the existence of simians. I find it highly improbable that a chunk of Africa up and drifted over to S. America, no matter what you T.A. said. And even less believable that a 'raft of vegetation' from Africa floated over on ocean currents with monkeys on it. I think it discredits the page to have the 'raft theory' on there unsupported. So I think the most probable theory is that a main monkey ancestor existed at the time the continents separated, and evolved into slightly different species on each continent. I will continue this research. Hopefully someone out there has some supporting documentation that can shed some light on the issue. QatBurglar ( talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have begun reading the book "Evolution of the New World Monkey and Continental Drift" which offers some of the major theories on the evolutionary controversy. My question is whether or not this should be contained under a separate article with only a summary under the 'Origins' section of this one. QatBurglar ( talk) 03:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be right to say that the Platyrrhini (of course not the New World monkeys, but their common African ancestor) ist also the forefather of the Old World monkeys and thus the apes and the humans? It would be a logical assumption because doubtlessly they are the more animallike and therefore primitive monkeys.-- 80.141.186.5 ( talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article says there are five families of New World monkeys, but Atelidae refers to "the four families of New World monkeys". Which is it? 68.83.240.41 ( talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This surprised me when I saw this. It was my understanding from reading your article that only the family Atellidae had prehensile tails. But I found at least three photos of squirrel monkeys suspended in part by their tails. Here is one photo. http://www.mrfs.net/trips/2006/Ecuador/Yasuni_Wildlife/squirrel_monkey3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.220.192 ( talk) 23:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's good (recent) source for discussing the arrival and diversification of New World monkeys:
– Maky « talk » 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Can North America be included here, too? Perhaps, South and Central America and the tropical portions of Mexico? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The photo illustrating the difference between Old World and New World monkey faces - is it really correct that Old World monkey faces are represented by a non-monkey? Scatterkeir ( talk) 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
A: ...No. I've added a section below that makes your point clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.79.137 ( talk) 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The primate on the left appears to be a chimpanzee, which is an ape. Apes are not monkeys in any sense or meaning. The images should be updated to replace the chimpanzee with a baboon, which really IS an Old World monkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.79.137 ( talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Bumping this! 195.99.56.90 ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New World monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
New World monkey is an actual monkey while the Old World "MONKEY" is a Chimpanzee. This needs a major correction. I highly suggest using a baboon or a mandrill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.99.129.242 ( talk) 04:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is this article titled "New World monkey" and not "Platyrrhini", to be analogous with the " Catarrhini" article about Old World monkeys? Does this comply with WP:Article titles? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Since List of New World monkeys is now List of ceboids, I figured to update the taxobox here. Need the authority for Ceboidea, and is the type species for the superfamily the same as the parvorder or different? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems a good idea per common name and consistency with this page and with the page Old World monkeys (although the list of Old World monkeys is named List of cercopithecoids). I don't recall hearing or reading the words 'playtyrrhines' or 'cercopithecoids' before today, and those being the list name for New World monkeys and Old World monkeys has surprised me. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Is anyone aware of the relationship between continental drift and primate evolution?
Someone should add a section about how the new world monkeys managed to get there. Ashwinr 20:02, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I am looking at the continental drift http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gondwana It is only about ~1800 miles/ 2800km from Brasil to West Africa now - the 4500km does not make sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_E+6_m <-- wikipedia has it at 2800km for narrowest point 4800km is the widest width from US to N. Africa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.142.130.28 ( talk) 04:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
My anthropology TA - this is why I'm here - says it's thought that a chunk broke off and floated across the ocean. Still may sound improbable, but as Carl Sagan pointed out, what seems impossible in a hundred years may be inevitable in a hundred million (or ten million or WHATEVER) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.146.93.33 ( talk) 22:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
I am doing some research on the very subject (how the heck there are monkeys in S. America and Africa). So far it looks unexplained, if S. America and Africa were apart before the existence of simians. I find it highly improbable that a chunk of Africa up and drifted over to S. America, no matter what you T.A. said. And even less believable that a 'raft of vegetation' from Africa floated over on ocean currents with monkeys on it. I think it discredits the page to have the 'raft theory' on there unsupported. So I think the most probable theory is that a main monkey ancestor existed at the time the continents separated, and evolved into slightly different species on each continent. I will continue this research. Hopefully someone out there has some supporting documentation that can shed some light on the issue. QatBurglar ( talk) 06:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I have begun reading the book "Evolution of the New World Monkey and Continental Drift" which offers some of the major theories on the evolutionary controversy. My question is whether or not this should be contained under a separate article with only a summary under the 'Origins' section of this one. QatBurglar ( talk) 03:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
Would it be right to say that the Platyrrhini (of course not the New World monkeys, but their common African ancestor) ist also the forefather of the Old World monkeys and thus the apes and the humans? It would be a logical assumption because doubtlessly they are the more animallike and therefore primitive monkeys.-- 80.141.186.5 ( talk) 16:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The first sentence of the article says there are five families of New World monkeys, but Atelidae refers to "the four families of New World monkeys". Which is it? 68.83.240.41 ( talk) 01:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
This surprised me when I saw this. It was my understanding from reading your article that only the family Atellidae had prehensile tails. But I found at least three photos of squirrel monkeys suspended in part by their tails. Here is one photo. http://www.mrfs.net/trips/2006/Ecuador/Yasuni_Wildlife/squirrel_monkey3.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.161.220.192 ( talk) 23:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Here's good (recent) source for discussing the arrival and diversification of New World monkeys:
– Maky « talk » 17:26, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Can North America be included here, too? Perhaps, South and Central America and the tropical portions of Mexico? Fotoguzzi ( talk) 03:02, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
The photo illustrating the difference between Old World and New World monkey faces - is it really correct that Old World monkey faces are represented by a non-monkey? Scatterkeir ( talk) 21:01, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
A: ...No. I've added a section below that makes your point clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.79.137 ( talk) 20:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
The primate on the left appears to be a chimpanzee, which is an ape. Apes are not monkeys in any sense or meaning. The images should be updated to replace the chimpanzee with a baboon, which really IS an Old World monkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.161.79.137 ( talk) 20:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
Bumping this! 195.99.56.90 ( talk) 12:15, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on New World monkey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)
New World monkey is an actual monkey while the Old World "MONKEY" is a Chimpanzee. This needs a major correction. I highly suggest using a baboon or a mandrill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.99.129.242 ( talk) 04:35, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is this article titled "New World monkey" and not "Platyrrhini", to be analogous with the " Catarrhini" article about Old World monkeys? Does this comply with WP:Article titles? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:29, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Since List of New World monkeys is now List of ceboids, I figured to update the taxobox here. Need the authority for Ceboidea, and is the type species for the superfamily the same as the parvorder or different? - UtherSRG (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Seems a good idea per common name and consistency with this page and with the page Old World monkeys (although the list of Old World monkeys is named List of cercopithecoids). I don't recall hearing or reading the words 'playtyrrhines' or 'cercopithecoids' before today, and those being the list name for New World monkeys and Old World monkeys has surprised me. Randy Kryn ( talk) 23:54, 27 August 2023 (UTC)