{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5877", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 5877, "subject": "(no subject)", "messages": 21, "voices": 7, "first": "2011-01-07T01:46:58+00:00", "last": "2011-01-07T20:45:13+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T01:46:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) (no subject)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: So what does this say about the Gondwanaland hypothesis?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWell, if it was just \"Africa\" that might hint at the evolutionary origin of\nprimates, including humanity. But Gondwanaland predates the evolution of\nprimates (I had to look that up to be sure. Did Wolfe?)\n \nI do like the idea of a faerie explanation. But perhaps Wolfe is suggesting \nthat such things predate even primates. Sorry for repeating but perhaps as\nthey are something as basic as the Shadow which must be formed when God creates \nboth Light and Objects. Again, shadows are dark, imitative and indeterminate in \nsize, shape and number.\n \nAnd again I'd like to make the comparison to Inhumi. First we think they are just\nvampires. A variation of a human being. Then we find they are scaly, clawed and\nreptilian in nature. But then, the big revelation at the end of RttW..they have\nexternal fertilization. So they are more primitive than reptiles. (maybe fish \neven? heh@ Fomalhaut= Inhumi's Mouth).\n \nOr maybe their basic structure is a parasitic vine. Or perhaps something even more\nbasic and primitive than that, by extrapolation....perhaps simply a..shadow?\n\nI can't say it is clear and obvious but I get the impression Wolfe keeps suggesting \never more primitive origins for Inhumi. If so, perhaps the same for abo/shadow kids. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<696812.23885.qm@web114716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T02:57:29+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles [was Re: (no subject)]", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "From: Lee Berman \n\n..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And again I'd like to make the comparison to Inhumi. First we think they are \njust\nvampires. A variation of a human being. Then we find they are scaly, clawed and\nreptilian in nature. But then, the big revelation at the end of RttW..they have\nexternal fertilization. So they are more primitive than reptiles. (maybe fish \neven? heh@ Fomalhaut= Inhumi's Mouth)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...\n\nI'm not going to try to check whether I've said this when you made similar \nstatements--I'm just going to point out that it's not the inhumi's nature that's \nreptilian; it's their appearance. They're nothing like Earth reptiles in their \nbehavior. And I see no discrepancy between reptilian appearance and external \nfertilization. I see no reason evolution on Blue-Green should have gone the \nsame way it did on Earth, no reason we have to adjust our ideas about them when \nwe learn about their fertilization or even if they have some mysterious \nessential link to trees and vines.\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T08:37:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<696812.23885.qm@web114716.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman: it's not the inhumi's nature that's reptilian; it's their appearance. \nThey're nothing like Earth reptiles in their behavior. And I see no discrepancy \nbetween reptilian appearance and external fertilization. I see no reason evolution \non Blue-Green should have gone the same way it did on Earth, no reason we have to adjust \nour ideas about them when we learn about their fertilization or even if they have some \nmysterious essential link to trees and vines." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI think we have another example of personal experience biasing interpretation. For me, \nbeing a reptile MEANS internal fertilization and terrestrial eggs. That was their major\nevolutionary adaptation, allowing vertebrates to colonize the land and join their plant\nand insect cousins there. \n \nFor me it is as though Gene WOlfe spent three books noting the bird-like appearance\nof Inhumi and then at the end reveals- they have no wings. That would have to be a \nsignificant solution to some series mystery, because an assumption of wings is something\n(I think) we all share with regard to birds.\n \nI don't know if Gene Wolfe shares my perception that internal fertilization is an essential\npart of being a reptile or whether he just thinks of them as being scaly, creepy things. I \ncan't know. On the one hand he is scientific and detail oriented. On the other hand he seems\nto have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but \ndefinitely a monkey).\n \nI lean toward Wolfe recognizing the essentiality of reptilian internal fertilization because\nit fits patterns I keep seeing. One is the increasing simplicity of their origin...\n \nBut the other may even more central...Wolfe is saying, at the end, that shapeshifting Inhumi need \na body of surface water to reproduce. In a 12 book series in which fish and flooding seem to be \nrecurring themes, I think this is likely to be a significant revelation. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T13:29:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work. \n(a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I retract this. I was thinking about how one of the monkeys associated with Father Inire's name,\nInuus sylvanus, is commonly called the Barbary Ape because, though clearly a monkey, has no tail.\nDid a little checking and in the past (in less rigorous taxonomic times), baboons were also \ngenerally called \"apes\", probably due to their size and because they are more terrestrial than arboreal \nand their tails aren't prominent in their most frequent posture- sitting on the ground.