Incorrect Things You’ve Heard from People

[FlameWizard492]

What are some incorrect or misleading things that you have heard people say about animals. This can include but is not limited to:

• People misidentifying an animal (example: saying that a prairie dog is a beaver).
• People telling someone an incorrect fact about an animal (examples: frogs give you warts; lemmings follow each other off of cliffs; elephants can drink through their trunks, etc.).

When and where did this take place? At a zoo? Another place with animals present (farms, pet stores, etc.)? In a casual setting (at home, at work, etc.)? Did you say anything to the other person? Did you try to correct them?

Feel free to share!

 

[Captain Callum]

For me, I thought a Groundhog was a beaver, never seen one before and saw a beaver looking animal until it came into clear sight. Various zoo visits usually come alongside big cat misidentification typically in the form of jaguar, cheetah = leopard. Funniest one I heard was a tiger was an orange lion Others could be tapir = pig, gibbons and literally any great ape that isn't a Gorilla or Orangutan = monkey, Prairie Dog = Meerkat, badger = racoon, European Wildcat = domestic house cat. I never correct them myself, they usually find the info sign 5 seconds later.

 

[DarthQuell]

I was today years old when I found out that tasmanian devils don't actually move like tornadoes.
Also, I always thought that coyotes ordered high-tech weaponry through snail mail to kill roadrunners.

Huh, you learn something new everyday

 

[DarthQuell]

For me, I thought a Groundhog was a beaver, never seen one before and saw a beaver looking animal until it came into clear sight. Various zoo visits usually come alongside big cat misidentification typically in the form of jaguar, cheetah = leopard. Funniest one I heard was a tiger was an orange lion Others could be tapir = pig, gibbons and literally any great ape that isn't a Gorilla or Orangutan = monkey, Prairie Dog = Meerkat, badger = racoon, European Wildcat = domestic house cat. I never correct them myself, they usually find the info sign 5 seconds later.

I don't think I've heard anything that bad where I am.
I have heard that Patagonia maras were called rabbits, but in the person's defense, rabbits do look like rodents and maras look like rabbits.
I've also heard that the maned wolf was called an actual wolf, but same thing; it looks like a wolf and is called a wolf.

In those cases, it's understandable and I don't laugh at the person or even necessarily try to correct them, because if I didn't know any better, I would've thought the same thing. Actually, for a while I did think the same thing.


Now for really bad ones, the typical "chimps are monkeys". I once heard the fossa being pronounced "foh-suh" instead of the correct "foo-suh", but that's more a grammatical/pronunciation error.

In my case, in Spanish the octopus is called a pulpo, but little Quell would call them octi-poo-see-os

 

[Marvinb]

Already mentioned the lynx=tiger and pairie dog=beaver thing in the other thread.
But i recently have someone answer my "... as old as a dinosaur" with "not every dinosaur went extinct along time ago. Didnt this weird australian wolf go extinct just like 100 years ago?"
Turns out they thought the term dinosaur just refers to ANY extinct animal lol

 

[Marvinb]

I have heard that Patagonia maras were called rabbits, but in the person's defense, rabbits do look like rodents and maras look like rabbits.
I've also heard that the maned wolf was called an actual wolf, but same thing; it looks like a wolf and is called a wolf.

I thought this until very recently lol. Didnt help that their german name is pampas hare lol.
Ok to be fair (and to make me seem less dumb ) i thought they were lagomorphs, not rabbits specificly

 

[DarthQuell]

Already mentioned the lynx=tiger and pairie dog=beaver thing in the other thread.
But i recently have someone answer my "... as old as a dinosaur" with "not every dinosaur went extinct along time ago. Didnt this weird australian wolf go extinct just like 100 years ago?"
Turns out they thought the term dinosaur just refers to ANY extinct animal lol

There should be a simpler term for extinct species than using extinct species

 

[Villanelle]

Turtle =/= tortoise

 

[Captain Callum]

Turtle =/= tortoise

Part of me dies inside every time I hear Giant Galapagos Turtles.

 

[Villanelle]

Part of me dies inside every time I hear Giant Galapagos Turtles.

Yeah this one is a real teeth grinder.

 

[Marvinb]

I dont really get that tbh.
Tortoises are still turtles, just like apes are still monkeys lol

 

[FoxyDee]

Still hearing parents in zoo “educati g” their kids without reading the signs and I often hear:

• Black Jaguars being called Pumas and thinking they are different species.
• Red Pandas are bears.
• Tortoises can hide in their sheľ as a snail can do.

On the sadder note we still have high amount of people that do not know that they cannot touch baby animals that are waiting for mom in the grass (mostly deer) and try to “rescue it” by taking it to the wildlife rescue stations.

I dont really get that tbh.
Tortoises are still turtles, just like apes are still monkeys lol

I think it is a language issue. Because in English, the general term for these types of animals is Primate, which then goes with Apes (gorilla, chinmp, gibbons etc.), Lemurs, and Monkeys (Capuchin, Mandrill etc.). But I think I read somewhere that in german all of these groups can be called monkeys, but I think you cannot call Gorilla a monkey in english?

 

[Marvinb]

I think it is a language issue. Because in English, the general term for these types of animals is Primate, which then goes with Apes (gorilla, chinmp, gibbons etc.), Lemurs, and Monkeys (Capuchin, Mandrill etc.). But I think I read somewhere that in german all of these groups can be called monkeys, but I think you cannot call Gorilla a monkey in english?

The way i see it is that apes are just a subset of old world monkeys. So all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes.

