Re: Re-Classifying Chimps?
More than anything else, I think this argument points out the inherent flaws in the system we use to classify species. On the larger levels it works quite well; kingdoms, phylums, classes, and orders represent clear divisions in taxonomy. But things get a little fuzzy for families and genera (though not for species, since only members of the same species can breed true).
It is also important to remember that humanity is not the only member of genus
homo, simply the only
surviving member. We have an excellent understanding of species such as
homo erectus and
homo habilis, and the argument of whether to classify Neanderthals as
homo neanderthalus or
homo sapiens neanderthalus is still fairly heated. All of these species, however, were much closer relatives of man than chimpanzees are.
Australopithecus afarensis is closer too, yet I see no one clamoring for a reclassification there.
My suspicion is that a large part of the impetus here is emotional as opposed to rational. People who come to know chimps can form stong bonds with them; this is unsurprising, as I've formed some pretty powerful bonds with cats and dogs in my day (and they are relatives considerably more distant). But scientific classification isn't about "we really like you, so welcome to our genus!", nor is it about protecting animals from experimentation. The only reason for reclassification is if one can show definitively that genus
pans was a mistake and that chimps are as closely related to us as the other (extinct) members of genus
homo. And doing so would mean reclassifying other species too, most notably the aforementioned
australopithecus afarensis and its cousin
australopithecus robustus.
It is a very, very interesting topic. Exactly the kind of thing I love to see in our science forum.
G
"Dear Buddha: Please bring me a pony and a plastic rocket."
- Malcolm Reynolds, Serenity
Tweet This Topic
