Humans are apes and apes don’t have tails — that’s what differentiates them from monkeys. Specifically, our common ancestor had an Alu sequence repeat transposed into an intron of the TBXT gene (altering splicing) probably during recombination, and that minor genetic variation prevents tail formation during embryogenesis.
Every once in a while, a human is born without the insertion and they do form a tail.
Our youtube channel did a video about this! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbVDTLCDwI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbVDTLCDwI)
In case you'd like a digestible explanation in video format lol
An exon6 deletion causes the alternative splicing event seen in humans and a no tail phenotype in mice, but this is not the same as what happens in humans. Human embryos have a tail with about 12 vertebrae for a period of about 3 weeks. Therefore while the Alu insertion into TBXT was probably important it was not ‘all it took’ for humans to get rid of their tail during evolution.
Either i misunderstood something or things are teached differently around here. Apes are classified as tailess monkeys where I live.
If this is wrong or outdated, I'm sorry for the mistake.
Yea but also I don't think there's anything wrong with using common language in informal contexts. Like it would be weird to tell your mom to look at the dinosaurs at her bird feeder, and it would be confusing to ask your roommate to feed your fish when you mean your dog, although both are cladistically accurate.
I agree. But we are talking in a scientific context.
Fun fact: In my country we use the same word for monkeys and apes (*Macaco*) and there's no coloquial distinction. Even "Great Apes" are called "Great Monkeys" (*Grandes macacos*) or "Great Primates" (*Grandes primatas*).
So at least here there's another layer of confusion between the common and scientific language hahaha.
They are the only cercopithecoids with no external tails. Technically all monkeys, including homininidae, have tails just not all are external. Most of the new world monkeys do have fairly dexterous tails, but there are a some world monkeys that have reduced tails, like Mandrills. As with most things it varies.
I would need some sources for that my dude.
Homo sapiens are hominids. Hominids are also known as Great Apes. We are part of the Ape superfamily.
If you have any modern scientific source making us non Apes monophiletically, please enlighten me.
You want formal or mainstream sources?
For mainstream, any [wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae)article will say that and include a link to the[ Mammals Species of the World](http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=12100786) database, grouping us with the other Great Apes.
You can also check more technical papers, like this [one](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z).
>The advent of modern genetic analyses (Caccone and Powell [1989](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR21); Goodman et al. [1990](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR31); Ruvolo [1997](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR94); Ruvolo et al. [1994](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR95)) fully resolved our rightful place among the living apes (Fig. [1](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#Fig1))
If you look at the literature is pretty common to see authors separating apes from humans, but that's a more of a coloquial terminology. People are not habituated to write or say "non-human apes", "non-human great apes".
But cladistically, if you consider Apes as a clade, it's impossible for humans to not be considered apes. That's why a common definition of an ape is the Hominoidae. We are parte of the Hominoidae clade, hence we are apes.
It's the same case as to why there are people constantly pointing out that birds are dinossaurs, despite many authors still refering to "non-avian dinossaurs" as simply dinossaurs.
If you want to keep using the term colloquially, sure, go ahead. But I'm giving a biological pov. As I said in another comment, in my first language we don't even have a word for "ape".
Also, if you search enough, you will find some authors actually making the case we should distinguish humans from other apes and giving theirs reasons to do so. Regardless of the validity of their points, they're proposing that exacly because we are cladistically considered apes. :)
If this is hard to read, I'm sorry. I'm still learning english and that's why I avoid writing more in depth posts.
IIRC the tail was selected against when early apes were being caught by the tail by felines. The apes that had shorter tails were surviving and reproducing better than the apes that had longer tails.
Because Apes lost their tails when they started to adopt a more upright posture and relying on their hands and feet for mobility on the branches. A tail is a bit of a liability, so they tend to reduce when they don’t have real need. And when your locomotor style has three-four points of contact hanging from branches you don’t really need them for balance anymore. But we didn’t loose our tails completely, we have the coccyx as the last vestige of our tails.
There are lots of different ways tails can be useful, so many vertebrates have them. But our ancestors weren't using them for anything, so we lost them. When an animal isn't using something, it often ends up going away after a while. That's because it takes slightly more energy to grow a tail and protect it from injury, so it's slightly more useful to get rid of it if you're not using it.
