Updates from December, 2011 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • The Diacritics

    The Diacritics 6:00 am on December 30, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: ape, cormac mccarthy, , evolutionary anthropology, , monkey,   

    Aping McCarthy 

    [This is a guest post from my friend and former research colleague Joel Bray, a junior at Duke studying evolutionary anthropology. He is recently back from projects and adventures in Uganda and Madagascar and writes about his experiences and all things primate here. -S.]

    I just finished Cormac McCarthy’s masterpiece, Blood Meridian, an epic tale about the depravity and brutality of the American Old West, revolving around a teenage boy who joins a band of Native American scalp hunters. An unpleasant read, to say the least.

    I was struck, however, as any good primatologist should be, by McCarthy’s obsession with the word “ape.” He uses it not once, not twice, but nine times throughout the story to describe the primitiveness and wretchedness of humanity. For example:

    • “Men whose speech sounds like the grunting of apes.”
    • “He turned to the men and smiled and they once again began to hoot and to pummel one another like apes.”
    • “They were half naked and they sucked their teeth and snuffled and stirred and picked at themselves like apes.”
    • “…where the company sat among the rocks without fire or bread or camaraderie any more than banded apes.”

    The frequent use of “ape” got me thinking about the word’s etymology and current popular usage. I did some browsing on the web, and it appears that the word can be traced to pre-12th century and has its roots in Middle English, from the Old English apa. Its origin is uncertain, possibly alluding to animal chatter, but it seems to have first referred to all primates and was a synonym for “monkey.” Since medieval times, it was believed that apes were prone to imitative human behavior, and the word was used to describe a “fool,” leading to the modern, secondary definitions of “ape” as a mimic, or large uncouth person. Recent cognitive studies suggest, however, that humans are in fact the expert imitators, which explains why you see children mimicking ape behavior at the zoo more often than the reverse.

    As the use of “ape” among the public changed over the centuries, so did the biological definition evolve over time with advances in our scientific understanding of primates. For a long period, and even among some holdouts today, it was used to describe all members of Hominoidea except humans. Homo sapiens remained exceptional until recently, when they were finally placed within the other apes — chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons — a victory for monophyly (grouping all descendants of a common ancestor together).

    Colloquially, “ape” and monkey” continue to be used interchangeably to the constant vexation of primatologists (shortcut: monkeys have tails, apes do not). From personal experience, if and when people do differentiate, “monkey” simply refers to all primates while “ape” retains some specificity. To be fair, even “monkey” refers to a paraphyletic group (a group descended from a common ancestor, but not including all descendants) and thus is not reflective of true evolutionary history, but that’s a discussion for another day.

    An amateur investigation at Google Translator suggests that most languages (Spanish, Dutch, French, Korean, Portuguese, Arabic, German – exceptions include Japanese and Chinese) do not even distinguish between the two and use the same word or character for both. For example, in Spanish “mono” means both “monkey” and “ape,” although due to English influence there seems to be a movement for the less-used “simio” to signify “ape,” though traditionally it too refers to both. Complementing this usage is the phrase “grandes simios,” or great apes, which parallels the English in referring to all apes except gibbons.

    Other languages likely have similar etymological histories. However, since English is the modern language of science, it may have been the prime mover in officially separating the two words and their meanings. That being said, I’d be curious to know if languages from regions of the world that are home to both apes and monkeys (e.g. equatorial Africa, Indonesia) have historically had more subtle terminology to describe them. [The English word "orangutan" comes from the Indonesian/Malay words orang hutan, forest man, suggesting that Indonesians viewed orangutans as more similar to humans. The word kera is translated as both "monkey" and "ape," but in a scientific context monyet is "monkey" and kera is "ape." --ed.]

    Ultimately, with such a complicated and dynamic etymological and evolutionary history, it’s no surprise that the public can hardly keep up with the wishes of primatologists on what to call the primates. I won’t give up the good fight, but I realize that it’s pretty much a big deal to fewer than a hundred people on the entire planet.

    Thinking back to the connotations in Blood Meridian though, I would like to know how other people perceive the word “ape” and what it suggests to them. So I ask you: does ape make you think smart, thoughtful, creative? Or primitive, nonhuman, backwards? Do you imagine monkeys? Savages? King Kong? Yourself?

     
  • The Diacritics

    The Diacritics 7:27 am on September 22, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: acacia, australia, botany, kruger national park, latin, nomenclature, savanna, ,   

    What’s in a (scientific) name? 

    [Editor's Note: This is the first of many guest posts from our classmates and friends with academic and personal interests in linguistics, writing, cognition, and English. Enjoy!]

    Ben Finkel is a junior at Duke University. He is spending fall 2011 in South African parks studying ecology and conservation. He’s currently blogging about his experiences here.

