Behavioral Primatology

Advances in Research and Theory, Volume 1

A. M. Schrier

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Edition: 1
• Year: 2013
• Topic: Psychology
• Print ISBN:
  9780898591392
  9781138406742
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9781317757726
• Index: Psychology

First published in 1977. The volume of research on nonhuman primates has expanded tremendously during the past 20 years and researchers' familiarity with them has increased correspondingly. This series of volumes deals with scientific studies of the behavior of nonhuman primates-apes, monkeys, and prosimians. The behavior of these animals is, of course, of interest in its own right. But, then, so is that of the many other orders of animals. Behavior of nonhuman primates is of special interest because these animals are more closely related to human beings structurally, physiologically, and, beyond doubt, behaviorally, than are any other living animals.

1

Use of Common and Scientific Nomenclature to Designate Laboratory Primates¹

Maryeva W. Terry

Regional Primate Research Center at the University of Washington

I. Introduction

The only satisfactory means of identifying a monkey or ape used in experiments is by its taxonomic species name, i.e., its scientific, Latin, or Linnaean binomen. In some instances, the common name has seemed more stable, leading laboratory workers to disregard the taxonomic designations. But such stability is often illusory: because common names pass mostly by word-of-mouth, their meanings and synonymy are rarely defined precisely, and new meanings easily become attached through simple misunderstandings. In contrast, scientific names change only according to established rules, and their relationships to previous names must be recorded.

Above all, the description of experimental animals only as “monkeys,” with no indication of genus or species, is indefensible. The use of such a general term can be justified with dogs, cats, or guinea pigs, but the correct identification of a monkey can be very important. For example, malaria research was retarded at a critical time during World War II by the mistaken designation of the monkey in which Plasmodium knowlesi, similar to the human parasite P. malariae, was first observed. The increasing use of automated citation retrieval systems that can be addressed by species of animal as well as by research topics makes precise identification more and more important, since articles in which the kind of primate is not clearly identified are likely to become lost in the literature.

There are basic anatomical and physiological differences between primate genera; e.g., the convolution of the cerebral cortex is greater in Macaca than in Saimiri. There are also some sharp species differences within genera; e.g., Macaca fascicularis is relatively more susceptible than are other macaques to poliomyelitis, a fact of practical significance in the testing of vaccines. Since generic and specific differences may affect other functions in ways not now appreciated, the future value of current research can depend upon accurate identification of species even if species is not presently known to be a significant factor. The same argument can be, and has been, extended to include identification of subspecies as well. This step is clearly desirable, but it is questionable whether the information available on the average wild-caught laboratory monkey is sufficient for this purpose. Certainly, institutions planning to undertake breeding should attempt to identify subspecies and to avoid inadvertent interbreeding of them.

II. General and Common Names

Most common names for the larger taxonomic groups have been drawn from the general English vocabulary. Consequently, the connotations and denotations of such words as “monkey” and “ape” are confused by the inexactitudes of common understanding, inconsistencies in British and American usage, and conflicts between a constantly changing living language and arbitrarily defined scientific vocabularies. Even further complications have been introduced by translations from other languages.

A. “Primates”

Many problems of primate nomenclature are epitomized in those surrounding the word describing the Order. “Primates,” derived from the Latin word for “first,” was used by Linnaeus as the name of the zoological Order, in which he included man as well as monkeys. The English-speaking people, with their great talent for naturalizing words, derived from Latin the noun “primate,” to designate an animal of this group on the one hand and a high official of the Anglican church on the other. Because “primate” is an English word, its plural is formed by the addition of s. Thus, except for the obligatory capital P on the zoological term, the formal name of the Order and the common designation for several individuals of the group are spelled the same, although they are pronounced differently. In the taxonomic term all three vowels are pronounced, prĭ-mat-ēz, but in the English plural only the first two are pronounced, prĭ-māts. “Primate” is also an acceptable adjective, and this form is preferable to “pri- matal” or “primatial” in biological writing.

Often it is convenient to divide Primates into three major groups: modern and fossil man, monkeys and apes, and lemurs and other lower forms. Since, unlike “Affe,” its German cousin, the English word “ape” has taken on a restricted meaning, the language is left without a group name for monkeys and apes. Some fill this gap with “monkeys,” but use of the same word for both a group and a part of it can lead to ambiguities. Combining “infrahuman,” “subhuman,” or “nonhuman”² with “primate” does not solve this problem since these terms literally and usefully include the lower forms as well. “Simian primates,” however, seems to be both sufficiently general and sufficiently specific.

The use of “primate” alone in the sense of “nonhuman primates” is sometimes the only alternative to unbearably cumbersome locution. To speak of “Regional Nonhuman Primate Research Centers” would be horrendous. In the same way, “laboratory primate” is acceptable, even though the usage ignores studies of human subjects. Phrases such as “human and primate,” however, do violence to both science and language and should not be tolerated.

B. “Simian”

Linnaeus used “Simia,” a Latin word meaning monkey or ape, as the generic name for most monkeys and apes. As man’s knowledge of the animals increased, some of the diverse groups within this omnibus category were removed to new genera, but “Simia” was still applied to animals in several different groups. The continual confusion and controversy arising from this situation led the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to suppress “Simia” by fiat in 1929.