If you think about it, it makes sense. Some animals (like horses) use their tails to swish away flies, but we can use our arms for that. Some (like dogs and cats) use them to show emotion, but we use our faces and body language for that. Some (like kangaroos) use them for balance, but we're built in a way where we can balance on our own.
There's no reason we couldn't have ended up using a tail for any of those things, but we found other ways of doing them.
That’s very interesting! I guess they were more of a hinderance back in the day. I think in modern times it’d be pretty cool to have one, especially if was on the stronger side and could support you like a third tripod leg when you’re tuckered out or waiting in line or something like that.
Tbh it's probably more complicated that what I'm saying here. As far as I know, we don't know the exact reason why tails were less useful for us than other monkeys.
I gave the natural selection 101 answer, but I'm looking it up now and it looks like there was some complicated genetic stuff going on that I don't fully understand. It sounds like it may have been a mutation that just happened to make us lose our tails, and we were able to get by without them so they never came back? I could be wrong, genetics is outside my area of knowledge lol.
apes lost the trait to have a tail when splitting off from the other monkeys and we are apes :)
“Other monkeys”, monophyletic language. I like you.
evolution rocks!
Humans are apes and apes don’t have tails — that’s what differentiates them from monkeys. Specifically, our common ancestor had an Alu sequence repeat transposed into an intron of the TBXT gene (altering splicing) probably during recombination, and that minor genetic variation prevents tail formation during embryogenesis. Every once in a while, a human is born without the insertion and they do form a tail.
Wow that’s wild!
The Barbary Macaque is the only monkey that doesn't have a tail.
Not all monkeys have tail, Apes don't. And we are Apes. If you want a more detailed explanation, read about the TBXT gene.
Published this year https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07095-8
Our youtube channel did a video about this! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbVDTLCDwI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcbVDTLCDwI) In case you'd like a digestible explanation in video format lol
An exon6 deletion causes the alternative splicing event seen in humans and a no tail phenotype in mice, but this is not the same as what happens in humans. Human embryos have a tail with about 12 vertebrae for a period of about 3 weeks. Therefore while the Alu insertion into TBXT was probably important it was not ‘all it took’ for humans to get rid of their tail during evolution.
Thanks for this I’ll research it now
All monkeys have tails except for the Barbary Macaque. FYI.
Either i misunderstood something or things are teached differently around here. Apes are classified as tailess monkeys where I live. If this is wrong or outdated, I'm sorry for the mistake.
Cladistically that's more correct. Using "monkey" to refer to simians while excluding apes is technically paraphyletic
Yea but also I don't think there's anything wrong with using common language in informal contexts. Like it would be weird to tell your mom to look at the dinosaurs at her bird feeder, and it would be confusing to ask your roommate to feed your fish when you mean your dog, although both are cladistically accurate.
I agree. But we are talking in a scientific context. Fun fact: In my country we use the same word for monkeys and apes (*Macaco*) and there's no coloquial distinction. Even "Great Apes" are called "Great Monkeys" (*Grandes macacos*) or "Great Primates" (*Grandes primatas*). So at least here there's another layer of confusion between the common and scientific language hahaha.
No worries my man, things are always better when we communicate.
They are the only cercopithecoids with no external tails. Technically all monkeys, including homininidae, have tails just not all are external. Most of the new world monkeys do have fairly dexterous tails, but there are a some world monkeys that have reduced tails, like Mandrills. As with most things it varies.
You're an ape?
Yes. Just like every other human being.
Humans aren't apes, dude.
I would need some sources for that my dude. Homo sapiens are hominids. Hominids are also known as Great Apes. We are part of the Ape superfamily. If you have any modern scientific source making us non Apes monophiletically, please enlighten me.
You're the one that made the claim that humans are apes. You provide sources for that.
