This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Humanzee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I heard that vertical human genes acts as a barrier to the mixing of human genes with apes. I'm not very sure on this topic, but I haven't found this in the wiki article..I thought someone could take this thread of discussion up and add this info in? Mineowyn ( talk) 15:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me I don't want to interupt this discussion but OLIVER the HUMANZEE I hear has died... Could someone Update his page with the details. I have no other information. 76.115.56.12 ( talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the deal with the sci-fi novel speculation regarding hybrid labourers? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tool to expound juvenile fantasies and wild speculation. Pure Weekly World News garbage in an otherwise decent article. It's not encyclopedic pure and simple.
"The gorilla is known to be very docile and extremely strong.[11][12] Therefore, they could be a good choice for producing "humanilla" labourers."
Comments like this are speculative and unencyclopedic. It needs to be deleted.
I fully agree with the above, unsigned, comment, but I have chosen not to fight this battle because it would provoke a reversion war with other people. Segregating it to its own section seems to be the best compromise. Kww 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The banners weren't here except for about three days recently. I'll give them until 16/2/2007 to live unless someone can show me some sort of precedent that banners have a special status that allows them to stay despite opposition of other editors. Isn't the default to have the discussion before the change, not after? Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kww 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's how "Humanzees" might be paranormal. Paranormal is a term that describes "anything not explainable by science". It isn't just limited to its more popular applications of describing ghosts and UFOs. If there really have been alleged sightings of Humanzees (as in not just a theoretical concept), and the science of crossing humans with chimpanzees doesn't pan out (in other words, the scientists rule that it's not possible to do such a thing), then sightings of impossible Humanzees meet the definition of the term paranormal.
I completely get that part of the article is about the scientific feasibility of Humanzees. That's not paranormal. But other parts of the article are about alleged sightings of real Humanzees. Those parts definitely fall under the realm of cryptozoology and might fall under the realm of paranormal if the contested science of crossing humans with chimps doesn't prove to be a real possibility. If its not possible to make Humanzees, sightings of them would be impossible as well. Reports of such sightings (whether or not they are true) would be reports of paranormal phenomena. -- ~Nealparr~ ( Talk| Contribs) 08:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It has taken effort to try to keep this artice in the realm of verifiable, scientific, discussion. I finally gave up against the onslaught of people that viewed it as a reasonable place to discuss their favorite science fiction stories, and relegated that information to its own section.
There is no valid content to this article that is "anything not explainable by science." If something is "not explainable by science", it should go into the science fiction section or be deleted. I would love to be able to delete the science fiction section without getting back into a revision war with Arislan. Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work Kww. Your persistance is paying off. I have this on my watch page and will make an effort to stop in whenever I am editing to lend my support to your recent edits. My contribitions to the article were mainly in the rumored humanzees section. I went to SUNY Albany myself and while I have met Gordon Gallup (a frequent Talking head on National Geographic and Discovery Channel shows), I've tried to limit my edits to verifiable statements he has made on the TV shows. When they are on, I record them and then type up the exact comments. Perhaps I should add a direct quote from him in that section or over in the article on Oliver. I'm happy to see you and I have a similar vision for keeping this article grounded in reality. Lisapollison 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the cryptozoology banner. Great-ape hybridization is not cryptozoology any more than mules or horse-zebra hybrids. Kww 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To place human/chimp hybrids in the same class as mermaids and the Loch Ness monster is completely unreasonable. It isn't a case of searching for them and validating evidence for or against their existence, or analyzing legendary sightings, it's simply a case of experimentation. Unfortunately, the experimentation is considered unethical by essentially everyone, so it is unlikely that the experiment will ever be performed. Until then, we are left with analysing the genetics of the situation and determining the likelihood of whether the hybrid is possible. The answer to that seems to be: it's possible that a viable hybrid could be produced, but no one will know until we try. Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Slater/Ralley/Stear who? - Fredrik | talk 15:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
While I am adding references to this thing, I would love to have a reference for this one. Slater? Ralley Stear? If I search for any of those names with "chuman" and "etymology", the only hits I get are for different mirrors of this article.
