True knowledge exists in knowing that you know nothing

The confusion of the various ranks named after Homo comes from changes in definition.Once upon a time, 'Hominidae' meant only humans and extinct relatives. The other great apes were classified in 'Pongidae'. The two collectively formed the superfamily Hominoidea.Then, along came the first molecular studies, which indicated that African apes were more closely related to humans than to orangutans. As it became more and more common to consider paraphyletic taxa invalid, taxonomists started to point out that Pongidae was not valid, at least not if it included gorillas and chimps. The change was slow, particularly because palaeoanthropologists had been so long accustomed to use 'hominid' to mean anything closer to us than apes. But to be monophyletic, either chimps and gorillas had to be moved into Hominidae, or a new 'Gorillidae' would need to be invented.The realisation from DNA studies that chimps were closer to us than they were to gorillas would have necessitated an additional Panidae, so the solution that eventually prevailed, and has by now been accepted pretty much universally, is to abolish Pongidae and subsume all great apes under Hominidae. Use of the narrower terms 'Homininae', 'Hominini' and 'Hominina' is not always consistent though, leading to confusion.As the for the question of the difference between Hominoidea and Hominoidae - the latter is a typo.

I don't think ToL is a good source for the latest classifications. I can't comment on most of the tree; but vertebrate phylogeny is a bit of a hobby; and here at least ToL seemed to stop updating well over a decade ago. Their vertebrate trees represent what was the conservative view in the 1990s. In 2017 that means they're flat out wrong.While there are lots of issues that are still controversial (where do turtles go, for example); there are many things long universally accepted that ToL contradicts, and I very much wish someone was still updating it, because at the moment it's just misleading. Open Tree of Life is much more up-to-date; but the problem with this is that it does incorporate a lot of still controversial ideas, and unlike ToLWeb it doesn't tell you when this is the case, nor present alternative hypotheses.

The completist in me is concerned that your tree gives the impression baboons are the only Old World monkey. I tried to edit it but for some reason cannot get the branches to line up properly.Still, if people thought palaeos diagrams are hard to read - see what happens when I draw it!

Yes, 'odd-nosed group'; so named because it contains snub-nosed monkeys and the proboscis monkey. I can't find that anyone's ever proposed a formal name for it.I think Wikipedia is a good source for the consensus on major groups. They often feature the major competing hypotheses where things are not settled.Pages which attract less interest often promote outdated or new-fangled hypotheses because of one determined editor, however. Purgatorius is usually considered a stem-primate; but a couple of recent studies instead find that it's outside the clade formed by living placentals. There's an editor who refuses to accept this as a hypothesis; so it's a fact as far as Wiki is concerned.