Hey! That's not what an ape is!

[LightPhoenix]

Yup. We're pretty similar to chimpanzees and gorillas anatomically.

I've always been fond of comparing humans to bonobos, which we're more like than gorillas. Chimps, bonobos, and humans are all Subfamily Homininae, whereas gorillas are Subfamily Ponginae. In fact, chimps and bonobos both belong to the same Genus (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, respectively).

Aside from that, it's my personal opinion that human society more closely mirrors that of bonobos than that of chimps, at least with regards to sexual behavior. And sexual behavior is one of the major ways that humans are different from most animals. Among primates, only bonobos really come close.

 

[S'mon]

I'm sure this 'ape' is simply the 1e Monster Manual's 'Giant Carnivorous Ape', ie a meaner, flesh-eating gorilla, an RE Howard-type monster.

Humans are apes, genetically very closely related to chimpanzees (both types) and to gorillas - genetically we should all be grouped together, since chimps & gorillas are much more closely related to us than any of the three of us are to the other apes like orang-utans. Using genetic drift analysis* the modern-human split with chimps and gorillas can be dated to 3-4 million years ago, whereas our line split from orang-utans and gibbons around 12 million years ago, give or take.

*See eg Gribbon/Cherfas 'The First Chimpanzee'.

 

[S'mon]

I've always been fond of comparing humans to bonobos, which we're more like than gorillas. Chimps, bonobos, and humans are all Subfamily Homininae, whereas gorillas are Subfamily Ponginae. In fact, chimps and bonobos both belong to the same Genus (Pan troglodytes and Pan paniscus, respectively).

Despite this classification, the genetic evidence is that gorillas split from our line only at most a very little time before chimps did, so really we should all be in the same subfamily.

Edit: in fact if the same standards were applied to humans as are applied to other animals, we should all be in the same genus.

 

[Cowpie Zombie]

interesting. why didn't they just call it a gorilla and be done with it?

or is it supposed to be some kind of parallel universe brand new gorilla-like species that's more aggressive than other types of ape? if so, they should have given it a new name that's not as confusing.

(technically, don't humans fall in the "ape" family tree as well?)

Good question...my research revealed that some zoologists/biologists *do* categorize humans as "ape", and some do not. Probably has to do with which theory of evolution they adhere to.

 

[ledded]

This just proves what I've been saying about apes and monkeys the whole time, man. Nasty creatures. Nasty and dirty and icky.

Did I mention that there are no apes or monkeys in my campaign world? None. At all. None. Nada.

I have kind of a thing about 'em.

Nasty foul creatures. yech

I agree, especially on the little ones.

Any creature that throws it's feces at you when annoyed/playful or compulsively masterbates in public when frightened is the first critter to go, opposable thumbs or not.

As far as Gorillas go, any creature that runs around with body odor that not only has 4th level spell effects in intensity but a 20 foot radius also qualifies as a nasty critter, even if he can bend steel rebar with one hand.

Nasty, dirty little buggers.

 

[d4]

"Dire Gorilla" doesn't have the same ring to it as "Dire Ape", IMHO.

so if we can have "Dire Apes," what about "Dire Humans"? what would they be like? Neanderthals?

 

[S'mon]

Good question...my research revealed that some zoologists/biologists *do* categorize humans as "ape", and some do not. Probably has to do with which theory of evolution they adhere to.

I don't think there's any theory of evolution that doesn't categorise humans as apes. Hmm.. I guess on a teleological 'Ascent of Man' approach (monkey > ape > human), humans are not apes because we stand upright? That would mean that if Bigfoot-type bipeds exist they wouldn't be 'apes' either. Or maybe it's because we lack fur, or we use fire, or somesuch.

 

[DMScott]

so if we can have "Dire Apes," what about "Dire Humans"? what would they be like? Neanderthals?

You mean tougher, more aggressive humans who operate on basic instincts? "Player characters" .

I don't think there's any theory of evolution that doesn't categorise humans as apes.

Some classifiers prefer to consider humans as special, primarily for theological reasons. Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy) did so and then later wrote:

If I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of all the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I should have done so.

Whether it's appropriate to treat humans as a special category is probably beyond the scope of comment on these boards .

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

You mean tougher, more aggressive humans who operate on basic instincts? "Player characters" .

Basic Insticts like in: "GOLD GOLD GOLD"?

Whether it's appropriate to treat humans as a special category is probably beyond the scope of comment on these boards .

Probably every race/species that is capable of thinking in these "dimensions" would see itself as something special. The real question might be what you make of it...

Mustrum Ridcully

 

[Swoop109]

I just look at the "Ape" classification in D20 Modern as an attempt to include such creatures as the Apes in the movie "Congo".
An undiscovered subspeicies that will attack humans with little provocation.