Yay monkeys. Hugely popular with furries and eh...hmm...
Well anyways, I was going through the species wikis and I happened to notice that the primate wikis and implications in particular are somewhat of a mess. I don't really blame anyone for this as thier taxonomy is extremely confusing even for taxonomists.
Here's a TLDR of how they are usually laid out taxonomically:
- mammal
- Primate
- Lesser apes
- gibbon (none tagged)
- Greater apes
- chimpanzee
- bonobo
- gorilla
- human
- orangutan
- Old-world monkey
- baboon
- macaque (none tagged)
- New-world monkeys
- howler monkey
- marmoset
- spider monkey
- squirrel monkey
- tamarin
- Tarsiers
- Lemurs
Which almost looks good by itself. However, I doubt there is much value in splitting monkey and ape into two categories each, particularly when most people can't tell the difference anyways and would just as easily tag them all as a generic monkey/primate, unless they happened to know a more specific species (e.g., baboon).
Here are my thoughts on how this might be simplified for tagging purposes:
- mammal
- primate
- ape (greater and lesser apes, though there aren't any gibbons tagged anyways)
- chimpanzee (currently implies monkey)
- gibbon (none tagged)
- gorilla†
- human (no implication on this)
- orangutan†
- lemur
- monkey (both old world and new world)
- baboon†
- howler_monkey (low post count)
- macaque (none tagged)
- mandrill†
- marmoset (low post count)
- squirrel_monkey (low post count)
- spider_monkey†
- tamarin (low post count)
- tarsier†
- Fix: chimpanzee -/> monkey (should imply ape)
†Needs implication
Another alternative might be to alias ape and/or monkey directly to primate and just use primate as the catch-all monkey/ape/etc. grouping. I think this would work better for ape than monkey, but both options may be worth considering.
Thoughts?
Updated