I mean just because youre one Thing doesnt mean you stop being another thing.
I could be wrong tho, but im pretty sure im not

 

[Villanelle]

I dont really get that tbh.
Tortoises are still turtles, just like apes are still monkeys lol

Well yeah but I mean like people will mix them up without knowing the difference, and definitely without knowing that technicality.

 

[Villanelle]

The way i see it is that apes are just a subset of old world monkeys. So all apes are monkeys, but not all monkeys are apes.

I mean just because youre one Thing doesnt mean you stop being another thing.
I could be wrong tho, but im pretty sure im not

It depends how accurate you want to be. Most people aren't too concerned with accuracy, so yes, you will hear primate used interchangably with monkey in English. But scientifically, primate =/= monkey and apes are definitely not monkeys. Humans are apes, but not monkeys.

Primates are subdivided into:
Simiiformes: apes, monkeys and humans
Strepsorinhi: lemurs, loris, tarsiers etc

Monkeys are defined as tailed primates. The presence of a tail is what distinguishes them from other simian primates.

 

[Captain Callum]

but I think you cannot call Gorilla a monkey in english?

Simply in English, primates like Gorillas, gibbons and chimpanzees will be commonly named an ape, while the others would be called a monkey (excluding lemurs and all the other kinds of unique primates. Uneducated people will often refer to literally anything resembling a furry human as a monkey however referring an animal as a primate is not often used by the average person.

 

[Fallax]

Apes are monkeys as they are descended from old world monkeys. To not consider apes as monkeys would be inaccurate.

It would be like saying birds aren't dinosaurs.

 

[Chuditch]

But scientifically, primate =/= monkey and apes are definitely not monkeys. Humans are apes, but not monkeys.

Primates are subdivided into:
Simiiformes: apes, monkeys and humans
Strepsorinhi: lemurs, loris, tarsiers etc

Monkeys are defined as tailed primates. The presence of a tail is what distinguishes them from other simian primates.

Scientifically speaking, groups tend to be grouped by common ancestry rather than by traits nowadays, and in that sense apes are still monkeys. As the Wikipedia page for monkeys states:

Traditionally, all animals in the group now known as simians are counted as monkeys except the apes, which constitutes an incomplete paraphyletic grouping; however, in the broader sense based on cladistics, apes (Hominoidea) are also included, making the terms monkeys and simians synonyms in regard to their scope.

Apes emerged within monkeys as sister of the Cercopithecidae in the Catarrhini, so cladistically they are monkeys as well. However, there has been resistance to directly designate apes (and thus humans) as monkeys, so "Old World monkey" may be taken to mean either the Cercopithecoidea (not including apes) or the Catarrhini (including apes).

Distinguishing monkeys and apes is an entirely cultural thing, taxonomically speaking they're still monkeys. Defining monkeys as having tails also excludes certain macaque species (eg the Barbary macaque) from being monkeys.

In a similar fashion, tortoises are turtles, toads are frogs, snakes are lizards and birds are dinosaurs.

 

[Villanelle]

Scientifically speaking, groups tend to be grouped by common ancestry rather than by traits nowadays, and in that sense apes are still monkeys. As the Wikipedia page for monkeys states:


Distinguishing monkeys and apes is an entirely cultural thing, taxonomically speaking they're still monkeys. Defining monkeys as having tails also excludes certain macaque species (eg the Barbary macaque) from being monkeys.

In a similar fashion, tortoises are turtles, toads are frogs, snakes are lizards and birds are dinosaurs.

Well, no - taxonomically speaking, apes, humans and lemurs etc are not monkeys. They are all primates. Culturally speaking, you're right, people get them confused all the time, to the point that it may become the accepted definition in some places. But academically speaking, globally, monkeys are a distinct group of primates. Defined by having a tail, or the stub of a tail. See below.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. From the Encyclopedia Brittanica -

 

[Chuditch]

Well, no - taxonomically speaking, apes, humans and lemurs etc are not monkeys. They are all primates. Culturally speaking, you're right, people get them confused all the time, to the point that it may become the accepted definition in some places. But academically speaking, globally, monkeys are a distinct group of primates. Defined by having a tail, or the stub of a tail.

Lemurs are not monkeys, yes, as monkeys refers to simians. Again though, in the taxonomic world, animals are not defined by traits anymore, but by their evolutionary history and shared ancestry. Old World monkeys share a more recent common ancestor with apes than with New World monkeys, which means excluding apes from being monkeys creates an unnatural grouping. Excluding apes from a group within which they originated just because they lack tails is like excluding leatherback sea turtles from being reptiles because they aren't cold blooded.

And it's definitely not a global thing, many languages make no distinction between monkeys and apes. English just decided to separate them based on an arbitrary characteristic, and probably because it considers humans and other apes to be "more advanced" than mere monkeys.

In fairness, "monkey" was never meant to be a scientific term - the equivalent name for the group in taxonomy is simian. It's a common name, and common names don't have to adhere to strict phylogenetic definitions. However, it does mean that calling apes monkeys is technically correct, it's just a way of saying "simian" in laymans terms.

Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

While yeah, anyone can edit it, Wikipedia is a lot more reliable than secondary school teachers would have you believe. Popular pages (eg monkeys) are reviewed thousands of times, to the point when they're arguably even more trustworthy than peer-reviewed scientific papers:

Students are told not to use Wikipedia for research. But it’s a trustworthy source

At a time when it’s increasingly difficult to separate truth from falsehood, Wikipedia is an accessible tool for fact-checking and fighting misinformation.

theconversation.com

For me, the way it's based on citations just makes it an easy resource to show the current thinking on a particular topic.