Post by mkr on Dec 25, 2023 9:11:11 GMT
Ahh, I love finds like these! They're fascinating in the wider context of the 'universe'
That being said, how would we actually place them?
As far as I understand, the link here is about the wider context of a greater ancestor - so, this Paperus Anticus isn't specifically related to Donald, but the Paperus Anticus species. As such, it obviously wouldn't apply to a single generation. And, of course, that would then follow for Paperus Preistoricus too.
I'll say upfront that the specific science is not something I'm familiar with - as such, the following comes from a quick skim of the general idea:
It seems that 'Paperus' is a fill-in for 'Homo' - as in, Homo Sapiens, Homo Habilis etc.
However, it can also be substituted for human; that would be how 'Paperus Anticus' can evolve into just a 'Paperus'.
We know that the line is Paperus Preistoricus, Paperus Anticus, Paperus.
From what the professor says, it seems that that line is linear - since he mentions the Anticus as a missing link, they'd most likely have to be at least fairly close.
From my quick look at Wikipedia's Hominin Timeline, I think it would stand to reason that we do the following in this case:
Paperus is understood as a Homo Sapiens, or 'Early Modern Human'. This tracks with our current info.
Paperus Anticus is understood as Homo Erectus, whose earliest occurrence was around 2 million years ago.
Paperus Preistoricus is understood as Homo Habilis. The timeframe is seemingly argued, but it could be anywhere between 3.3 million to 1.65 million years ago (There's seemingly a debate around Australopithecus Africanus and how it relates). Here's the Wikipedia page for Homo Habilis, should anyone want a look themselves.
This generally tracks with what we know thus far - I don't know how accurate my understanding is, but I think it lines up properly.
The only question, then, is how we actually recognize this on the tree?
Yeah, Paperus anticus and Paperus preistoricus are indeed supposed to be species here and not individuals. However the story also shows a feather from a specific Paperus anticus (as confirmed by the professor), as well as a skull (that might very well be from (the same?) Paperus anticus, though it is not confirmed by the professor). So, we can put I think at least one individual Paperus anticus on the tree based on the feather/skull. We only don't know his/her name. As for the Paperus preistoricus, there is no feather or anything else seen in the story, but maybe we can still put one entry for it in the tree, as ancestor of the Paperus anticus, as we know that there should be at least one ancestor that is a Paperus preistoricus (though it will have no image and no actual name on the tree). As for the position on the tree; the best fit for them might be on lines below the ducks from the Paperut series and above the prehistoric bird from D 2016-011 (hmm, maybe that bird can even be a Paperus preistoricus).
Interesting stuff! Notably, it makes an interesting point regarding Fethry in Italian - he specifically comments that Crapilloga has to be related to him because 'his name ends in Oga'.
It sort of implies that 'Oga' is his surname, though that contradicts what we know of him otherwise.
It could also just be a silly jump he makes - however, it's also worth noting that he's insistent on referring to Crapilloga as a 'great great cousin'. In other words, per Genealogy Explained, "someone who is four generations removed from a common ancestor."
It's hard to gauge - both points are things that Fethry would characteristically get into his head, but they're worth taking note of.
Either way, after Christmas, I'll try to get my hands on I CD 535I-1 if I can; I doubt it'd have a clear answer, but worth looking for.
Assuming it has no info, though, I've been wondering - might it be worth adding a section for people who could be relatives, but their status is intentionally obscured in-universe?
As in, not just anyone who could be one (That'd be a nightmare and a half), but characters like Crapilloga, Dickie Duck and even Douglas McDuck because of D 2010-143.
The reason I bring it up is because I've been thinking about Dickie Duck, and can't come to a solid answer either way. This might be a reasonable compromise?