    South Africans and Australians are feuding. I can’t help but notice this whenever my professor mentions the Aussies and feigns a spit over his shoulder. They say it’s a sports rivalry. Still, to an outsider, this conflict seems like niche competition. Here are two ex British-colonies, rival members of the small club of southern hemisphere powerhouses. I’ve quickly learned that nothing earns a spitting rebuke quite like equating South African and Australian accents—or worse, sports teams.

    Even so, the most heated fight between the two right now is not on any athletics field. It’s at the International Botanical Congress (IBC). Every six years, a formal meeting of the world’s plant experts convenes. With power from the International Code of Nomenclature, the IBC’s goals are to discuss and revise species phylogenies to reach a standardized and streamlined system. This is how algae, fungi, and plant species get their Latin names or lose them.

    So how has a labeling issue has South Africans frothing at the mouth? Renaming the Acacia.

    You’ve seen the acacia before—whether in The Lion King or nature documentaries. It’s “quintessentially African,” those majestic trees that rise angularly from the savanna. Phrases like “an acacia sunset” or “an acacia savanna” are commonly used here in Kruger National Park. It’s a symbol of national pride.

    In the face of a widely circulated petition and broad opposition within Africa as a whole, scientists decided to split up the genus Acacia. A 2011 vote of those taxonomists resolved to uphold a previous decision and give the name to 948 Australian species. Now the losers in this battle, the South Africans, now have to split and rename 176 species of South African Acacia into the genera Senegalia and Vachelia.

    The Aussies argue that, although Africa has the type specimen, they have the majority of Acacia diversity and have produced more of its descriptive literature.

    In the words of my botany professor, “The Australians are saying, ‘f— sentimentality, we’ve done all the work.’ This is the cold hard edge of science. It’s like changing the name elephant or lion. South Africa will fight these bastards.”

    But that will be harder than just crossing arms. Scientific journals automatically reject any submissions that name species incorrectly—“no matter how groundbreaking the research,” according to my professor. This threat looms large over botany researchers, who make up a large part of the opposition here.

    As an ecology student in South Africa, I learned the name of Acacia tortillis, which exhibits that classic flat top canopy, first. Going back into my data to rename it seems like a waste of time. The name acacia already belongs to an entire continent. That’s a license that cannot be taken away, right?

    African scientists could decide to boycott the change. Some surely will. A mass boycott could stall the shift and maybe even garner some sympathy. More likely, though, it would create conflict. Focus would turn to this symbolic issue rather than more pressing ones like conservation. Such controversy would slow down scientific dialogues.

    Scientific research is now a globalized institution of collaboration. One group cannot operate by their own rules.

    This cooperation depends everyone using the same language and terms. Species names help biologists communicate with one another to compare and see patterns. Nowadays, naturalists have the pleasure of an organizational structure. A species’ whole title goes from kingdom (e.g., Animalia) all the way down to the genus (e.g., Homo) and species (e.g., sapiens), which most of us Homo sapiens recognize. Name the genus and a scientist will probably immediately know what broader categories it belongs to.

    Research would move at a gastropod’s pace if it weren’t for these tools.

    One problem is that nature doesn’t like cut-and-dry categories. As Sandeep said in a previous post on new words, language strives to achieve stability, while natural systems are dynamic. Ask just two biologists to define“species” and you will almost certainly hear more than two answers. Where does one species end and another begin? Infinite variation often leads to arbitrary boundaries.

    Taxonomists’ conferences like the IBC exist because of this fluidity. We are still discovering new species or even entire phyla in the microscopic world. Reordering occurs constantly at the behest of new DNA analysis tools. Naming Earth’s life is a process that will never be finished. (For instance, did you know that termites no longer belong to their own order Isoptera? They’re now grouped with cockroaches under Blattodea!)

    So what’s the best next step for the African naturalists’ mob? Acknowledging the useful—while imperfect—scientific naming process results in a bitter answer: Australia wins. “Suck it up,” some have said. Continuing to use “acacia” as the genus’s common name will result in little change for most people.

    Another possible scenario: some South African naturalists vow, “I’ll call it Acacia until the day I die!” Well, when they do, Acacia will fall out of use. Then, a generation from now, the IBC reconvenes under new evidence to declare the genus Acacia for Africa, and the debate begins all over again. Frustrated students moan over changing lexicon. Researchers grumble about edits to their papers.

    It’s possible. In the dynamic world of nomenclature, nothing is forever. That’s the language of science.

     
c
compose new post
j
next post/next comment
k
previous post/previous comment
r
reply
e
edit
o
show/hide comments
t
go to top
l
go to login
h
show/hide help
shift + esc
cancel