The "ultimate" Duck family tree

[danoduck]

I found this story on the inducks, inducks.org/story.php?c=I+M+++++6-2 Brigitta e il girotondo delle zie (Brigitta and the aunts' roundabout), and it's supposed to appear some aunts but I don't have the story, can anyone confirm?

[sim]

Jul 22, 2024 17:50:49 GMT danoduck said:

I found this story on the inducks, inducks.org/story.php?c=I+M+++++6-2 Brigitta e il girotondo delle zie (Brigitta and the aunts' roundabout), and it's supposed to appear some aunts but I don't have the story, can anyone confirm?

I can confirm and the story has already been discussed in this very topic:

here

[danoduck]

Jul 22, 2024 18:31:34 GMT sim said:

Jul 22, 2024 17:50:49 GMT danoduck said:

I found this story on the inducks, inducks.org/story.php?c=I+M+++++6-2 Brigitta e il girotondo delle zie (Brigitta and the aunts' roundabout), and it's supposed to appear some aunts but I don't have the story, can anyone confirm?

I can confirm and the story has already been discussed in this very topic:

here

👍

[danoduck]

in the episode Glomtales!, the 22 of the second season of Ducktales (2017) is explained that the real name of Flintheart Glomgold is Duke Baloney, should we change his name on the tree?

[alquackskey]

Aug 6, 2024 11:07:20 GMT danoduck said:

in the episode Glomtales!, the 22 of the second season of Ducktales (2017) is explained that the real name of Flintheart Glomgold is Duke Baloney, should we change his name on the tree?

The issue there is that it's not really compatible with the vast majority of sources - the family name is Glomgold in pretty much every story, and the whole 'Duke Baloney' thing isn't really compatible with the vast majority of sources.
At most, 'Duke Baloney' could be added as a composite of Glomgold, but I'd argue that the name absolutely should stay as Flintheart Glomgold.
(Also if we do get any references to Duke Baloney, I insist that we have Sharkbomb Glomgold as his son, please I need this )


I'll also give a side-note, as it's been a while - there's a pretty big update on the horizon since the addition of Adoptive Relatives leads to Baby Looney Tunes and the relevant additions.
We're ticking away at a lot of additions, as well as some main duck additions too.

It'll be a big one, which is why it's taking so long

[danoduck]

Aug 6, 2024 12:14:16 GMT alquackskey said:

Aug 6, 2024 11:07:20 GMT danoduck said:

in the episode Glomtales!, the 22 of the second season of Ducktales (2017) is explained that the real name of Flintheart Glomgold is Duke Baloney, should we change his name on the tree?

The issue there is that it's not really compatible with the vast majority of sources - the family name is Glomgold in pretty much every story, and the whole 'Duke Baloney' thing isn't really compatible with the vast majority of sources.
At most, 'Duke Baloney' could be added as a composite of Glomgold, but I'd argue that the name absolutely should stay as Flintheart Glomgold.
(Also if we do get any references to Duke Baloney, I insist that we have Sharkbomb Glomgold as his son, please I need this )


I'll also give a side-note, as it's been a while - there's a pretty big update on the horizon since the addition of Adoptive Relatives leads to Baby Looney Tunes and the relevant additions.
We're ticking away at a lot of additions, as well as some main duck additions too.

It'll be a big one, which is why it's taking so long

you're right, WE NEED SHARKBOMB!!!

[alquackskey]

This is more of a gag post, but noting it for posterity:

Donald Duck has, in official material, given birth to Mickey and Goofy

[alquackskey]

I went down a rabbit hole and have found that there are a few more potential relatives:

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge: Great Britain and Ireland - Scrooge, in this book, collects an inheritance in Scotland. There's no mention of who the relatives are, all we know that it's a fairly sizeable chunk of money. Side note, this book was woeful 

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge: From Caves to Skyscrapers - The first two pages have Donald referring to 'our earliest ancestors', and talking about the development of man. They're depicted on the next page, so if you want to include that, the option is there.


Much later, Donald specifically refers to his ancestor, Valiant Duck. The pictures of the duck characters are never directly addressed, but I think it's fair to assume that's him pictured. He lived during the Middle Ages.



Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 6 - Grandma Duck mentions that there's 'one kind of duck' that lay their eggs in the nests of other birds. Given the phrasing, while it's most likely species being referred to, you could technically assume it's a specific duck.