\n \nSo, now I think Wolfe calling a monkey an \"ape\" may be a purposeful way of maintaining the archaic\nsense of language in BotNS rather than an error. (I doubt anyone but me cares, but had to issue\nthe retraction anyway. I shouldn't have doubted Wolfe's science acumen). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D271A7B.7070905@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T13:51:55+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T14:21:10+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D271A7B.7070905@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques: Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWell, the primate order includes prosimians (lemurs, pottos, etc.) and simians which are \nmonkeys and apes (and humans depending on how you want to divide). There is a significant \ndifference between monkeys and apes, which is easiest to recognize by presence or absence of \na tail (with some exceptions- a couple monkeys have no tail, a couple fossil apes do have a tail, \nbut generally the rule holds).\n \nI realize my background makes me a bit pedantic on the subject but I sometimes wish the general \npublic could at least get the tail part right. Apes (esp. the \"great\" ones) are so much closer\nto us humans than monkeys. I usually hold my tongue on the subject in casual conversation but \nI am glad to think Wolfe isn't getting it wrong. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D272C1A.8000806@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-01-07T15:07:06+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D271A7B.7070905@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I \nagree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., \n20,000 years have passed)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 1/7/2011 8:51 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:\nAren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T15:26:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D272C1A.8000806@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff: I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I \nagree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., 20,000 years have passed)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nWell, to clarify further, if I'm watching TV and a chimpanzee is shown and somebody says, \"oh\nwhat a cute monkey!\" I may or may not say, \"ape, actually\", depending on who is speaking.\n \nWhen I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a character remarks, \"the ape didst gnaw\nupon its own tail\", I can appreciate the archaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was\ngoing for that sort of usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than \nmaking a linnaean error. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D273191.6000909@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-01-07T15:30:25+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Exactly. I'm with you." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On 1/7/2011 10:26 AM, Lee Berman wrote:\nDavid Stockhoff: I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I\nagree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g., 20,000 years have passed)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, to clarify further, if I'm watching TV and a chimpanzee is shown and somebody says, \"oh\nwhat a cute monkey!\" I may or may not say, \"ape, actually\", depending on who is speaking.\n\nWhen I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a character remarks, \"the ape didst gnaw\nupon its own tail\", I can appreciate the archaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was\ngoing for that sort of usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than\nmaking a linnaean error. \t\t \t \t\t" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Thornton IO", "address": "adam at io.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T16:20:51+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D271A7B.7070905@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, 07 Jan 2011 13:51:55 +0000, Ant?nio Pedro Marques\n wrote:\nAren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oook." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D273F34.40105@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T16:28:36+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee Berman wrote (07-01-2011 14:21):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Antonio Pedro Marques:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Aren't 'monkey' and 'ape' synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, the primate order includes prosimians (lemurs, pottos, etc.) and\nsimians which are monkeys and apes (and humans depending on how you want\nto divide). There is a significant difference between monkeys and apes,\nwhich is easiest to recognize by presence or absence of a tail (with\nsome exceptions- a couple monkeys have no tail, a couple fossil apes do\nhave a tail, but generally the rule holds).\n\nI realize my background makes me a bit pedantic on the subject but I\nsometimes wish the general public could at least get the tail part\nright. Apes (esp. the \"great\" ones) are so much closer to us humans than\nmonkeys." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "So 'monkey' and 'ape' are synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I usually hold my tongue on the subject in casual conversation but I am\nglad to think Wolfe isn't getting it wrong." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Scientists can't expect the general public to follow their terminology \naccurately even when their terminology is original, let alone when it's a \nredefinition of lay terms.\n\nThough it irks me that people call palms trees, as some here possibly \nalready know." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D27428D.8040907@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T16:42:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Lee Berman wrote (07-01-2011 15:26):" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I think that is basically what Lee is saying in his retraction, and I\nagree, especially when the situation allows for some slippage (e.g.,\n20,000 years have passed)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Well, to clarify further, if I'm watching TV and a chimpanzee is shown\nand somebody says, \"oh what a cute monkey!\" I may or may not say, \"ape,\nactually\", depending on who is speaking.\n\nWhen I read Robinson Crusoe or some other old book and a character\nremarks, \"the ape didst gnaw upon its own tail\", I can appreciate the\narchaic use of the word. And I think maybe Wolfe was going for that sort\nof usage to go along with his other archaic terms and names rather than\nmaking a linnaean error." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It would seem that you feel calling an ape a monkey is demeaning to the ape, \nand calling a monkey an ape is demeaning to the word 'ape'. That's an angle \nI hadn't met previously.\nIinm many languages have a term for 'monkey', but not necessarily for 'ape', \nand chimpanzees tend to be the archetypal monkey (due to the small size). So \nI just don't see how one can expect that modern english terminology is \ncorrectly followed.\n\nWould it be unreasonable to call tuataras, crocodiles and dinosaurs \n'lizards'? Legless lizards 'snakes'?\n\n(OT: Some cladists feel so good calling birds 'dinosaurs' that they've \nsuccessfully imposed that terminology on the interwebs. Of course, then they \nhad to redefine dinosaurs to exclude the ancestors of mammalians. So that \nwhat you used to call dinosaurs now have to be 'non-avian-dinosaurs + \nstem-mammals-and-whatnot'. It just doesn't strike me as a useful exercise. \nParaphyletic witch-hunt is a never ending endeavour by definition. One \nshould accept that there is evil-paraphyletic and reasonable-paraphyletic.)" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T18:06:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D27428D.8040907@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Oh sheesh, Antonio. I thought this thread was exhausted. I'll do my best to address\nyour questions, hopefully without straying too far, too long from Gene Wolfe stuff." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It would seem that you feel calling an ape a monkey is demeaning to the ape, \nand calling a monkey an ape is demeaning to the word 'ape'. That's an angle \nI hadn't met previously." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Heh, well, if nobility is defined as \"close to human\" then I guess apes are more noble\nthan monkeys. Bigger and more intelligent, surely. But what about evolutionary success? Monkeys\nare far more adaptable to changing environments and as a result are a much more sucessful\ngroup than apes who are mostly on the verge of extinction (unless, as Desmond Morris does, \nyou consider H. sapiens a \"naked ape\")." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "many languages have a term for 'monkey', but not necessarily for 'ape'," }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nYes, I am aware of that. (and it is a good point). My pedantic tendencies are reserved for native \nEnglish speakers and in my experience, many/most educated people in that category do know the ape-monkey \ndifference." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "chimpanzees tend to be the archetypal monkey (due to the small size)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nChimps are bigger than any (in english) monkey. Only the biggest male baboons come close. We might\nthink of chimps (excl. bonobos) as small because of the prevalence of using the cute juvenile kind\non TV shows and such. But full-grown chimps are big, strong and ugly and often kinda mean. Rarely\nseen on TV outside Nat'l Geog." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Would it be unreasonable to call tuataras, crocodiles and dinosaurs 'lizards'? Legless lizards 'snakes'?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nDepends. I wouldn't expect the general public to know that a tuatara is not a lizard and that a\nlegless lizard is not a snake. They are rare and they LOOK like their more prevalent cousins. (I don't \neven complain much if a rabbit is considered a rodent by the public). I think dinosaurs not being lizards \nis a bit more common knowledge these days, despite the word origin of \"-saur\". And most basic science classes \nwould teach that reptiles are broken into the four main groupings so lizards and crocodiles can be separated." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Some cladists feel so good calling birds 'dinosaurs' that they've successfully imposed that terminology on the \ninterwebs." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nI say nix on that. Birds are even less \"thunder lizards\" than lizards. Let's let the 160 year old convention \nremain that the word \"dinosaur\" implies \"extinct\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "then they had to redefine dinosaurs to exclude the ancestors of mammalians. So that \nwhat you used to call dinosaurs now have to be 'non-avian-dinosaurs + stem-mammals-and-whatnot'." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nThis part is in little doubt in modern paleontology. Dinosaurs (being warm-blooded) did give rise to birds but\nnot mammals. In fact the earliest mammals (derived from reptilian therapids) are notably older than the oldest\ndinosaurs. Mammals had to spend 100 million years staying small, waiting for the dinosaurs to move out before\nthey made their big expansion. (we can be pretty sure some later dinosaurs had feathers but none had hair). \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "markjmillman at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T18:11:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dear Mr. Berman," }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On Friday 7 January 2010, you wrote:\nJerry Friedman: it's not\nthe inhumi's nature that's\nreptilian; it's their appear-\nance. They're nothing\nlike Earth reptiles in their\nbehavior. ?And I see no\ndiscrepancy between\nreptilian appearance and\nexternal fertilization. ?I\nsee no reason evolution\non Blue-Green should\nhave gone the same way\nit did on Earth, no reason\nwe have to adjust our\nideas about them when\nwe learn about their fer-\ntilization or even if they\nhave some mysterious\nessential link to trees\nand vines." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think we have another example of\npersonal experience biasing inter-\npretation. For me, being a reptile\nMEANS internal fertilization and ter-\nrestrial eggs. That was their major\nevolutionary adaptation, allowing\nvertebrates to colonize the land and\njoin their plant and insect cousins\nthere.\n\nFor me it is as though Gene WOlfe\nspent three books noting the bird-\nlike appearance of Inhumi and then\nat the end reveals- they have no\nwings. That would have to be a sig-\nnificant solution to some series\nmystery, because an assumption\nof wings is something (I think) we\nall share with regard to birds.\n\nI don't know if Gene Wolfe shares\nmy perception that internal fertiliza-\ntion is an essential part of being a\nreptile or whether he just thinks of\nthem as being scaly, creepy things.\nI can't know. On the one hand he is\nscientific and detail oriented. On the\nother hand he seems to have con-\nflated monkeys and apes in a cou-\nple spots in his work. (a baboon is\nbig, but definitely a monkey).\n\nI lean toward Wolfe recognizing the\nessentiality of reptilian internal fer-\ntilization because it fits patterns I\nkeep seeing. One is the increasing\nsimplicity of their origin...\n\nBut the other may even more cen-\ntral...Wolfe is saying, at the end,\nthat shapeshifting Inhumi need a\nbody of surface water to reproduce.\nIn a 12 book series in which fish\nand flooding seem to be recurring\nthemes, I think this is likely to be\na significant revelation." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And later, you also wrote:\nWhen I read Robinson Crusoe or\nsome other old book and a charac-\nter remarks, \"the ape didst gnaw\nupon its own tail\", I can appreciate\nthe archaic use of the word. And I\nthink maybe Wolfe was going for\nthat sort of usage to go along with\nhis other archaic terms and names\nrather than making a linnaean error." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In that case, it may interest you to know that, at roughly the same\ntime that the term \"ape\" comprised large monkeys such as baboons, the\nterm \"reptile\" comprised amphibians--which typically have externally\nfertilized eggs that require open water.\n\nBest,\n\nMark Millman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<619360.98064.qm@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T18:35:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "From: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple \nspots in his work. " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "(a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I retract this. I was thinking about how one of the monkeys associated with \nFather Inire's name,\nInuus sylvanus, is commonly called the Barbary Ape because, though clearly a \nmonkey, has no tail.\nDid a little checking and in the past (in less rigorous taxonomic times), \nbaboons were also \n\ngenerally called \"apes\", probably due to their size and because they are more \nterrestrial than arboreal \n\nand their tails aren't prominent in their most frequent posture- sitting on \nthe ground." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In fact, according to the NSOED, all monkeys were once called \"apes\"; that was \nthe only word in English. \"Monkey\" first appeared in the 16th century.\n\nIt doesn't give information on when biologists started to tell people to use \n\"ape\" for the tailless ones or specifically for what the gibbons and the great \napes. My feeling is that the distinction has taken hold better than most \nprescribed distinctions, and the words aren't synonyms--though as you point out, \npeople do still refer to chimps as monkeys. But this is getting off-topic, so \nif Antonio wants to know more about current usage, he can always ask in \nalt.usage.english.\n\nSo I agree that if Severian calls a big monkey an ape, that's just because his \nsociety or his part of it isn't concerned with taxonomic precision, as our \nancestors weren't.\n\nJerry Friedman\n\n\n\n " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T18:55:40+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<619360.98064.qm@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Mark Millman: In that case, it may interest you to know that, at roughly the same\ntime that the term \"ape\" comprised large monkeys such as baboons, the\nterm \"reptile\" comprised amphibians--which typically have externally\nfertilized eggs that require open water." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nLMAO. Good one Mark! I could haggle over differences between the Commonwealth and Blue\nbut I won't risk the possibility of diluting such an excellent response!\n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Jordon Flato", "address": "jordonflatourth at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T19:34:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<619360.98064.qm@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN\nMONKEYS!!?!??" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Jan 7, 2011 10:37 AM, \"Jerry Friedman\" wrote:\nFrom: Lee Berman " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "On the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a couple" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "spots in his work..." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In fact, according to the NSOED, all monkeys were once called \"apes\"; that\nwas\nthe only word in English. \"Monkey\" first appeared in the 16th century.\n\nIt doesn't give information on when biologists started to tell people to use\n\"ape\" for the tailless ones or specifically for what the gibbons and the\ngreat\napes. My feeling is that the distinction has taken hold better than most\nprescribed distinctions, and the words aren't synonyms--though as you point\nout,\npeople do still refer to chimps as monkeys. But this is getting off-topic,\nso\nif Antonio wants to know more about current usage, he can always ask in\nalt.usage.english.\n\nSo I agree that if Severian calls a big monkey an ape, that's just because\nhis\nsociety or his part of it isn't concerned with taxonomic precision, as our\nancestors weren't.\n\nJerry Friedman" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D276BE2.2070202@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2011-01-07T19:39:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ooh!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 1/7/2011 1:11 PM, Mark Millman wrote:\n\nIn that case, it may interest you to know that, at roughly the same\ntime that the term \"ape\" comprised large monkeys such as baboons, the\nterm \"reptile\" comprised amphibians--which typically have externally\nfertilized eggs that require open water." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D27787F.8030106@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T20:33:03+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<619360.98064.qm@web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jerry Friedman wrote:\nFrom: Lee Berman\nOn the other hand he seems to have conflated monkeys and apes in a\ncouple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but definitely a\nmonkey)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I retract this. I was thinking about how one of the monkeys\nassociated with Father Inire's name, Inuus sylvanus, is commonly called\nthe Barbary Ape because, though clearly a monkey, has no tail. Did a\nlittle checking and in the past (in less rigorous taxonomic times),\nbaboons were also generally called \"apes\", probably due to their size\nand because they are more terrestrial than arboreal and their tails\naren't prominent in their most frequent posture- sitting on the\nground." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In fact, according to the NSOED, all monkeys were once called \"apes\";\nthat was the only word in English. \"Monkey\" first appeared in the 16th\ncentury.\n\nIt doesn't give information on when biologists started to tell people to\nuse \"ape\" for the tailless ones or specifically for what the gibbons and\nthe great apes. My feeling is that the distinction has taken hold\nbetter than most prescribed distinctions, and the words aren't\nsynonyms--though as you point out, people do still refer to chimps as\nmonkeys. But this is getting off-topic, so if Antonio wants to know more\nabout current usage, he can always ask in alt.usage.english." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, I don't mind those folks visiting every once in a while, but I don't\nthink I'd like to live there. I'll take your word for it that the\ndistinction stuck... (though I doubt biologists are responsible for that)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So I agree that if Severian calls a big monkey an ape, that's just\nbecause his society or his part of it isn't concerned with taxonomic\nprecision, as our ancestors weren't." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "...which suggests that GW made them on purpose not make the distinction.\n\n From what I've seen, the specialisation of _ape_ was chiefly based on the\ntail. Who's to say apes on Urth haven't reacquired tails (Dollo, I know, but\nwho made Dollo arbiter?). Like with chicken's teeth, the DNA is there,\nwaiting to be used. After all, the urthian fauna isn't identical to ours;\nUrth = Earth or not, we're told the story takes place millions of years in\nthe future, and a million years is an awful lot of time for speciation. Thre\nemay be more specie of fox than man because man has culture to address the\nenvironment, but what culture other apes have is limited." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lee Berman", "address": "severiansola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T20:41:54+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "<4D27787F.8030106@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Jordon Flato: But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN\nMONKEYS!!?!??" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": " \nHeh. Only if they have tails. And the only way to know that is to use the ultimate arbiter\nof Wolfean factuality- cover art. \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4D277B59.9080408@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "António Pedro Marques", "address": "entonio at gmail.com" }, "date": "2011-01-07T20:45:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Reptiles", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Lee Berman wrote:\nJordon Flato:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN\nMONKEYS!!?!??" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Heh. Only if they have tails. And the only way to know that is to use the ultimate arbiter\nof Wolfean factuality- cover art. \t\t \t \t\t" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But what if they're secondarily tailed apes? Or tailless monkeys?\n\nOr something descended from boulders with an ability to imitate men?\n\nOr incarnate genies?" } ] } ] }