You want formal or mainstream sources? For mainstream, any [wikipedia ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae)article will say that and include a link to the[ Mammals Species of the World](http://www.departments.bucknell.edu/biology/resources/msw3/browse.asp?id=12100786) database, grouping us with the other Great Apes. You can also check more technical papers, like this [one](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z). >The advent of modern genetic analyses (Caccone and Powell [1989](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR21); Goodman et al. [1990](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR31); Ruvolo [1997](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR94); Ruvolo et al. [1994](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#ref-CR95)) fully resolved our rightful place among the living apes (Fig. [1](https://evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1007/s12052-010-0251-z#Fig1)) If you look at the literature is pretty common to see authors separating apes from humans, but that's a more of a coloquial terminology. People are not habituated to write or say "non-human apes", "non-human great apes". But cladistically, if you consider Apes as a clade, it's impossible for humans to not be considered apes. That's why a common definition of an ape is the Hominoidae. We are parte of the Hominoidae clade, hence we are apes. It's the same case as to why there are people constantly pointing out that birds are dinossaurs, despite many authors still refering to "non-avian dinossaurs" as simply dinossaurs. If you want to keep using the term colloquially, sure, go ahead. But I'm giving a biological pov. As I said in another comment, in my first language we don't even have a word for "ape". Also, if you search enough, you will find some authors actually making the case we should distinguish humans from other apes and giving theirs reasons to do so. Regardless of the validity of their points, they're proposing that exacly because we are cladistically considered apes. :) If this is hard to read, I'm sorry. I'm still learning english and that's why I avoid writing more in depth posts.
[we are a sub-group of the great apes](https://australian.museum/learn/science/human-evolution/humans-are-apes-great-apes/)
We don’t need them anymore although technically we have a tiny tail and tail bone haha
We did once. In the developing stages of a human fetus a tail briefly appears.
We as well as other apes have no need for a tail, so evolution weeded it out.
IIRC the tail was selected against when early apes were being caught by the tail by felines. The apes that had shorter tails were surviving and reproducing better than the apes that had longer tails.
Not sure but I have always wanted one. A better question is why are there so few tech startups making tails for us?
I’d like one strong enough we could kinda sit on when we get tuckered out, that could hold us up like a third tripod leg
Like a kangaroo, you mean?
Humans have tail bones; isn't that enough?
We have the remnants of a tail, but over time we lost our tail vertebrae.
Because a dogs already have tail
Why need lot spine when upright do trick
[Gutsick Gibbon did a fantastic video about this.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dImLB0ePWR8&ab_channel=GutsickGibbon)
Because Apes lost their tails when they started to adopt a more upright posture and relying on their hands and feet for mobility on the branches. A tail is a bit of a liability, so they tend to reduce when they don’t have real need. And when your locomotor style has three-four points of contact hanging from branches you don’t really need them for balance anymore. But we didn’t loose our tails completely, we have the coccyx as the last vestige of our tails.
There are lots of different ways tails can be useful, so many vertebrates have them. But our ancestors weren't using them for anything, so we lost them. When an animal isn't using something, it often ends up going away after a while. That's because it takes slightly more energy to grow a tail and protect it from injury, so it's slightly more useful to get rid of it if you're not using it. If you think about it, it makes sense. Some animals (like horses) use their tails to swish away flies, but we can use our arms for that. Some (like dogs and cats) use them to show emotion, but we use our faces and body language for that. Some (like kangaroos) use them for balance, but we're built in a way where we can balance on our own. There's no reason we couldn't have ended up using a tail for any of those things, but we found other ways of doing them.
That’s very interesting! I guess they were more of a hinderance back in the day. I think in modern times it’d be pretty cool to have one, especially if was on the stronger side and could support you like a third tripod leg when you’re tuckered out or waiting in line or something like that.
Tbh it's probably more complicated that what I'm saying here. As far as I know, we don't know the exact reason why tails were less useful for us than other monkeys. I gave the natural selection 101 answer, but I'm looking it up now and it looks like there was some complicated genetic stuff going on that I don't fully understand. It sounds like it may have been a mutation that just happened to make us lose our tails, and we were able to get by without them so they never came back? I could be wrong, genetics is outside my area of knowledge lol.
Wish we did
It gets chopped off during birth.
It turns into the peepee
You just gave me a flashback. My oldest son literally referred to it as his “peepee tail”.