David Stockhoff: So what does this say about the Gondwanaland hypothesis?
Well, if it was just "Africa" that might hint at the evolutionary origin of primates, including humanity. But Gondwanaland predates the evolution of primates (I had to look that up to be sure. Did Wolfe?)
I do like the idea of a faerie explanation. But perhaps Wolfe is suggesting that such things predate even primates. Sorry for repeating but perhaps as they are something as basic as the Shadow which must be formed when God creates both Light and Objects. Again, shadows are dark, imitative and indeterminate in size, shape and number.
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).
Or maybe their basic structure is a parasitic vine. Or perhaps something even more basic and primitive than that, by extrapolation....perhaps simply a..shadow?
I can't say it is clear and obvious but I get the impression Wolfe keeps suggesting ever more primitive origins for Inhumi. If so, perhaps the same for abo/shadow kids.
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
...
1 quoted line
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).
...
I'm not going to try to check whether I've said this when you made similar statements--I'm just going to point out that 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.
Jerry Friedman
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.
I think we have another example of personal experience biasing interpretation. For me, being a reptile MEANS internal fertilization and terrestrial 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 significant 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 fertilization 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 conflated monkeys and apes in a couple spots in his work. (a baboon is big, but definitely a monkey).
I lean toward Wolfe recognizing the essentiality of reptilian internal fertilization because it fits patterns I keep seeing. One is the increasing simplicity of their origin...
But the other may even more central...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.
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.
So, now I think Wolfe calling a monkey an "ape" may be a purposeful way of maintaining the archaic sense of language in BotNS rather than an error. (I doubt anyone but me cares, but had to issue the retraction anyway. I shouldn't have doubted Wolfe's science acumen).
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.
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).
2 quoted lines
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).
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 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?
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.
So 'monkey' and 'ape' are synonyms of 'simian', popularly speaking?
1 quoted line
I usually hold my tongue on the subject in casual conversation but I am glad to think Wolfe isn't getting it wrong.
Scientists can't expect the general public to follow their terminology accurately even when their terminology is original, let alone when it's a redefinition of lay terms.
Though it irks me that people call palms trees, as some here possibly already know.
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. Iinm many languages have a term for 'monkey', but not necessarily for 'ape', and chimpanzees tend to be the archetypal monkey (due to the small size). So I just don't see how one can expect that modern english terminology is correctly followed.
Would it be unreasonable to call tuataras, crocodiles and dinosaurs 'lizards'? Legless lizards 'snakes'?
(OT: Some cladists feel so good calling birds 'dinosaurs' that they've successfully imposed that terminology on the interwebs. Of course, 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'. It just doesn't strike me as a useful exercise. Paraphyletic witch-hunt is a never ending endeavour by definition. One should accept that there is evil-paraphyletic and reasonable-paraphyletic.)
Oh sheesh, Antonio. I thought this thread was exhausted. I'll do my best to address your questions, hopefully without straying too far, too long from Gene Wolfe stuff.
1 quoted line
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.
Heh, well, if nobility is defined as "close to human" then I guess apes are more noble
than monkeys. Bigger and more intelligent, surely. But what about evolutionary success? Monkeys are far more adaptable to changing environments and as a result are a much more sucessful group than apes who are mostly on the verge of extinction (unless, as Desmond Morris does, you consider H. sapiens a "naked ape").
1 quoted line
many languages have a term for 'monkey', but not necessarily for 'ape',
Yes, I am aware of that. (and it is a good point). My pedantic tendencies are reserved for native
English speakers and in my experience, many/most educated people in that category do know the ape-monkey
difference.
1 quoted line
chimpanzees tend to be the archetypal monkey (due to the small size).
Chimps are bigger than any (in english) monkey. Only the biggest male baboons come close. We might think of chimps (excl. bonobos) as small because of the prevalence of using the cute juvenile kind on TV shows and such. But full-grown chimps are big, strong and ugly and often kinda mean. Rarely seen on TV outside Nat'l Geog.
1 quoted line
Would it be unreasonable to call tuataras, crocodiles and dinosaurs 'lizards'? Legless lizards 'snakes'?
Depends. I wouldn't expect the general public to know that a tuatara is not a lizard and that a
legless lizard is not a snake. They are rare and they LOOK like their more prevalent cousins. (I don't
even complain much if a rabbit is considered a rodent by the public). I think dinosaurs not being lizards
is a bit more common knowledge these days, despite the word origin of "-saur". And most basic science classes
would teach that reptiles are broken into the four main groupings so lizards and crocodiles can be separated.
2 quoted lines
Some cladists feel so good calling birds 'dinosaurs' that they've successfully imposed that terminology on the
interwebs.
I say nix on that. Birds are even less "thunder lizards" than lizards. Let's let the 160 year old convention
remain that the word "dinosaur" implies "extinct".
2 quoted lines
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'.
This part is in little doubt in modern paleontology. Dinosaurs (being warm-blooded) did give rise to birds but
not mammals. In fact the earliest mammals (derived from reptilian therapids) are notably older than the oldest
dinosaurs. Mammals had to spend 100 million years staying small, waiting for the dinosaurs to move out before
they made their big expansion. (we can be pretty sure some later dinosaurs had feathers but none had hair).
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.
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.
Best,
Mark Millman
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.
Jerry Friedman
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.
LMAO. Good one Mark! I could haggle over differences between the Commonwealth and Blue but I won't risk the possibility of diluting such an excellent response!
Jerry Friedman07 Jan 2011
missing from the archive
The list delivered this and never kept it. What survives is
what the reply below quoted of it.
From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>
spots in his work...
But But But...does that mean the man apes of Saltus might have been MAN MONKEYS!!?!??
3 quoted lines · 1–2 deep
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...
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.
Jerry Friedman
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.
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)
1 quoted line
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.
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.
But what if they're secondarily tailed apes? Or tailless monkeys?
Or something descended from boulders with an ability to imitate men?
Or incarnate genies?
Urth Net