There's also a lot of discussion of evolution - the only thing I'd say is massively relevant is Grandma saying "Speaking as a bird, the idea that my ancestors were reptiles gives me the chills." Nothing specific, but might as well note it to be safe.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 10 - I don't know if we'd be counting this, but it refers to Medusa and notes that she's one of three Gorgon sisters, as per the story.

Further, there's a family tree of the gods, which includes the Gorgons around the bottom left corner:

There may be further notes there, but I'm not sure if that'll be counted or not - I'm happy to revisit and comb through more thoroughly if we do include it, though


There's a section on Julius Caesar


This specifically notes Julius Caesar marrying Cleopatra - that was already relevant, but it's a more solid confirmation of him tying in to the tree.
He mentions being born into a Roman noble family, and also mentions that Cleopatra's father is Ptolemy XI.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 2 - Daisy says: "This long, long road to learning about the plant world began, boys and girls, when one of our ancestors put the fruit of a plant into his mouth and enjoyed the taste."
She also says "Our early man had a sharp eye when it came to finding plants that cured illness. And, what's more, he was able to distinguish between useful plants and poisonous ones - even those which would cause a problem to the botanist of our own time. We are not guessing, boys and girls, about this ability of our ancestors. So that their knowledge would not be lost, they set down their instructions on the use of medicinal plants. Some of this information has been found on Assyrian and Babylonian tablets of 1500 B.C. In Egypt, more than one papyrus has come to light— dedicated to Imhotep, the ancient doctor and god of medicine— that is a text of plant medicine." - more of a tenuous link, but worth noting. These ancestors are referred to a few times in the book.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge Yearbook 1978 - Not relevant for us atm, but given how these trees and such work, I thought I'd note this clump of Goofy relatives.


Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 12 (I think - not 100%) - Way too much info on evolution to put images in, but ultimately nothing really relevant. Some Goofy ancestors are mentioned.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge Yearbook 1990 - Noting for my own sake because there are a couple of evolutionary bits.
There's also a very, very technical one that we'll probably be ignoring but I may as well point out.
"The family of Disney characters welcomed some new members in 1989: Miss Piggy, Kermit the Frog, Fozzie Bear, and the rest of the Muppet troupe. In August, the Walt Disney Company announced that it would acquire Henson Associates, the company that owns these popular puppet characters. The Muppets were created by puppeteer Jim Henson in the 1950’s. (Henson also created Big Bird and other characters that appear on the television show Sesame Street, but these weren’t included in the sale.) Since then, the Muppets have starred in their own live-action television show and appeared in feature-length films and animated cartoons. Now Miss Piggy and the other Muppets will continue their show-business careers as part of the Disney Group, and they’ll appear alongside Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck at Disney theme parks." 
Obviously that's a 'corporate family' bit, but I'm noting it for posterity.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 15 - Noting an evolutionary point for my own sake.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge Yearbook 1980 - Mentions of Goofy ancestors, as well as Thumper's if he ever becomes relevant.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge Yearbook 1984 - Evolutionary notes for my own sake.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 17 - Goofy ancestor mentioned.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 8 - More evolutionary bits. Scrooge also mentions 'Our earliest ancestors'.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 1 - Evolution again

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge Yearbook 1989 - Evolution again.

Disney's Wonderful World of Knowledge 12 - Evolution and Goofy relatives.


So... yeah, a lot of it ended up being evolution stuff only, but I thought I'd share the parts that I felt were relevant all the same
EDIT: One of the books notes 'our good friend Hercules', so that may be worth revisiting if we add the Gods above (Which I think we should, but ultimately I'll go whichever way)

[danoduck]

inducks.org/story.php?c=I+TL+2248-3 in this story is mentioned an aunt of Donald, Clodovilde (and we also discover that she is the real owner of Bolivar!)
and,I don't know if we're going to add pets, but in the same story appeared 34(!) bolivar's sons

[alquackskey]

Two things in my mind I'd like to discuss:

First is clones - I've got a few stories here that are of relevance on that front:
D 18093 is a puzzle page, which has Gyro cloning Donald. The issue is that they're not perfect copies (Which is exactly what would be going on the tree)
The issue is which are the 'originals'. It's a D-Coded story, but the Danish version doesn't actually have the full art.
I'd like to use the Estonian version, but it seems the Finnish is the closest to being accurate to the source - C is the correct clone, which would reasonably allow the other ones to be added as distinct clones.

There's also I TL 3315-2P
In this story, Donald gets fed up with being his alter egos, so Gyro extracts them to be their own individuals
There's Paperinik, PK, DoubleDuck and Qu-Qu 7.
They all get uppity with one another, so Donald pits them against each other's foes to disastrous results.