Can anyone find a single trace of the "Slater/Ralley/Stear school of thought"? KWW 200.6.149.49 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Going, Going, nearly gone ... Unless someone can point me at Slater, Ralley, or Stear, and some trace of the reasoning the etymology referenced in this section, all references to Slater/Rally/Stear will be deleted on January 15 or so. Kww 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Gone. Please don't put it back without a reference of some kind. Kww 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add a bit more scientific meat, but have managed to screw up the reference syntax. I hope someone can fix it. KWW 200.6.149.44 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Found it and fixed it. KWW 200.6.149.44 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I reacted childishly to Arislan ... I don't think he is vandalizing, and hopefully, he realizes that I'm not either.
This article is quickly descending from factual contents into science-fiction and fantasy. I would like to propose that we actually divide it that way. "Etymology", most of "feasibility", most of "possible means of creation", "Ivanov experiments", "Oliver", and "Genetic Evidence" should go under "factual." Discussions of Gor novels, novels about bonobos, warrior-slave races, and lawn-mowing slaves go under "Science fiction/Fantasy"
Since Arislan simply keeps reverting his changes in, I restructured it along these lines. All of his references to lawn-mowing, warrior-slaves, sympathetic science fiction writers, and the Gor series have all been grouped and placed into their own, nice, neat little section.
Please stop referring to me as "anonymous", Arislan ... you know my name, but I don't have a clue what yours might be. Kevin Wayne Williams 200.6.149.27 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 200.6.149.27 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Article should be at Humanzee. This is the only place I have ever heard the word "Chuman". -- April Arcus 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Could we get some cites for for those "rumor" paragraphs? If they're from the Weekly World News or equivalent they should be removed, since sources like that aren't worth bothering with even as a source of unsubstantiated rumor. Bryan 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"This is based on a misconception of what constitutes a species, however; for example, a female liger — the hybrid offspring of a lion and a tiger — is fertile, but lions and tigers are considered separate species" But in the Liger entry, "In addition, female ligers also attain great size, weighing approximately 700 lb (320 kg) and reaching 10 feet (3.05 m) tall on average, but are not fertile."
67.80.98.16 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The following looks to be a possibly good link for the first uncited reference needed (basically about whether differing chromosome numbers present a barrier to interspecies crossbreeding): http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html anyone else want to suggest a better one before I edit? - I'll give it a week or so.
maimón in Spanish, maymun in Arabic is an old word for "monkey". Apparently it originally meant "happy" and comes from Arabia Felix ("Happy Arabia", Yemen), where Arabs got their monkeys from.
"In 2006 research showed that after humans and chimpanzees diverged into two separate species, interspecies sex was still sufficiently common that it produced human-chimpanzee hybrids and affected the human genome for around 1.2 million years afterwards."
This paragraph is irrelevant and should be removed. The main wiki entry is about a hybrid between modern humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ssp.) wheraes what the 2006 science article deals with, would be a hybrid between the ancestor of humans (some early Australopithecine) and the ancestor of chimpanzee.
Also the Genetics evidence section, althought more articulate, is somehwat incorrect.
Firstly, it sufferes from the same point mentioned above (it also suffer from style flaws. e.g. reporting that it "may have been a key part of human evolution" is useless as it's a surely unproven fact).
However the main problem lies with the cited article itself: their whole argumant is built around a single specimen (Toumai), which has been dated indirectly and is in relatively poor conditions. Further, the authors present large variations of divergence values across the genome, however they fail to provide a framework to interpret the results. It would be interesting to know which parameters would be required to obtain similar results with a model of long speciation time instead of hybridization. Lastly, a valid alternative explanation for the observed low divergence on the X chromosome would be selective pressure on the X chromosome during the (chimpanzee-human) - gorilla divergence.
In conclusion, altough the article is stimulating, it doesn't provide compelling or conclusive evidence of hibridization between chimpanzee ancestors and human ancestors (and is still irrelevant to the question of hybridisation between moder humans and chimanzees).
Another point of concer is the entry name: "Chuman" is unacceptable, especially in the light of the etymology section. ""Chuman" alludes to the more sinister hybrid, fusing the intelligence of a human with the relative upper-body strength of a chimpanzee, bred for megalomanic and military ends. "Humanzee", however, evokes a more placid and militarily impotent animal; combining the weakness of a human with the relative stupidity of a chimpanzee."" makes it really sound like cheap comic book stuff. I'd rather stick to the proper name used in science: human-chimpanzee hybrid (or chimpanzee-human hybrid). A scientific literature search for either "Chuman" or "Humanzee" (both of which I never heard before) fails to yeild any result.
