| |
|
Many thanks to all those who have replied, classicists and taxonomists alike, as well as to Deva for posting my query in the first place.
As Sleazenation has rightly pointed out, taxonomical nomenclature (known as 'systematics' in biology) is constantly changing in light of both new empirical data and evolving principles of classification. Colin Tudge's excellent 'The Variety of Life' is lively and emminently readable (Oxford: OUP, 2000), whilst Charles Jeffrey's 'Biological Nomenclature' provides a short, technical explanation (3rd Edition, London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1989). The question of primates, and great apes in particular, is especially vigorously contested amongst specialists. 'My' idea that it would be preferable to classify humans as chimpanzees is taken from (though not confined to) Jared Diamond's book 'The Rise and Fall of the Third Chimpanzee' (London: Vintage, 1991).
Diamond broadly follows the school of taxonomy known as cladistics (which seeks to base classifications on the genetic distance and times of evolutionary divergence of species) as opposed to 'traditional' taxonomy (which seeks to base classifications on those distinctive physical and functional traits of species deemed 'most significant'). He argues that, given the tiny genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees (just 1.6%), "humans do not constitute a distinct family [Hominidae], nor even a distinct genus [Homo], but belong in the same genus as common and pygmy [bonobo] chimps" (p21). Any other two species with DNA this close (willow warblers and chiffchaffs for instance) are invariably considered members of the same genus.
Despite the title of his book, and keeping strictly to the rules of zoological nomenclature, Diamond suggests that, since the genus name 'Homo' was proposed first, we should use this, rather than 'Pan', for the name of the shared genus. This would thus render common chimps as Homo troglodytes (rather than the current name, Pan troglodytes) and bonobo/pygmy chimps as Homo paniscus (rather than Pan paniscus). Not wishing to be responsible for bringing yet more humans into the world, I favour the alternative tactic of renaming just one of these species, giving us Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus, and Pan bimanus (or whatever). Either way, as Diamond observes, "even taxonomists espousing cladistics are anthropocentric, and the lumping of humans and chimps into the same genus will undoubtedly be a bitter pill for them to swallow" (ibid).
For those who are interested, the importance of hands to all this is due to Heidegger's particular brand of ultra-humanism. He suggests that what is distinctive about humans is the fact that they alone have The Hand, which allows them to distinguish individual beings from Being as a whole. Humans do this, he argues, by indicating (pointing out) beings with their hand, that is, by demarcating individual beings. Heidegger conflates this 'marking off' - a form of 'handwriting' - with Language, another trait he believes to be uniquely human. (There are traces of Heidegger's 'hand argument' in the 'opposable thumb' thesis which resurfaces from time to time.) By calling humans Pan bimanus (or whatever), I wanted to mischievously indicate that (a) humans are not the only creatures with hands, and (b) humans aren't even as 'handy' as certain other species (this latter will go some way to addressing your suggestion, Sleaze, regarding other animals' evolutionary success). Hands are thus crucial to my 'new name' (though thanks for your initial 'arms' suggestion, Little Haus - the connotation that humans are in some sense the 'degenerate' species of chimpanzee is just what I'm ideally after).
By the way, Deva, as a chimpanzee, I am not, of course, anyone's monkey friend. Filthy creatures.
(More tomorrow) |
|
|
