We Will Always Be Apes: Return to Monke

14 min readJan 10, 2022

Now I love a good “return to monke” meme just as much as the next guy (or monkey), but I’m not making a meme review here. Though I’ve always had a fascination with primates, I recently started doing a lot of reading on them — great apes in particular.

With Godzilla vs. Kong surpassing over $300 million in international ticket sales, I decided to check it out myself. I had seen trailers about the movie prior to watching it and was very familiar with the debate over who would win: big lizard or big monkey (actually ape)? Using simple logic and reasoning, it was clear that Godzilla would win. With his virtually impenetrable hide, sharp teeth and claws, an enormous built-in club (his tail), the ability to breathe underwater, and literal atomic breath, how could he lose?

Of course the arguments for Kong’s victory include his intelligence, his axe forged from Godzilla scales, and the assumption that he has the military might of humans — and that’s where the bond between apes comes in. It’s not “mankind rooting for the ape,” it’s “apes rooting for the ape.” We’re still apes after all, and we can’t forget our roots (no pun intended).

Hominids

Hominids, or great apes (used interchangeably), are a taxonomic family of primates that include eight extant species across four genera:

Bornean orangutan
Sumatran orangutan
Tapanuli orangutan
Eastern gorilla
Western gorilla
Chimpanzee
Bonobo
Modern human

It is important to note that “hominid” can be used interchangeably with “great ape,” but not the general “ape.” Apes are categorized into great apes (orangutans, gorillas, chimps/bonobos, and humans) and lesser apes (gibbons and siamangs).

As their name implies, lesser apes are far smaller than great apes, and as a result, great apes are smarter and larger. You’ll notice that apes don’t have tails, which is a key difference between them and monkeys. Apes do not have tails, while monkeys do.

At first the word “hominid” only referred to modern humans and their close, extinct ancestors/relatives, like Homo erectus and Homo neanderthalensis. But now, hominid widely describes all great apes, including the extant Gorilla gorilla gorilla (yes, that’s the real scientific name for a western lowland gorilla) and the enormous and extinct Gigantopithecus blacki.

Something that caught my attention while I read up on great apes is that various animal rights organizations argue that great apes are people and should be given basic human rights. Interestingly enough, 29 countries have already instituted a research ban to protect great apes from scientific testing. On February 28, 2007, the parliament of the Balearic Islands, passed the world’s first legislation that would effectively grant legal personhood rights to all great apes. In 1999, New Zealand created specific legal protections for five species of great apes, and in 2013, the entire European Union banned great ape experimentation. If we take a look at the evolutionary history of primates and understand how primates are newcomers to the earth, it’s not hard to understand why such protective measures are now so commonplace.

Evolution

Before we dive into the evolutionary timeline of apes, we have to consider the miniscule amount of time that primates have been on the earth. With the earth being about 4.54 billion years old and the first primates appearing around 50 million years ago, that means that primates have only been around for about 1.1% of the earth’s current age. Knowing that the first creatures that resembled modern apes appearing at about 12.5 million years ago, you can start to gain an understanding of how little time apes have been around.

Proto-primates emerged around 60 million years ago and were similar to squirrels in both size and physical features. The evolutionary path towards apes meant that these species would take on traits such as better eyesight, hands and feet for climbing trees, and later on, larger brains.

By the beginning of the Eocene epoch around 55 million years ago, early prosimians emerged. As their name would suggest, prosimians were early species related to monkeys. Prosimians were significant due to their larger eyes and brains (key characteristics of humans) and the positioning of the foramen magnum, an opening at the base of the skull through which the spinal cord passes. The position of this hole serves as a strong indicator for the angle of the spinal column to the head, which dictated whether or not the body of the animal would be oriented horizontally (like cows, horses, dogs, etc.) or vertically (like monkeys). During the Eocene epoch, the foramen magnum began moving itself from the back of the skull to the center, causing the corresponding animals’ bodies to be held erect.

