Why aren't humans considered part of the Pan genus?

[Tammuz]

It is known that humans and chimpanzees are closer related to each other than either are to other great apes, such as gorillas. Jared Diamond even wrote a book called The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal.

So why aren't humans considered part of the Pan genus, along with common chimpanzees and bonobos?

 

[dystopian]

1) Because in many respects humans are different enough to merit a separate category.

and/or,

2) Because we prefer being special.

The 'Pan' genus is considered part of the same Family that humans are from. While a few researchers put bonobos and chimpansees in the Homo genus, it is not the norm and I don't see why it would be particularly necessary for any reason. Is there some need to put them all in the same genus instead of family?

 

[Bomb#20]

The convention among zoologists is to resolve name conflicts like patents, by first-to-file. If they ever decide chimpanzees and humans are the same genus they'll have to call chimps Homo rather than calling people Pan because the name "Homo" is older.

Currently there's a name for the clade that includes humans, chimps and gorillas, the clade that includes only chimps, and the clade that includes only humans, but no name for the clade that includes humans and chimps but not gorillas. In general the tree structure of life contains a lot more branching points than named branching points. Which branching points to give names to, and, when one is named, whether to name it with a genus-type name or a family-type name or an order-type name or whatever, is pretty much arbitrary. Whether something is a species is reasonably objective, to the extent that the "Do they interbreed in the wild?" criterion is used; but there isn't any corresponding binary criterion for genus and family and so forth.

 

[Peez]

I believe that Linnaeus initially was going to put humans and chimps in the same genus, but backed off because he thought that it would upset the clergy.

Peez

 

[Mageth]

Are you sure it wasn't because he thought it would upset the chimps?

 

[Peez]

Are you sure it wasn't because he thought it would upset the chimps?

Well, they are primates.

Peez

 

[Keith&Co.]

Are you sure it wasn't because he thought it would upset the chimps?

The famous cartoonist, Thomas Nash, lampooned Charles Darwin's theory, that man perhaps descended from the ape with this cartoon in 1871. The caption read: (The defrauded gorilla: "That men want to claim my pedigree. He says he is one of my descendants." Mr. Bengh "now Mr. Darwin, how could you insult him so"

Darwin is the man with the beard while the other is Henry Bengh, founder of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (AP Photo)

 

[Jayjay]

I for one would prefer the Pan genus instead of Homo. All the other genii are making fun of us at recess.

 

[EricK]

I for one would prefer the Pan genus instead of Homo. All the other genii are making fun of us at recess.

Was it not Oscar Wilde who said "I have nothing to declare but my genus"? And look at the trouble that got him into.

 

[Emily Lake]

I have never particularly understood what criteria is used to determine the levels of classification in biology. I understand that they exist... but I don't understand what objectively determines the difference between a phylum and an order, or between a genus and a species, for example. Is there a specific objective criteria, or is it more like the classification of what constitutes a planet? Just a matter of consensus and subjective grouping of apparent similarity? A sort of subconscious, implicit, nearest-neighbor algorithm in action?

 

[Peez]

I have never particularly understood what criteria is used to determine the levels of classification in biology. I understand that they exist... but I don't understand what objectively determines the difference between a phylum and an order, or between a genus and a species, for example. Is there a specific objective criteria, or is it more like the classification of what constitutes a planet? Just a matter of consensus and subjective grouping of apparent similarity? A sort of subconscious, implicit, nearest-neighbor algorithm in action?

The short answer is that there is no objective, consistent criterion for determining what constitutes different genera, orders, families, etc. (to say nothing of sub-orders, super-families, tribes, etc.). The Linnaean classification system is useful in a very general way, but biologists tend to think in terms of phylogenetic trees on which these levels of classification are no more than handy names for certain branches.

Peez