Reptiles

António Pedro Marques · 07 Jan 2011, 20:33 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: entonio at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Ant=F3nio_Pedro_Marques?=)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 20:33:03 +0000
Subject: (urth) Reptiles
In-Reply-To: <619360.98064.qm at web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <SNT123-W595B640A22F8BB8D887E4CF0B0 at phx.gbl>
	<619360.98064.qm at web114708.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4D27787F.8030106 at gmail.com>

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.

No, I don't mind those folks visiting every once in a while, but I don't
think I'd like to live there. I'll take your word for it that the
distinction stuck... (though I doubt biologists are responsible for that)

> 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.

...which suggests that GW made them on purpose not make the distinction.

 From what I've seen, the specialisation of _ape_ was chiefly based on the
tail. Who's to say apes on Urth haven't reacquired tails (Dollo, I know, but
who made Dollo arbiter?). Like with chicken's teeth, the DNA is there,
waiting to be used. After all, the urthian fauna isn't identical to ours;
Urth = Earth or not, we're told the story takes place millions of years in
the future, and a million years is an awful lot of time for speciation. Thre
emay be more specie of fox than man because man has culture to address the
environment, but what culture other apes have is limited.

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net