“Monkeys” evolved roughly around the end of the Eocene epoch or the start of the Oligocene epoch. They were very different from their prosimian ancestors, having less pointed snouts and more forward-pointing eyes. Early monkeys likely had diets consisting of fruit and seeds due to their tree-dwelling lifestyle. Interestingly enough, modern prosimians like aye-ayes and lemurs are usually found in locations where monkeys and apes are absent. If monkeys and apes are present in the same location as prosimians, then the prosimians are active at night, when the larger and more intelligent primates are sleeping. This supports the theory that monkeys were dominant during the Oligocene epoch, not prosimians. The lack of prosimian fossil records from the Oligocene suggests that monkeys generally out-competed prosimians and replaced them in most environments.

The Miocene epoch, which began around 23 million years ago, gave rise to apes, which evolved from monkeys early in this epoch. As explained earlier, apes do not have tails, while monkeys do. Aside from this, apes had larger bodies, larger brains, and broader chests with shoulder joints that enabled swinging through trees (no, monkeys don’t really swing through trees all that much; though they can, they are more built for running across branches). Apes also exhibited more complex hands/fingers, and most notably, opposable thumbs — quite useful for grabbing onto basic tools, like sticks for termite fishing.

A young chimpanzee fishing for termites using a stick.

Though we are very different creatures than chimps, just looking at an image also reveals the undeniable similarities between us. And it’s no wonder that we share such a high percentage of DNA with them; the apes that evolved from the monkeys during the early Miocene eventually formed the evolutionary line of hominins* by the end of the Miocene.

*Hominins include the genera Homo (humans and their human-like ancestors) and Pan (chimpanzees and bonobos).

Genetics & Society

I’m sure you’ve heard that humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA, an incredibly high percentage that leaves you wondering how just 1% of genetic data could lead to two, very different species.

Truthfully, a 1% differential in DNA is quite a lot, as the genetic difference between human individuals today is miniscule (about 0.1%). Knowing that, it’s understandable that a genetic difference of ten times the magnitude would not be held between two individuals of the same species.

Here’s a clever graphic that demonstrates the genetic differences between humans and a few other hominid species (one of which is extinct):

As the image explains, each dot in each diagram represents about 500,000 pairs of nucleotide bases (A, T, C, and G). The color of the dot determines how well the human sequence matches up to the corresponding sequence of the hominid being compared. This color spectrum goes from yellow (more closely resembling) to red (less closely resembling).

I find it fascinating that human and gorilla DNA are portrayed to be vastly different in the diagram, but in reality, we still share 98% of our DNA with them. On top of that, about 15% of the human genome looks more like the gorilla genome rather than the chimp genome — the species that we traditionally compare ourselves to.

These genetic similarities between us and modern great apes don’t just show in physical characteristics. They also manifest in social structures as well. Most notably, the social hierarchies of gorillas and chimps parallel that of early human societies. Both gorillas and chimpanzees have patriarchal societies — that is, their social structures are centered around dominant males who protect the other members of the troop, search for food, and fight for breeding rights with the females. Female chimps and gorillas usually stay “home” (wherever their nest was for the night), taking care of the young while the males go out to patrol the territory, or search for more food. If we take a look back at early Homo sapiens societies, it’s not all that different. In fact, human societies were especially similar to gorilla/chimp societies when we were still hunter-gatherers — men would have to go out to search and hunt for food, while the women would stay home and take care of the young. Of course this social structure changed significantly with the first agricultural revolution and is practically gone after several industrial revolutions and globalization. Biology is still stubborn, so some things might never change (males are mobile and females are immobile when it comes to reproduction, males pursue females and not the other way around).

Apes (and monkeys) in Modern Culture

Warning: monke memes ahead

I no longer find the pervasive nature of apes and monkeys in memes and pop culture surprising. Whether it’s a fat orangutan doing nothing but being fat, or Kong standing triumphant over Godzilla simply because “monke,” I love it. But it’s not just funny memes that Gen Z kids giggle at on their smartphones. Apes in particular find themselves deeply rooted in mythology and folklore — Bigfoot and the Abominable Snowman come to mind in particular.

