Does anyone else get annoyed when people refer to apes as monkeys or peahens as female peacocks?
But no one call snakes lizards, at least not the public.Do the people here getting annoyed at apes being called monkeys also get annoyed at people calling snakes lizards
Lucas Lang
Well-Known Member
Yes! But there is a word 鼍(tuó) we not often use for the alligator's.
Some names for male mammals are also used for the species, such as tiger for Panthera tigris and lion for Panthera leo.
Some lizards like lacertids and skinks in both Chinese and Japanese contain the word for “snake” in their common names. Also in Japanese, the word for sturgeon contains the word for “shark.”
I think this is bringing up a good point though in regards to language and animal names. Especially on an international forum, but also in our own communities when there are people of different ethnic backgrounds, calling an animal the "wrong" name, may not actually be wrong, but in fact just a cultural difference. For those of us who are interested in wildlife education in particular, this is something to be cognizant of (that I wasn't until this thread brought it to my attention), as many zoos serve a diverse community where you may find individuals from different cultural and linguistic backgrounds.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Hi Neil,
How can anyone prove this is 100% true.
I'm not picking arguments or being controversial, just interested why this is the 'go to' thought because it is pushed on us, when so much information is missing.
If off topic, apologies.
Based on the current scientific evidence, it is 100% true that we evolved from a species of monkey. Of course, all science has the potential to change as new evidence arises, but there is substantial evidence to support the Theory of Evolution, and specifically the Origin of Humans, including phylogenetic/DNA evidence, morphological evidence, experiments on evolution in model organisms with shorter generation spans, paleontological evidence/the fossil record, etc. Generally in the sciences we never say a theory is "proven", they are always either supported or unsupported, as it is important to acknowledge that as we learn more about the world, it's possible that new evidence points us in a new direction, but based on the current evidence, human evolution is a well-supported theory with a substantial amount of evidence, from a variety of difference sub-fields of biology.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
Hi
With all due respect (really keeping it friendly) you are just repeating what other people have said 1000's of times. If you believe this is he case then fair play, that's your version of events too.
As an Ecologist (to only degree level but kept a strong interest for 25 years), also an 'outdoors person' (the best education you can get I think on the subject) for 40 years, I am sure there is more to it than we evolved from 'monkeys'
Why just humans, why are we so totally different in what we do to any Great Ape or Monkey. Why do you think we are so different, what triggered the massive difference, it is indeed super massive. Chimp DNA (which I don't like as comparisons) maybe 95-99% equal, but we are less than 50% similar.
If you don't believe in the commonly accepted views on the Origin of Humans, then what alternate explanation can you propose? I'm not judging, just interested in hearing your thought process.
As for what triggered that "massive difference", millions of years of differing selection pressures is what triggered that difference (which I'd argue isn't nearly as massive as you're claiming it is).
There were other species that developed, neanderthal being the most well-known, but they all became extinct for various reasons. Humans weren't an extreme one-off, we're just the ones that survived for so long.
Dog is probably the most well-known of these.
Whereas goose refers to the female of the species and gander is the male. The strangest to me is cow as a singular for cattle. No non-gender specific singular exists for cattle.
I thought cattle was a gender neutral singular.
Pootle
Well-Known Member
I question the accepted views rather than disagree with them. For me there is not enough evidence, 'something' is missing from what happened to human evolution from other animals.
The whole evolution 'thing' from first backbone all the way to us being mammals is quite clear. As mammals we generally have two lips two lungs and one tongue!, that's clear. The way humans are so mammal like is very clear.
Mentally we are totally different, a difference I sometimes think is too far apart from chimps for example. I don't know what it is but I do think after years of thinking about it that there could be more to it than the scientific current accepted way.
I don't know what and not saying its religion, its alien intervention etc,
It just intrigues me. anyhow I've again diverted a thread of topic!
It's plural. You don't say "there's a cattle in the pasture." The default, at least in American English is to say "there's a cow in the pasture" unless maybe you knew it was a bull.
It's slightly more complicated than that, of course; there WAS a non-gender specific singular in English, but lexical shift over the past 200 years or so has restricted the meaning of the word in question to the point it is now a synonym of "bullock" and specifically means a castrated male. The word in question, "ox", can most readily be seen in its original form through the word "aurochs".
I'm all for resurrecting the term personally
I had no idea that ox used to be a non-gender specific singular for cattle, that is most interesting and makes sense considering aurochs!It's slightly more complicated than that, of course; there WAS a non-gender specific singular in English, but lexical shift over the past 200 years or so has restricted the meaning of the word in question to the point it is now a synonym of "bullock" and specifically means a castrated male. The word in question, "ox", can most readily be seen in its original form through the word "aurochs".
I'm all for resurrecting the term personally