Next up, pets.
As mentioned, I'm willing to add them - though the current update is way too big atm, so we'll get to them next time - in their own indexed section.
However, I think it's worth questioning the criteria for their inclusion - the likes of Bolivar are easy, but the question comes in on how we handle them in general.

I'd say "Pets with more than one appearance", but that wouldn't really apply to characters who only have one appearance.
What if the character has few appearances, but they're significant enough to be noteworthy?

I'm down for including them in their own little index, but I do feel like we'd need solid inclusion criteria.

[danoduck]

Aug 8, 2024 20:28:48 GMT alquackskey said:

Two things in my mind I'd like to discuss:

First is clones - I've got a few stories here that are of relevance on that front:
D 18093 is a puzzle page, which has Gyro cloning Donald. The issue is that they're not perfect copies (Which is exactly what would be going on the tree)
The issue is which are the 'originals'. It's a D-Coded story, but the Danish version doesn't actually have the full art.
I'd like to use the Estonian version, but it seems the Finnish is the closest to being accurate to the source - C is the correct clone, which would reasonably allow the other ones to be added as distinct clones.

There's also I TL 3315-2P
In this story, Donald gets fed up with being his alter egos, so Gyro extracts them to be their own individuals
There's Paperinik, PK, DoubleDuck and Qu-Qu 7.
They all get uppity with one another, so Donald pits them against each other's foes to disastrous results.



Next up, pets.
As mentioned, I'm willing to add them - though the current update is way too big atm, so we'll get to them next time - in their own indexed section.
However, I think it's worth questioning the criteria for their inclusion - the likes of Bolivar are easy, but the question comes in on how we handle them in general.

I'd say "Pets with more than one appearance", but that wouldn't really apply to characters who only have one appearance.
What if the character has few appearances, but they're significant enough to be noteworthy?

I'm down for including them in their own little index, but I do feel like we'd need solid inclusion criteria.

about the alter egos, i've readen on disney-comics.fandom.com/it, Paperpedia wiki, that they are considered part of the family of their real identities, should we do the same?

[danoduck]

In the new story (a remake) of Sandopaper published today in Italy on Topolino, there are new details of the family;
- Sandopaper’s nephews’ names are Wik, Wok and Wak
- Sandopaper have a cousin named Paperoguez
- In this story Paperanna is named Marianna De Paperillonk
- In this story Paperonk is named James De Paperillonk
- In this story appears a possible relative of Gladstone named… Gladstone!

[mkr]

Aug 8, 2024 20:28:48 GMT alquackskey said:

Two things in my mind I'd like to discuss:

First is clones - I've got a few stories here that are of relevance on that front:
D 18093 is a puzzle page, which has Gyro cloning Donald. The issue is that they're not perfect copies (Which is exactly what would be going on the tree)
The issue is which are the 'originals'. It's a D-Coded story, but the Danish version doesn't actually have the full art.
I'd like to use the Estonian version, but it seems the Finnish is the closest to being accurate to the source - C is the correct clone, which would reasonably allow the other ones to be added as distinct clones.

But are they really distinct clones following our definitions for inclusion on the tree? There are small differences for A, B, D and E. But that's because E is looking up instead of down, D misses a few feathers on his head, while B misses a button, and for A the hat is slightly different. To me that's not really as if these are distinctive clones which would have for example different names, personality, size, etc. These clones with these minor differences, are still basically Donald. If E starts looking up then he is the same as Donald. If that are the criteria, then we basically would need to add every clone in every story, because often they are not drawn 100% identical.

[alquackskey]

Aug 15, 2024 18:47:48 GMT mkr said:

Aug 8, 2024 20:28:48 GMT alquackskey said:

Two things in my mind I'd like to discuss:

First is clones - I've got a few stories here that are of relevance on that front:
D 18093 is a puzzle page, which has Gyro cloning Donald. The issue is that they're not perfect copies (Which is exactly what would be going on the tree)
The issue is which are the 'originals'. It's a D-Coded story, but the Danish version doesn't actually have the full art.
I'd like to use the Estonian version, but it seems the Finnish is the closest to being accurate to the source - C is the correct clone, which would reasonably allow the other ones to be added as distinct clones.