But what is so archetypal about a giant ape? Why is this concept so pervasive across time and geography (Bigfoot in the Americas, yeti in Asia, etc.) Enter Gigantopithecus blacki, an extinct species of ape that resided in present-day southern China:

The first remains of this massive ape were found through its molar teeth in 1935 by anthropologist Ralph von Koenigswald, and by 1965, the first mandible and more than 1,000 teeth were found in Liucheng. Though Gigantopithecus was once though of to be a hominin, or part of the human line, it is now thought of to be much more closely related to orangutans.

Although the image shows Gigantopithecus standing erect, there is little evidence to suggest that they regularly did. Considering how gorillas, the largest apes on Earth today, walk on their knuckles, it would seem fairly unlikely that an even larger ape would walk upright. At the same time, it should be considered that orangutans, likely the closest living relative to Gigantopithecus, are the only great apes that do not consistently knuckle-walk. Could it just be a coincidence that orangutans, the closest living relative to this Bigfoot-esque creature, walk upright just like how we envision Bigfoot? Perhaps. It’s just something to consider and add to the general ambiguity that surrounds this massive ape.

Speaking of “massive ape,” Gigantopithecus blacki was estimated to be around 3 m (9.8 ft) tall and up to 500 kg (1100 lb). Predators, such as species of tiger, leopard, and bear that existed during the Early/Middle Pleistocene epoch, definitely had to think twice before attacking one of these apes. Though its size was a blessing on one hand, protecting it from most predators, was also its curse. Around 100,000 years ago, at the end of the Pleistocene ice ages, the species went extinct as the cold climate turned more and more forested areas into savannahs. Its large size meant that it depended on those large forests for its herbivorous diet, and the change in climate spelled the end of the massive ape. Its size also didn’t help in a reproductive sense — that is, larger species tend to have fewer children. Consider how rats usually have 8 or 9 offspring (although brown rats can have up to a staggering 22 young at once), while whales give birth to a single calf at a time. Being larger meant that Gigantopithecus had fewer children, and thus, the population of the species was smaller and more volatile to fluctuations (severe climate change in this case).

The point to take here is that “Bigfoot” did exist, in some sense. Gigantopithecus was a real, walking rendition of what we call Bigfoot, and that is significant towards why huge apes are so popular in folklore. Just the idea that “Bigfoot was real at one point” makes the mythological creature all the more believable. The two most notable instances in folklore, are undoubtedly, Bigfoot and the Yeti.

They are both “cryptids” or animals whose existence are unsubstantiated with very similar descriptions: a large, elusive, ape-like creature that stands upright. Other than their geographical difference, there is little that separates the Sasquatch from the Abominable Snowman. There is almost certainly a cultural reason for this:

Recreation of petroglyphs at Painted Rock; a large, possibly ape-like creature can be seen

Ecologist Robert Pyle argues that most cultures have accounts of human-like giants in their folk history, expressing a need for “some larger-than-life creature”.

In the case of Bigfoot, there are tales of large, mysterious creatures that lived in the woods across countless indigenous Native American tribes. A similar observation can be made with the Yeti: it was part of the beliefs of pre-Buddhist beliefs of some Himalayan people. This “wild man,” as named by followers of the Bön religion, was depicted as an ape-like creature who carried a large stone as a weapon.

There’s no doubt in my mind that apes themselves are an archetypal concept; they are so closely related to us and they find places in mythology consistently across various cultures. But what has become of apes (and monkeys) in modern culture?

