Then just don't call them different "species". just call them different "breeding groups" or character type groupings, implying that the "founders" of the Disney Comic book Universe, portrayed them in those various styles, after given real world animal types, for a reason (even though, we can only guess a few of the reasons for a very few of the characters being in one group or another.
I believe I'm in a minority when it comes to believing in the "filter" theory (I know drakeborough has said he subscribes to it, and so does Rosa except when he wants to cover up the fact that he overlooked Miss Penny Wise while writing Life of Scrooge), so while I'd be happy using a term other than "species", most would probably find it silly.
What about "different animal-inspired characterization groups"?
Post by Scrooge MacDuck on Jun 6, 2020 22:33:46 GMT
That's kind of assuming the conclusion. I, for one, have already read the various characters as in fact being animals — assumed by fiat to be evolved from mice, ducks and dogs in similar ways to how we are evolved from apes.
At any rate, I believe the point of this thread is to catalog the species from an out-of-universe perspective; not an in-universe one. Donald and neighbor Jones are clearly different species to the audience, for example.
So, while interesting, the question of the ability for horses and cows to interbreed isn't really relevant. The same is true for whether everyone is really human.
That's pretty much the conversation I'm trying to establish. I think it's a bit foolish to speculate on the latter until we have an idea of the former. And Duckburg doesn't go by Darwinian rules anyhow: in the end, new Duckburgians get created through a process of ACTUAL creationism (when an artist puts pen to paper), so that discussion is moot in my eyes. My ideas about Duckburgian genetics are about as shallow as the artist's ability to design a recognisable cartoon character.
To me, they *are* all the same species (i.e., humans); I guess in my mind this exercise is an attempt to characterize the forms the "lens" gives these characters. But we also see Bird characters with floppy dog ears, and other Bird characters like Gyro with human feet, etc., which may be evidence of interbreeding (or the lens' attempt to show us that, if you subscribe to the filter theory).
Yes, and that's why one of the first things on my list was "common type". Funny animals have their origin in fables. I'd like to see how much of those roots we can uncover along the way. You know, foxes as crafty, cats versus mice, fat pigs, etc. I want to re-generalize a bit, if possible -- but of course, each character is their own and people in real life often behave differently from their stereotypes. I was also hoping it would be a nice jumping-off point for thinking about new types of animals (though that's another discussion). For instance, anthropomorphized gazelles and hippopotamuses.
The different attributes are a part of this, although I think any talk of interbreeding is jumping to conclusions (and depends on your own interpretation). We have different subspecies in our own world -- it would be only proper due to the artist to distinguish between the generic dognose (nasus canem vulgaris) and the Taliaferro dognose (nasus canem taliaferrensis). The first thing we can puzzle together are different scales of "purity": humans, humans with dog-noses, humans with dog-ears, full dognoses. Chicken: subspecies Clara Cluck, subspecies Rockhead Rooster, subspecies Gyro Gearloose. Mixed breeds would suggest intermixing, IMO.
(I don't subscribe to filter theory because I don't fully understand what it is.)
I thought that the consensus here was that the Calisota was all a single species Human or other, that they can all mate with each other, and have healthy offspring. Given that, why are you trying to separate them into different "species"? Given that, the groups would really be just different breeding groups, (e.g. different Haplogroups, differing in DNA - different strngths of different DNA markers). Personally, I think of the doglike, mouselike, and fowllike sentient beings in "The Duck and Mouse Universes" ARE different species. Despite inter-species "dating", I don't believe those different groups can interbreed. This implies that unlike our real World, the alternative world of Disney Comics had several different species have reached the level of being sentient, while our own World has had only Humans do so.
Where exactly do you see a problem with my way of using the word 'species'? From our universe's perspective, not theirs.
Last Edit: Jun 6, 2020 23:03:12 GMT by That Duckfan
I thought that the consensus here was that the Calisota was all a single species Human or other, that they can all mate with each other, and have healthy offspring. Given that, why are you trying to separate them into different "species"? Given that, the groups would really be just different breeding groups, (e.g. different Haplogroups, differing in DNA - different strngths of different DNA markers). Personally, I think of the doglike, mouselike, and fowllike sentient beings in "The Duck and Mouse Universes" ARE different species. Despite inter-species "dating", I don't believe those different groups can interbreed. This implies that unlike our real World, the alternative world of Disney Comics had several different species have reached the level of being sentient, while our own World has had only Humans do so.
Where exactly do you see a problem with my way of using the word 'species'? From our universe's perspective, not theirs.
I think he was referring to my perspective on it rather than yours (i.e., the filter theory).