But are they really distinct clones following our definitions for inclusion on the tree? There are small differences for A, B, D and E. But that's because E is looking up instead of down, D misses a few feathers on his head, while B misses a button, and for A the hat is slightly different. To me that's not really as if these are distinctive clones which would have for example different names, personality, size, etc. These clones with these minor differences, are still basically Donald. If E starts looking up then he is the same as Donald. If that are the criteria, then we basically would need to add every clone in every story, because often they are not drawn 100% identical.

It's definitely the most wishy-washy example thus far - I almost considered ignoring it entirely.
The reason I brought it up is because of the narrative presentation; I tried translating the Danish and Finnish versions visible:

Danish: "(Gyro) has invented a new cloning machine, but it doesn't work properly! There is only one clone that is identical to (Donald)! Which?"
Finnish: "(Gyro) is tinkering with the cloning patch, but in this test it still doesn't work perfectly. Only one of the works of the device is an identical copy of (Donald). What?"

The main reason I considered them, despite the miniscule differences, is because in-universe they're considered to be imperfect clones.
Obviously, we don't know how that translates to personality, if at all, but there's narrative precedent to suggest that they're not perfect clones.

The reason I'd consider this a point of distinction is because of how standard clones are treated.
Most of the time, they're treated as an exact double of the character - they're considered expendable, and not as individual beings. Even in cases where they develop some kind of identity (Like Gyro's clones in DT17), they're treated as effectively interchangeable - as in, this is the exact same person, and the only reason for any differences is that the two are having different experiences now.
In this case, however, it's suggested that the clones are already different from the get-go; they're designated as imperfect clones, with only one actually being a copy of Donald.

All that being said, I get where you're coming from - mainly just noting that I brought it up because it's not solely down to appearance in my head

I won't be too torn up if they're left out - like you say, they're not exactly visually distinct - but that was my main line of thinking for suggesting them

[mkr]

Aug 15, 2024 19:26:37 GMT alquackskey said:

It's definitely the most wishy-washy example thus far - I almost considered ignoring it entirely.
The reason I brought it up is because of the narrative presentation; I tried translating the Danish and Finnish versions visible:

Danish: "(Gyro) has invented a new cloning machine, but it doesn't work properly! There is only one clone that is identical to (Donald)! Which?"
Finnish: "(Gyro) is tinkering with the cloning patch, but in this test it still doesn't work perfectly. Only one of the works of the device is an identical copy of (Donald). What?"

The main reason I considered them, despite the miniscule differences, is because in-universe they're considered to be imperfect clones.
Obviously, we don't know how that translates to personality, if at all, but there's narrative precedent to suggest that they're not perfect clones.

The reason I'd consider this a point of distinction is because of how standard clones are treated.
Most of the time, they're treated as an exact double of the character - they're considered expendable, and not as individual beings. Even in cases where they develop some kind of identity (Like Gyro's clones in DT17), they're treated as effectively interchangeable - as in, this is the exact same person, and the only reason for any differences is that the two are having different experiences now.
In this case, however, it's suggested that the clones are already different from the get-go; they're designated as imperfect clones, with only one actually being a copy of Donald.

All that being said, I get where you're coming from - mainly just noting that I brought it up because it's not solely down to appearance in my head

I won't be too torn up if they're left out - like you say, they're not exactly visually distinct - but that was my main line of thinking for suggesting them

Yes, while I still think that these clones are basically not different from Donald (missing a button on your shirt or looking into a different direction doesn't make you a different person) and thus should actually fall in the same category as identical clones, you are right that they are non-identical clones according to the accompanying text. So yeah, then they maybe should indeed be added...

Aug 7, 2024 16:31:18 GMT alquackskey said:

This specifically notes Julius Caesar marrying Cleopatra - that was already relevant, but it's a more solid confirmation of him tying in to the tree. He mentions being born into a Roman noble family, and also mentions that Cleopatra's father is Ptolemy XI.

Maybe I am missing something from the scans, or I am looking wrong, but I don't really see any statement that Caesar married Cleopatra. The only thing I see in this regard, is that Caesar met Cleopatra, that he considers her fascinating, clever and charming, that she had a great effect on his life and that he put her on the throne of Egypt. Later on, Calpurnia is mentioned as Caesar's wife. Though that definitely doesn't exclude that Caesar and Cleopatra would have married (in the Duck universe), it doesn't explicitly say it. And I also doubt that this was the intention of the one writing this book, because the Wonderful World series is supposed to be educational and I believe in reality Cleopatra and Caesar didn't marry. They presumably had a son together (Caesarion), but that's seemingly not mentioned in this book.