Primates have become quite the popular topic for internet memes and jokes nowadays. It’s pretty difficult to browse memes and not come across a chimpanzee every once in a while. Something you might notice while investigating “monkey memes” is that monkeys are rarely the subject of the videos/images. More often than not, an ape is at the center of attention, and moreover, it’s almost always a great ape. Why is this? Drawing back to how closely related we are to chimpanzees and gorillas, I think the answer is quite obvious. We are far closer in intelligence, strength, anatomy, etc. to great apes like chimpanzees, and as a result, they become the primary focus of our meme culture. Consider the following videos that constitute just a few of some of the most popular “monkey memes” on YouTube:

Seems like you’ll have to go to YouTube to watch this one

Regardless of whether or not you understand the humor of these videos, I think it’s very interesting how monkeys “fall short” in representation of what we refer to as “monkey memes,” or more commonly “[return to] monke,” a slight misspelling of the word “monkey” that represents a meme that romanticizes the archaic and primitive lifestyles of great apes. Think about which one rolls off the tongue better: “monkey memes” or “ape memes.” There’s no competition here. Though one sounds better (monkey), the actual content is usually the latter (ape), likely due to the closer genetic connection we share with them.

This is also evident in mainstream cinema culture. In Godzilla vs. Kong, Maia Simmons*, refers to Kong, the 102 meter (335 ft) tall creature that resembles a gorilla, as a “monkey.” For some reason, the word “monkey” is more appealing than “ape,” and that’s a mystery that I’m still trying to find the answer to.

*I had to Google “godzilla vs kong cast” to find her character’s name, the entire cast is so forgettable and this movie’s writing was atrocious — maybe that’s a blog post for another day…

It isn’t to say that monkeys have no representation in popular “monkey memes,” however. I present to you the best primate-related meme that will ever grace human culture:

Uncle Fat

Uncle Fat was a long-tailed macaque that weighed three times as much as an average individual of his species, 26 kg (57 lb) to be exact. He put on all of this extra weight from being fed junk food from tourists in Thailand. Despite his unhealthy size, Uncle Fat was quite the alpha monkey, having other minion monkeys who would bring him food to satisfy his massive appetite. Uncle Fat was also a fair ruler, redistributing the extra food to his subordinates and keeping his kingdom happy.

At severe risk of heart disease and diabetes, Uncle Fat was captured and put on a diet in 2017. He was later released, but quickly became weak when he returned home, eating less and showing signs of exhaustion. Though he was always seen in front of a monument with the other monkeys every day when animal workers fed the pack, one day, he was just gone. Unfortunately, there has been no sign of Uncle Fat since then. It is almost certain that Uncle Fat has perished, as We Love Monkey Club president Kavinaphat Mongkoltechachat quoted monkey specialists on monkey behavior regarding death:

“…when monkeys know that they’re very weak, they will isolate themselves and won’t let any other monkeys or anyone see them dying.”

Though I regularly mourn for our collective loss as primates in regards to Uncle Fat’s passing, I remind myself of the famous Dr. Seuss line to keep my spirits up: “Don’t cry because it’s over. Smile because it happened.”

Conclusion

Now that we’ve thoroughly investigated modern-day apes and monkeys, the genetics of primates, the mythology of giant ape-like creatures, and memes regarding apes and monkeys, what can we conclude?

Just as the title states: We Will Always be Apes. We share a deep connection to apes and monkeys since they are our closest relatives on this Earth. Though we find animal companionship in domesticated species like dogs and cats (the latter of which isn’t even fully domesticated), the genetic connection that we share with primates is much stronger, and unfortunately, isn’t something that we get to experience often.

You may be able to go to the zoo every once in a while and see a bonobo or two. But a creature as intelligent as a bonobo shouldn’t be restricted to the confines of a cage. Though we can partially appreciate the beauty of these animals when we visit the zoo, we can’t help but acknowledge the darker side of what it means to be locked in a cage.

There is a lot to be learned from our primate brethren, especially great apes. It may be depressing to think about how thousands and thousands of intellectually and emotionally aware creatures are locked up in cages for people to gawk at, but we also have to consider the exposure that institutions like zoos provide. If I had never seen apes and monkeys in captivity, I might have never realized the deep, profound connection that I share with Koko, Harambe, Kong, or Caesar. I might have never written down “gorilla” under “My favorite animal” in 1st grade. I might have never found the wonderful world of hominids.

I’m still exploring that world, and I plan on finding out more about these magnificent creatures and writing additional blog posts on them. Until next time, fellow ape.