Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-26184563-20130421015649/@comment-995426-20160429184546

Okay, if monkeys are a paraphyletic term, then where are the boundaries of the paraphyly? Because from where I'm sitting, it looks something like this (simplified cladogram, with paraphyly in bold):

My question is, if monkeys are paraphyletic (as the simian article states, as opposed to polyphyletic), doesn't that imply that simians and catarrhines are monkey categories since they are the clade nodes that link the two? If it had been true polyphyly, then neither simians nor catarrhines should be in bold. Also, s are the dry-nosed primates (though literally "simple-nosed") that include tarsiers and simians. It's actually the more divergent lemurs and such which are s ("wet-nosed").

And I previously admitted one mistake, and asked various additional questions. I do make a good effort to do my research&mdash;I consult various Wikipedia articles. I'm no professional either, but I do try to keep informed.