There is already some discussion on wheter to use chuman or humanzee but all this is irrelevant and fundamentally incorrect. This page is about human-chimpanzee hybrids in general, and not about hybrid of a male human and a female chimpanzee (Chuman) or vice versa (Humanzee). So neither should be used.
Who added the {{ unreferenced}} tag and when? There's a couple references in this article (and external links). I'm taking the tag off, use {{ fact}} for specific sentences (my suggested policy, not Wikipedia's). Xaxafrad 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to delete the "citation needed" on the statement that differing chromosome counts aren't necessarily a barrier to fertility. The referenced article on chromosomal polymorphism links to numerous articles discussing single species with varying chromosome counts. 200.6.149.18 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume from this that he first worked on human sperm and chimpanzee females and then moved on to orangutan sperm and human volunteers? Or did he also try other (non-human) ape sperm? If he did, then I assume the other male apes had also died. In this case, it might be better to say "by the death of his last male ape (an orangutan)" or something of that sort. Nil Einne 13:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems someone has been deleting areas of the article for no particular reason and without explaining themselves in the talk page. Someone just deleted the paragraph in "Rumored Humanzees" about the WW2 pseudo-experiments. Arislan 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I just went a deleted a set of passages you put back in. No one knows what the temperament of any ape hybrid would be, including human-chimpanzee. If one managed to exist, it would be interesting to find out how well its higher brain functions worked at all. Any exploration of its mood would have to wait until after discovering whether it could reason even at chimp level.
Chimpanzees are *not* gorillas, and are *not* orangutans. If you want to speculate on human-gorilla crosses and human-orangutan crosses, don't try to misdefine this article to match your mood. 200.6.149.27 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If the phrase "human-ape hybrid" directs you here, then that redirect is broken.
The discussion of temperament is just plain silly. It cannot be predicted, and this whole garbage about docile this and agressive this is premature. It's more likely that the resulting hybrid would be a barely functional idiot.
I am not an anonymous vandal: My real name is Kevin Wayne Williams. You can find me on any number of places. One of my e-mail providers is gte.net, and my e-mail id with them is kww. I take care of a few articles on wikipedia, this being one of them. My goal is to keep it an article that actually discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids. If you want to produce an article that discusses other things, feel free. But this article is one that discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids, and tries to stay reasonably rooted in reality, not science fiction. 200.6.149.27 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bonobos are not more closely related genetically to humans than other chimps. This is a common misconception, often held even by anthropologists and primatologists.
The misconception is easily clarified by simple phylogenetics. Bonobos and Chimp share a common ancestor long before they share a common ancestor with humans. Thus, neither could be "more closely related" to humans than the other.
The section on the possible labour or military applications should be removed; it seems to have been lifted verbatim from some horrific 1930s eugenics novel set in the not-too-distant future. It is disgusting – the idea of creating a sub-human underclass to do manual labour would be laughable if it hadn’t been presented here in what seems to be a serious manner. Remove it, lest the credibility that wikipedia has fought so hard for is completely lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjwhyte ( talk • contribs)
Anonymous sock-puppetting is not viable evidence for deletion. The article does not endorse the creation of a sub-human underclass of any kind, it simply analyses ramifications of the creation of humanzees. -- Arislan 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I had not noticed it was THAT section he wanted to remove. Strike out my above comment (the one that says "I agree/You should remove it"), for now that I know I do not agree. - 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about this section, but apparently Stalin had oredered to the soviet scientist Ilya_Ivanov (see article for more details) to breed human-chimp hybrids in order to make perfect workers or soldiers, which didn't succeeded.-- Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The section on laborers is absolutely ridiculous. -BZ
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
user name or IP (
talk •
contribs) date.
