(no subject)

David Stockhoff: So what does this say about the Gondwanaland hypothesis?

And again I'd like to make the comparison to Inhumi. First we think they are just vampires. A variation of a human being. Then we find they are scaly, clawed and reptilian in nature. But then, the big revelation at the end of RttW..they have external fertilization. So they are more primitive than reptiles. (maybe fish even? heh@ Fomalhaut= Inhumi's Mouth).

Jerry Friedman: it's not the inhumi's nature that's reptilian; it's their appearance. They're nothing like Earth reptiles in their behavior. And I see no discrepancy between reptilian appearance and external fertilization. I see no reason evolution on Blue-Green should have gone the same way it did on Earth, no reason we have to adjust our ideas about them when we learn about their fertilization or even if they have some mysterious essential link to trees and vines.

On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey).

Antonio Pedro Marques: Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?

On 1/7/2011 8:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote: Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?

David Stockhoff: I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I agree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., 20,000 years have passed).

On 1/7/2011 10:26 AM, Lee Berman wrote: David Stockhoff: I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I agree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., 20,000 years have passed).

Well, to clarify further, if I'm watching TV and a chimpanzee is shown and somebody says, "oh what a cute monkey!" I may or may not say, "ape, actually", depending on who is speaking. When I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a character remarks, "the ape didst gnaw upon its own tail", I can appreciate the archaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was going for that sort of usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than making a linnaean error.

On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:51:55 +0000, Ant?nio Pedro Marques <entonio at gmail.com> wrote: Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?

Antonio Pedro Marques:

Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?

Well, the primate order includes prosimians (lemurs, pottos, etc.) and simians which are monkeys and apes (and humans depending on how you want to divide). There is a significant difference between monkeys and apes, which is easiest to recognize by presence or absence of a tail (with some exceptions- a couple monkeys have no tail, a couple fossil apes do have a tail, but generally the rule holds). I realize my background makes me a bit pedantic on the subject but I sometimes wish the general public could at least get the tail part right. Apes (esp. the "great" ones) are so much closer to us humans than monkeys.

I usually hold my tongue on the subject in casual conversation but I am glad to think Wolfe isn't getting it wrong.

David Stockhoff:

I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I agree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., 20,000 years have passed).

Well, to clarify further, if I'm watching TV and a chimpanzee is shown and somebody says, "oh what a cute monkey!" I may or may not say, "ape, actually", depending on who is speaking. When I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a character remarks, "the ape didst gnaw upon its own tail", I can appreciate the archaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was going for that sort of usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than making a linnaean error.

It would seem that you feel calling an ape a monkey is demeaning to the ape, and calling a monkey an ape is demeaning to the word 'ape'. That's an angle I hadn't met previously.

many languages have a term for 'monkey', but not necessarily for 'ape',

chimpanzees tend to be the archetypal monkey (due to the small size).

Would it be unreasonable to call tuataras, crocodiles and dinosaurs 'lizards'? Legless lizards 'snakes'?

Some cladists feel so good calling birds 'dinosaurs' that they've successfully imposed that terminology on the interwebs.

then they had to redefine dinosaurs to exclude the ancestors of mammalians. So that what you used to call dinosaurs now have to be 'non-avian-dinosaurs + stem-mammals-and-whatnot'.

On Friday 7 January 2010, you wrote: Jerry Friedman: it's not the inhumi's nature that's reptilian; it's their appear- ance. They're nothing like Earth reptiles in their behavior. ?And I see no discrepancy between reptilian appearance and external fertilization. ?I see no reason evolution on Blue-Green should have gone the same way it did on Earth, no reason we have to adjust our ideas about them when we learn about their fer- tilization or even if they have some mysterious essential link to trees and vines.

I think we have another example of personal experience biasing inter- pretation. For me, being a reptile MEANS internal fertilization and ter- restrial eggs. That was their major evolutionary adaptation, allowing vertebrates to colonize the land and join their plant and insect cousins there. For me it is as though Gene WOlfe spent three books noting the bird- like appearance of Inhumi and then at the end reveals- they have no wings. That would have to be a sig- nificant solution to some series mystery, because an assumption of wings is something (I think) we all share with regard to birds. I don't know if Gene Wolfe shares my perception that internal fertiliza- tion is an essential part of being a reptile or whether he just thinks of them as being scaly, creepy things. I can't know. On the one hand he is scientific and detail oriented. On the other hand he seems to have con- flated monkeys and apes in a cou- ple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey). I lean toward Wolfe recognizing the essentiality of reptilian internal fer- tilization because it fits patterns I keep seeing. One is the increasing simplicity of their origin... But the other may even more cen- tral...Wolfe is saying, at the end, that shapeshifting Inhumi need a body of surface water to reproduce. In a 12 book series in which fish and flooding seem to be recurring themes, I think this is likely to be a significant revelation.

And later, you also wrote: When I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a charac- ter remarks, "the ape didst gnaw upon its own tail", I can appreciate the archaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was going for that sort of usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than making a linnaean error.

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>

On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work.

(a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey).

I retract this. I was thinking about how one of the monkeys associated with Father Inire's name, Inuus sylvanus, is commonly called the Barbary Ape because, though clearly a monkey, has no tail. Did a little checking and in the past (in less rigorous taxonomic times), baboons were also generally called "apes", probably due to their size and because they are more terrestrial than arboreal and their tails aren't prominent in their most frequent posture- sitting on the ground.

Mark Millman: In that case, it may interest you to know that, at roughly the same time that the term "ape" comprised large monkeys such as baboons, the term "reptile" comprised amphibians--which typically have externally fertilized eggs that require open water.

On Jan 7, 2011 10:37 AM, "Jerry Friedman" <jerry_friedman at yahoo.com> wrote: From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>

On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple

spots in his work...

On 1/7/2011 1:11 PM, Mark Millman wrote: In that case, it may interest you to know that, at roughly the same time that the term "ape" comprised large monkeys such as baboons, the term "reptile" comprised amphibians--which typically have externally fertilized eggs that require open water.

Jerry Friedman wrote: From: Lee Berman<severiansola at hotmail.com> On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey).

I retract this. I was thinking about how one of the monkeys associated with Father Inire's name, Inuus sylvanus, is commonly called the Barbary Ape because, though clearly a monkey, has no tail. Did a little checking and in the past (in less rigorous taxonomic times), baboons were also generally called "apes", probably due to their size and because they are more terrestrial than arboreal and their tails aren't prominent in their most frequent posture- sitting on the ground.

In fact, according to the NSOED, all monkeys were once called "apes"; that was the only word in English. "Monkey" first appeared in the 16th century. It doesn't give information on when biologists started to tell people to use "ape" for the tailless ones or specifically for what the gibbons and the great apes. My feeling is that the distinction has taken hold better than most prescribed distinctions, and the words aren't synonyms--though as you point out, people do still refer to chimps as monkeys. But this is getting off-topic, so if Antonio wants to know more about current usage, he can always ask in alt.usage.english.

So I agree that if Severian calls a big monkey an ape, that's just because his society or his part of it isn't concerned with taxonomic precision, as our ancestors weren't.

Jordon Flato: But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN MONKEYS!!?!??

Lee Berman wrote: Jordon Flato:

But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN MONKEYS!!?!??

Heh. Only if they have tails. And the only way to know that is to use the ultimate arbiter of Wolfean factuality- cover art.