Even though taxonomists no longer use “Simia,” its English derivative, “simian,” remains potentially useful as both a noun and an adjective. The only primates that it does not denote are man on the one hand and the prosimians (tarsiers, lemurs, lorises, galagos, and tree shrews—if they are primates) on the other.

C. “Ape”

This word has a long and confused history. Evolved from Old Teutonic,³ “ape” was originally a word for simian primates, and its cognates in the Continental languages retain this general meaning. As the word “monkey” was assimilated into English, the meaning of “ape” was gradually restricted to manlike simians. At first, taillessness was the accepted criterion for classification as manlike. Pennant (1771) defined the ape as a monkey without a tail. Tyson (1699) presented the following division: apes, no tails; baboons, short tails; monkeys, long tails. This stage survives in the name “Barbary ape,” a virtually tailless macaque. Today, the anthropocentric significance of lack of a tail has been lost, and increased knowledge of the truly manlike creatures has given “ape” the general connotation of largeness and semi-erectness. The word “ape” is now rarely used for monkeys except by dealers, who like to sell monkeys with small tails as “apes.”

D. “Anthropoid”

This word entered English primate terminology through a case of mistaken identity. The obvious relationship between “Affe” and “ape” led to the translation of “anthropoid Affe” as “anthropoid ape,” even though apes are anthropoid by definition; the use of “anthropoide singe” in French undoubtedly supported this tendency. Perhaps the tautology is justified so long as “ape” is sometimes abused. “Anthropoid” is an acceptable English noun, as well as an adjective, and can be used as a synonym for “ape.”

E. “Orang”

Today, the originally Malayan words “orang” and “orangutan” designate only animals belonging to the genus Pongo, but historically “orang” was a general term for anthropoids. The confusion arose because so little was known of these animals that chimpanzees and orangutans were presumed to be members of the same genus. The chimpanzee was thus called the “black orang.” This situation persisted into the nineteenth century, and it is not always possible to determine just what animal is discussed in early writings. There is even a suspicion that some humans with developmental or endocrine disorders were mistaken for orangs.

F. “Chimpanzee”

This word is derived from a native African name for members of the genus Pan. The name has been abused by some dealers who have used the superficial similarity in the arrangement of the head hair on some true chimpanzees and the young stump-tailed macaque (Macaca arctoides) as an excuse to call the latter a “miniature chimpanzee.” This misleading designation should not be confused with “pygmy chimpanzee,” a common name for the rare Pan paniscus. (Efforts to sell monkeys as “apes” or “chimpanzees” were most common in the pet trade. Perhaps a side benefit of the recent ban on the sale of monkeys as pets will be purification of our terminology.)

Some authors reporting laboratory studies have the habit of treating “chimpanzee” as if it referred only to Pan troglodytes, the usual subject of research with apes. Since P. paniscus does exist in captivity and may be more manlike than P. troglodytes, the few extra letters needed for taxonomic identification are necessary insurance of intelligibility to future scientists.

G. “Monkey”

The origin of this word is unknown. It is probably a combination of the diminutive “kin” with either “mona” (a Romance word for monkey) or, as some believe, “man.” The English imported this word from the Continent during the sixteenth century. As mentioned above, “monkey” has been used to designate those animals classified between man and prosimians and, simultaneously, those classified between apes and prosimians. In general usage, at least in the United States, the second and more restricted definition is the more common and would seem to preserve a valuable distinction.

In recent years, translators of Russian have unintentionally produced a new source of confusion by using “lower monkeys” in contexts in which “monkeys” would be sufficient. This tautology comes about because the Russians resolve the problem of distinguishing between apes and monkeys by using the adjectives for “higher” and “lower” with the noun “obez’yana,” which is usually defined as “monkey” in Russian-English dictionaries.

H. “Platyrrhine,” “Catarrhine,” “New World,” and “Old World”

The higher primates are sometimes divided into two groups, the Platyrrhini (broad-nosed) and the Catarrhini (narrow-nosed).⁴ These taxonomic terms have given origin to the English adjectives “platyrrhine” and “catarrhine.” “Platyrrhine primates” and “New World monkeys” may be used interchangeably in referring to all living families in Central and South America. “Catarrhine,” however, encompasses man and the African and Asian apes and monkeys. Thus, “catarrhine primates” refers to these three groups, and “catarrhine monkeys” and “Old World monkeys” are synonyms of “Cercopithecidae,” the family to which all African and Asian monkeys belong. “Old World primates” has a broader meaning than “catarrhine primates” because all living prosimians occur in the Old World. It is, of course, proper to use the singular forms “catarrhine primate” and “Old World pr...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Table of Contents
• Preface
• 1. Use of Common and Scientific Nomenclature to Designate Laboratory Primates
• 2. Information Processing and Discrimination Learning Set
• 3. Interactions Between Sensory Modalities in Nonhuman Primates
• 4. Language Behavior of Apes
• 5. Sociosexual Behaviors of Nonhuman Primates During Development and Maturity: Social and Hormonal Relationships
• Author Index
• Subject Index