12-09-2010, 04:27 PM
Since we're talking science, two slightly nitpicky things:
First, the term "monkeys" is very ambiguous. (Not that it matters all that much in terms of this discussion, but generally speaking, monkeys have tails and apes do not.) What we're discussing, I think, is the order primates, which is further divided to include everything from lemurs to the great apes. Again, this also isn't that important in terms of the discussion, but I wanted to point out that we're talking about a huge and varied class of animals -- much bigger (in terms of numbers of species) than we see in the canine family, canidae. Also, with each new study done, the "correct" primate family tree (or any other taxonomic tree, for that matter) is subject to change.
Secondly, bacteria and viruses are known to jump between monkeys, apes, and humans. HIV and the ebola virus are two examples of viruses today that originated in a primate species. Granted, the viruses mutated along the way, but viruses tend to do that. There are no clear-cut rules for disease. Some effect a single species, some will go for anything with a heartbeat (I could, for example give my rats pneumonia, if I handled them while sick. Turtles and other reptiles can give humans salmonella, but are unaffected by it themselves).
I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't a right or wrong answer here. The virus may have mutated to infect apes and monkeys, or it might not have. And, if it did, was the population of the infected species large and diverse enough to have immune survivors? Would the mutated virus have stayed on one continent, in one area? Dozens of little factors.
I think Mel has the right of it: regardless, primates would be hard-pressed to survive this far north. I think the only way you'd see a primate is if someone brought one in as a pet.
First, the term "monkeys" is very ambiguous. (Not that it matters all that much in terms of this discussion, but generally speaking, monkeys have tails and apes do not.) What we're discussing, I think, is the order primates, which is further divided to include everything from lemurs to the great apes. Again, this also isn't that important in terms of the discussion, but I wanted to point out that we're talking about a huge and varied class of animals -- much bigger (in terms of numbers of species) than we see in the canine family, canidae. Also, with each new study done, the "correct" primate family tree (or any other taxonomic tree, for that matter) is subject to change.
Secondly, bacteria and viruses are known to jump between monkeys, apes, and humans. HIV and the ebola virus are two examples of viruses today that originated in a primate species. Granted, the viruses mutated along the way, but viruses tend to do that. There are no clear-cut rules for disease. Some effect a single species, some will go for anything with a heartbeat (I could, for example give my rats pneumonia, if I handled them while sick. Turtles and other reptiles can give humans salmonella, but are unaffected by it themselves).
I guess what I'm saying is that there isn't a right or wrong answer here. The virus may have mutated to infect apes and monkeys, or it might not have. And, if it did, was the population of the infected species large and diverse enough to have immune survivors? Would the mutated virus have stayed on one continent, in one area? Dozens of little factors.
I think Mel has the right of it: regardless, primates would be hard-pressed to survive this far north. I think the only way you'd see a primate is if someone brought one in as a pet.