Talk:The Third Chimpanzee

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Books

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles

Stub status

I feel like this article is missing the main point of the book: that following the processes laid out for phylogenic organization, that Human being fit into the same clade as other chimps and therefore all three of us are in the same genus. Following the rules of noman clature, then, there are three chimps:

Homo sapiens Homo troglodytes Homo paniscus =================jordan

Hi Jordan. First, this is a stub--I actually have a half-done word file sitting somewhere outlining some of the specifics including what you note. The description as it stands in the first para is actually a close paraphrase of the stated purpose at the beginning of the work.

As for the three chimps idea, I'd call it the "conceit" of the work rather than the main point. He mentions it briefly at the beginning but ultimately doesn't focus on it overlong; it's just a topical thing to get people interested. Note, he uses the 98% genetic similarity argument, which, I believe, the sequencing of the chimp genome has disproven.

Anyhow, expand away. Marskell 20:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It does include the 98% issues. But nomenclature is based more on the structure of the tree of life rather then based on degree of relatedness. It is a matter of cladograms. For example, we used to have the categories: gymnosperm and angiosperm. But if you look at the chart for these you realize that gymnosperms don't follow the "one-cut rule" that is, you must be able to separate a grouping of lifeforms from the rest of life with "one cut." this includes species, genius, family, etc. for gymnosperms you have two cuts: one separating gymnosperms and angiosperms from the rest of the plants and another separating gynosperms from the angiosperms. In the last couple of decades we have been applying this rule to all of life and it has resulted in the removal of categories like "Gymnosperm."

A similar thing happens when we look at humans in relation to the other chimps. Two cuts are nessisary: one separating humans, bonobos, and chimpanzees from the rest of the apes and another cut separating the two chimps from humans. Because of this,The structure of the tree is such that humans cannot constitude a clade. Following the rules of nomencature, we are to use the earlier-defined genus to re-name the entire clade. In this case Homo was coined before Pan.

ITYM that non-human apes do not constitute a clade. Humans (and, if you so choose, Neanderthals and Homo floriensis) can be rooted in a hominid that was not an ancestor of either species of chimpanzee and therefore do form a clade. This does not contradict your point, of course. -- Alan Peakall 21:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date

Just a note that the article says it was published in 1992 but I remember reading this book in 1991 and it was titled " The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee". I distinctively remember this as I did a University report on the book and I left the Uni at the end of 1991. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.150.85.47 (talk) 20:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]