And the filter theory simply means that all the sapient Duck and Mouse characters are actually human beings like us, but are just drawn with the bodies of caricatured animals because we look at them through a "lens". So they don't really have bills or black noses, and they don't lay eggs, and they can all interbreed. Donald and Jones *are* the same species in this theory although they don't look it to us from the outside. "Duck" and "Mouse" are just last names, not species descriptors. In other words, they are all MEAS-5s, and there aren't even any MEAS-4s (of course there especially can't be any MEAS-3s, otherwise the Big Bad Wolf is essentially a cannibal; that's why the Li'l Bad Wolf stories can't occur in the Duckverse or Mouseverse in my headcanon). If we were to visit Duckburg or Mouseton, we'd all be given little black noses or duckbills or whatever (not sure how that would be decided) to anyone looking in from the outside. But to us visiting him in person, Donald would look like the human he is, I guess?
I thought that the consensus here was that the Calisota was all a single species Human or other, that they can all mate with each other, and have healthy offspring. Given that, why are you trying to separate them into different "species"? Given that, the groups would really be just different breeding groups, (e.g. different Haplogroups, differing in DNA - different strngths of different DNA markers). Personally, I think of the doglike, mouselike, and fowllike sentient beings in "The Duck and Mouse Universes" ARE different species. Despite inter-species "dating", I don't believe those different groups can interbreed. This implies that unlike our real World, the alternative world of Disney Comics had several different species have reached the level of being sentient, while our own World has had only Humans do so.
Where exactly do you see a problem with my way of using the word 'species'? From our universe's perspective, not theirs.
From OUR Universe's perspective, wolves. Coyotes, and foxes and dogs are not the same species. Mice and rats are not the same species. Ducks and geese are not the same species. Ducks and coots are not even the same species. Ducks and waterbirds (Like Gyro) are not even in the same order. They first come into the same group in the class, that is FOUR different classifications above species level! It's impossible for me to not think of the DNA evolutionary distance between the real animal groups their appearance is pattered after, and the real biological processes needed to make them as different-looking as they are in the comics. If we are only using the term species in house, anyway, why not just use a different word, which doesn't invoke an image of breaking the rules of the science and logic to which we are used?
From OUR Universe's perspective, wolves. Coyotes, and foxes and dogs are not the same species. Mice and rats are not the same species. Ducks and geese are not the same species. Ducks and coots are not even the same species. Ducks and waterbirds (Like Gyro) are not even in the same order. They first come into the same group in the class, that is FOUR different classifications above species level! It's impossible for me to not think of the DNA evolutionary distance between the real animal groups their appearance is pattered after, and the real biological processes needed to make them as different-looking as they are in the comics. If we are only using the term species in house, anyway, why not just use a different word, which doesn't invoke an image of breaking the rules of the science and logic to which we are used?
Frankly, I kind of like your idea of "different animal-inspired characterization groups", but I doubt many others here will take to it.
That Duckfan, why do you think Clara Cluck and Rockhead Rooster are different subspecies? They seem pretty equivalent in chickenness and in humanness, as far as I can remember.
That Duckfan, why do you think Clara Cluck and Rockhead Rooster are different subspecies? They seem pretty equivalent in chickenness and in humanness, as far as I can remember.
Clara doesn't wear any clothes, while Rockhead wears a shirt. I thought there were more differences, but apparently not.
If species is too controversial a term, maybe we need a better term. My original draft said 'animal', but I guess that runs into the same problems. 'Type' is too generic. 'Totem' has problems of its own. Maybe 'taxon'?
Last Edit: Jun 7, 2020 10:00:11 GMT by That Duckfan
I found some more anthropomorphic animals in Mr. Slicker and the Egg Robbers: mallards and goats. There's also an anthropomorphic ape, but I guess that was already covered with Ecks and the others. I would assume that other early Gottfredson strips had many more animals, but I can't think of anymore right now.
I was also hoping it would be a nice jumping-off point for thinking about new types of animals (though that's another discussion). For instance, anthropomorphized gazelles and hippopotamuses.
The different attributes are a part of this, although I think any talk of interbreeding is jumping to conclusions (and depends on your own interpretation). We have different subspecies in our own world -- it would be only proper due to the artist to distinguish between the generic dognose (nasus canem vulgaris) and the Taliaferro dognose (nasus canem taliaferrensis).
We actually do have a separate thread for the topic, but I just wanted to say here that personally, I dislike the idea of introducing atypical anthropomorphisms in the Duckverse and Mouseverse just for the novelty of it. The unwritten rule that birds, dogfaces and pigs are the extent of the various animal-based characterization groups, probably originated by Taliaferro (although he used more dog-like dognoses and rarely ever other birds or pigs) but standardized by Barks and other Western writers has always appealed to me, such that even seeing the occasional rabbit is jarring. I'm not sure how well elephants and hippopotomuses would fit in ... it would make Duckburg look too much like Zootopia.
Worth mentioning here is that Taliaferro did, for a long while, draw young attractive female characters as completely human (so did Gottfredson, I believe), and many of Gottfredson's early dognose characters were much more dog-like than human-like (Col. Doberman, Col. Bassett, Trigger Hawkes, even O'Hara early on).
Rosinha - Parakeet Rocha Vaz (Rosinha's father) - Toucan? Nestor - some kind of vulture (probably Black Vulture)
Much more explicit and implicit interspecies dating (the parrot Zé Carioca dating with the parakeet Rosinha, who is daughter of a toucan - and there is also a rooster trying to date Rosinha; and the female cousin of Nestor - also a vulture - seems to atract males of all species).
