In I PM 312-1, some McDuck ancestors are seen. They lived 4 centuries ago.
"4 centuries ago" would be the mid-1500s. That particular part of the McDuck-tree is getting pretty crowded!
Yeah, but there is no need for any of them to be a direct ancestor, as long as they are McDucks. Maybe they could be brothers of Malcolm. Or otherwise his cousins or uncles, in case that recent story of Malcolm would contradict that Malcolm has any brothers.
I TL 2883-3 mentions Scrooge’s great-great-great-great-uncle Scroogius McDuck.
Donald’s Ancient Greek ancestor Papherinos appears in I TL 2751-5.
In I TL 533-A, Scrooge’s ancestor Mac Paperus is mentioned. We have another "Mac Paperus" on the tree, but it cannot be the same one, as he is from a different time period.
In I TL 2528-6, Scrooge’s ancestor Paperonius Di Paperolete appears. He lived in end of the 15th century. He has a nephew called Paperito, who is an ancestor of Donald. There is also a Brigitta look-a-like, simply called Brigitta, who can be interpreted to be an ancestor of Brigitta, but that is not said so explicitly.
And does anyone have I M 6-2 ? There seems to be an aunt of Brigitta in this story, and maybe other relatives as well.
I do. Tracked down and bought the issue two and a half years ago just for that story. Brigitta's aunt is called Lena McBridge and she's been living in Brazil since long, she comes to visit the niece in Duckburg, but Brigitta doesn't recognize her.
Here are the opening pages of the first chapter. I think that's all that is relevant regarding evolution, since it brings it up till the Pippo più-o-meno-sapiens, which is the same species as Goofy himself is. So, the rest of the chapter and other chapters are very relevant if you want to construct a Goofy family tree, but not really for an evolution time line. The last chapter is indeed set partly in the future. Here are the pages set in the future.
This is perfect, thank you! I'm working on it comparatively with the Goofylution story - I'll do what I can to ensure it's all coherent!
Also, while discussing Goofy's evolution, does anyone know off-hand what this creature is supposed to be?
I'd imagine some kind of very early pinniped or canine ancestor, which is what I've been operating on, but I'm not 100% certain. I'm operating on the assumption of it being a very early pinniped, but if anyone knows otherwise, please let me know
While scanning INDUCKS, I noticed this rather curious family tree. It relates Donald to Cinderella, Pluto, Mickey, Bambi, among others.
What's curious about it? Have we not already documented Donald's two sons, Practical Pig and Pluto?
More seriously, it's up to you if you want to recognize it officially; it would make things a nightmare by virtue of including Mickey (I've purposefully been avoiding the Mouse species in the evolutionary process), but I'm willing to work with it if we go that route
Personally, it's bizarre to me. I was hoping that translation would elucidate, but it seems like the INDUCKS title (Το γενεαλογικό δέντρο της Σταχτοπούτας και του Γκας) is accurate to the text - and that just means "The family tree of Cinderella and Gus". You can see the immediate issue - that the picture of 'Gus' is actually Jaq.
I initially took it as an 'it started with Mickey and these spawned from him' situation, as in a tree of succession, but it doesn't seem like there's any coherence to it in that regard - like how and why the branching occurs. Plus, the translation literally refers to it as a 'family tree', so pretty unambiguous.
If we do want to look at this literally and incorporate it, it would beg the obvious questions - how literally do we take it? Obviously Minnie isn't Mickey's offspring (barf), and how some characters link together is strange at best (Pinocchio obviously can't be anyone's son except Geppetto's or the Blue Fairy's - and let's not even consider the idea that the Great Prince of the Forest might have been with Mrs. Jumbo).
We can assume that it's not a tree in the traditional sense - however, if we want to accept this as a valid source, I'm willing to work with it. Pretty much all of these characters do co-exist in Disney comics, so it's not honestly entirely infeasible.
Though, if we do go that route, worth asking: do we then consider Oswald as Mickey's brother? If so, he and Ortensia have 420 children...