Rosinha - Parakeet Rocha Vaz (Rosinha's father) - Toucan? Nestor - some kind of vulture (probably Black Vulture)
Much more explicit and implicit interspecies dating (the parrot Zé Carioca dating with the parakeet Rosinha, who is daughter of a toucan - and there is also a rooster trying to date Rosinha; and the female cousin of Nestor - also a vulture - seems to atract males of all species).
Nestor's meant to be a crow, pretty sure, which is made more clear when you see him in the old Murry strips; it's just the way he was cartooned evolve into a more generic bird shape
We actually do have a separate thread for the topic, but I just wanted to say here that personally, I dislike the idea of introducing atypical anthropomorphisms in the Duckverse and Mouseverse just for the novelty of it. The unwritten rule that birds, dogfaces and pigs are the extent of the various animal-based characterization groups, probably originated by Taliaferro (although he used more dog-like dognoses and rarely ever other birds or pigs) but standardized by Barks and other Western writers has always appealed to me, such that even seeing the occasional rabbit is jarring. I'm not sure how well elephants and hippopotomuses would fit in ... it would make Duckburg look too much like Zootopia.
I feel like there's a middle ground between the strict "birds-dogs-pigs" approach and Zootopia-ness. Personally, I do like me a random walk-on hippopotamus every now and then, but I recognize that the appeal of it is very much a novelty.
Now the thing is… Rabbits, I suppose, are a bit of a gray area unless you acknowledge the Brer Rabbit mythos within the Duck/Mouseverse. But while the Barksverse is mostly limited to the "birds-dogs-pigs" triad (not that he didn't randomly give us the Clan McElk in Hound of the Whiskerville… and I'm sure I recall some Barksian bovines in bit parts), I don't think these limitations can realistically apply to the Mouseverse. One of the main antagonists, namely Peg-Leg Pete, is, fercrissake, either a cat or a bear depending on accounts, but definitely not a dog. And then you've got Clarabelle and Horace as incontrovertible evidence that there are horses & bovines in Mouseton. I would complete the list of Recognized Mouseton Species with apes (within Gottfredson, Dr Vulter, the Professors Ecks, Doublecks and Triplecks; Casty added Doctor Malvazar to the roster) and with goats; while there never was a truly recurring goat character, there is a recurring presence in 1930's material, both animated and printed, of secondary goat characters, the most enduring probably being Sheriff Bill Goat and old farmer Gideon Goat.…plus, you know. Mice and rats. Arguably, it can feel a bit strange to have Mickey-type characters in a story without their being related to Mickey or Minnie, but that still leaves Mortimer to contend with and you're kinda making up epicycles.
To briefly nip back to Duckburg, I'd also raise you foxes. Colorings differ on the matter, with some giving the impression that they're simply long-snouted dognose-types, but the McSues of The Horseradish Story have always scanned as foxes to me, and that's pretty big precedent for including foxes in even a wholly Barksian view of the Disney Comics universe.
I also feel like wolves aren't hugely controversial, but you could, of course, argue that they're just another flavor of anthropomorphic dog at the end of the day. And admittedly, Barks's Ray's A Riot, even as it acknowledges dognoses as "dogs" in dialogue, seems to be built on the premise that Donald has never met a talking, walking wolf.
If species is too controversial a term, maybe we need a better term. My original draft said 'animal', but I guess that runs into the same problems. 'Type' is too generic. 'Totem' has problems of its own. Maybe 'taxon'?
Personally I have no issue with "species", which can easily be justified in real-world terms even if you don't think Donald and Mickey are really of different species in-universe. However, if we must come up with a wholly neutral term, I really really like taxons. All say aye?
Post by Baar Baar Jinx on Jun 8, 2020 23:48:37 GMT
Disney Comics, Inc., in their original material, did give Mickey a lot of new enemies and allies belonging to diverse animal-inspired characterization groups, such as penguins, vixens, tigers (named Wildebeest) and walruses. None of them appear to have survived that publisher (indeed, the name Mouseton is the only enduring element of that era) but many of those characters weren't that bad. But in general, yes, the Mouseverse has more a more varied populace than the Duckverse, although I'll note that it seems to be mostly limited to the original characters (Mickey, Minnie, Pete, Horace and Clarabelle); in later years, background characters tended to be dognoses for the most part here as well. (BTW, what species is Sylvester Shyster supposed to be? I think we discussed that elsewhere but I can't remember what came of it.)
Oh, also, in that old Rosa interview linked to on another thread, he said that Barks originally wanted to have all the background characters be humans, but made them dognoses at the insistence of his editors. How true is that? I mean, Barks did slip in humans on several occasions (which reportedly did cause his editors to become very uncomfortable) but I would have thought the dognose convention came from the Taliaferro strips (as did giving Donald, HD&L black shirts). Can anyone clear this up for posterity?