From what i can gather, the tree seems to be more talking about Disney's production history rather then a literal family tree of the characters Just to ask though, what video games are we considering canon here? (Kingdom Hearts aside, that's a whole different can of worms)
Oswald's 420 children are awfully silly, even in canon—the first cartoon, POOR PAPA, portrays Oswald's first girlfriend, Fanny Cottontail, as the babies' "mom," taking care of them in bed, and a doctor comes to examine the "birth," but the babies are actually being dropped down the bedroom chimney by an army of storks. It's not a euphemism, Oswald tries to shoot the storks away with a shotgun and fails.
Oswald still has a swarm of the babies with him in the second cartoon, TROLLEY TROUBLES, but they weren't used after that, as Universal objected to Oswald being portrayed as middle-aged and "married" (or whatever having a large family would suggest in 1927).
The EPIC MICKEY video game series and its related comics brought the hundreds of babies back, with Ortensia as their surrogate mom, but she can't be more than that as she's neither Oswald's spouse or the babies' biological mom (or even their species). Do the babies really belong on a family tree, when the Duckburg/Mouseton comics "reality" has never included storks in this capacity again?
Oswald's army of children seems to be an example of the looser anthropomorphism of the very early Disney material, where the characters still are treated as more than half-animal, not human surrogates who happen to look like animals--in this case, Oswald and Fanny retain the notorious fertility of real rabbits, or a cartoonishly exaggerated version of the same; I don't believe even real rabbits have that many kits at one time! Some of the early Disney promotional material on Mickey himself, such as the mock "interview" Ramapith reprinted in the first volume of the Fantagraphics series, takes a similar tack of treating him like a "real" mouse (afraid of cats and dogs, fond of cheese, etc.), but I don't recall him ever being quite so emphatically "mousey" in his early cartoons, at least not to the extent Oswald was "rabbity" in his first cartoons.
Unlike most here, I privately love the idea of the characters retaining some slightly animal characteristics (which is why I reprinted that interview), but "unlike most here" explains why I don't do it more, and why it doesn't mesh with today's vision of Duckburg and Mouseton.
Neither Disney nor readers really want the characters to be animal-like at this point—they've evolved as they've evolved, so I've gotta play ball.
(There's the occasional mention of Mickey liking cheese in my output... and occasional media references the fact that HDL and Donald were born from eggs, but that's about it...)
(There's the occasional mention of Mickey liking cheese in my output... and occasional media references the fact that HDL and Donald were born from eggs, but that's about it...)
Yes, I do remember the cheese reference to Death Valley in your (?) localization of that Casty's story with Uma. I found that amusing.
I also like the occasional nods to the characters' original species; it's funny, and when applied to "guest" characters it can also be a good shorthand for establishing personality--like the rats that Barks occasionally uses as minor shady characters and the pigs he liked to use as politicians and greedy heavies--or for comically playing on expectations--like the sweet-looking but villainous Mr. Lamb in the Walsh/Gottfredson "Crime Syndicate". I've said before that I actually wish Disney comic artists would use more anthropomorphism rather than making all the characters (except the Ducks and Mice themselves) into thinly-disguised humans.
In H 2023-333, Magica De Spell disguises herself as the Ducks' "Tante Fiet" (Aunt... Frieda?). However, it's clear in context that this person doesn't really exist. Even Donald and the boys have difficulty recognizing her...
So, the official "Disney Junior" Instagram account came up with this weird family tree. At first glance, it seems to pertain specifically to the Ducktales 2017 continuity, until you realise thaty Donald and Daisy's portraits are taken from another TV show, and Ludwig being married to Matilda is from Don Rosa's headcanon. What a mess! (On the other hand, if I can make that count as official confirmation that Ludwig and Matilda are a couple, well, I'll take it!)
So, the official "Disney Junior" Instagram account came up with this weird family tree. At first glance, it seems to pertain specifically to the Ducktales 2017 continuity, until you realise thaty Donald and Daisy's portraits are taken from another TV show, and Ludwig being married to Matilda is from Don Rosa's headcanon. What a mess! (On the other hand, if I can make that count as official confirmation that Ludwig and Matilda are a couple, well, I'll take it!)
Lol yes, I saw it a couple of hours ago and I even wrote something about it on my blog. The Ludwig-Matilda connection is not even mentioned in the show (in which they both appear and he even has three children!)