I've removed the passage of Washington post suggesting that if the human-chimp hybridization had taken place in human evolution "will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids." I think that is not correct and is more likely just a confusion of scientific journalism; what would have happened would not be something like a "clade amalgam", as the passage seems to suggest, but just that eventual crossbreeding between lineages of ancestors of both, humans and chimps, which were both probably more similar to the common ancestor of both and to each other than humans and chimps, properly. But I'll try to find more about that, maybe I'm wrong. I deleted by precaution, since scientific journalism not rarely makes such mistakes. -- Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only is this section unreferenced, but I keep wanting to change the opening paragraph to:
Among the great apes, the bonobo (Pan paniscus) has the closest DNA to that of a chimpanzee. Plus, it is characteristically more docile than the human (Homo sapiens). This would make it a more natural choice. The human is known for its vicious territoriality, hunting of other animals (such as the baboon) and even murdering groups that among their own kind eliminate the weak and the foreign. Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control.
In any event, it seems like original research. Ben Standeven 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a pure fantasy article, it's an article on the possibilites of human/chimpanzee hybrids (so technically there should be nothing mentioned of Gorilla or Orangutan/human hybrids in the article...). I know the attributes that the apes have been labelled ARE correct, but how the hell is speculating about what a humanzee would be usefull for proper? "Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control." The whole section seems based around how ape/human hybrids would do in the army. What does that have to do with anything? It sounds as If its been lifted straight from a fantasy novel. "A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females." Thats a stretch. I'm going to finish my comment with something which is actually in the section we're debating about... "Of course the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." There are no sources for what an ape/human hybrid would be like, therefore it's orginal research. Kokiri kid 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah, you missed my point, I was using that statement to back up my argument, "the effect of the human side cannot be properly guaged until and actual humanzee is produced", meaning anything we come up with now is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But since I'm not bold, I'm only one person, and I know next to nothing about editing on Wikipedia I guess it's not up to me is it? Kokiri kid 06:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: "The entire purpose of a humanzee is to combine human and ape characteristics." That may be the case for one individual... But certainly not the only purpose. Kokiri kid 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
While I've decided there is no point in me editing the article, I'd still like to hear what you have to say about that. Kokiri kid 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And now the only logical piece of information in the section, oh, co-incidently one of the bits that backs me up has disappeared. "the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." If the section stays, then so should that quote. It's the only worthy bit. Kokiri kid 04:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Some anonymous person had deleted the etymology section. I reverted and placed it up top for clearer reading of the article. Although it should be pointed out that the word Humanzee in pop culture is usued for any human-ape hybrid. If someone knows how to phrase that, or can add sources, please do.-- Arislan 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article addresses the possibility of a H. sapiens - P. troglodytes or H. sapiens - P. paniscus hybrid, but has it been established whether P. troglodytes and P. paniscus can interbreed?
If these very closely related species cannot produce offspring, it would seem highly unlikely that either could do so with humans, a much more distant relation. 217.155.20.163 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of gene flow between P. Paniscus and P. Troglodytes, but that doesn't mean that forced mating wouldn't produce a hybrid. I can't find a record of anyone trying.
These things do have to be analyzed on a case by case basis, though. If the P. Paniscus/P. Troglodytes split was caused by a lethal combination of an allele which has become fixed in P. Paniscus and another that has become fixed in P. Troglodytes, that would prevent hybridization, even though both could (possibly) successfully hybridize with humans. Kww 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees can indeed be bred in captivity, as occurred in a French circus: in 1979 the circus director bought what he thought was a male chimpanzee, but was in fact a bonobo. The bonobo bread with two female chimpanzees, producing seven offspring, most of which survived. The article I found didn't say whether the hybrids were fertile (I could believe either outcome). However, bonobos and chimpanzees have never been found to breed in the wild, and they are strongly believed not to do so. They are geographically separated by the Congo and Lualaba rivers. Both apes are afraid of water, and the best fording point (near Stanley Falls) is infested with crocodiles. Here's the website: http://www.macroevolution.net/bonobo-chimpanzee-hybrids.html. The article sites the following scientific papers: Vervaecke and van Elsacker 1992, Vervaecke 2002; Vervaecke et al. 2004. Blaze Birch ( talk) 21:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put an Original Research tag at the top of the article, as it is obvious that the article is laden with inferences and suppositions by editors, rather than sourced statements from outside Wikipedia. The tag should stay up until the original research is altered or removed. See WP:OR. Totnesmartin 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in answering - must have missed the update (I have 200 pages on my watchlist). Some obvious OR:
Those are the obvious offenders; there might be some I've missed. Happy removing! Totnesmartin 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jimtheralley, I reverted your move, for several reasons. First, the slash in article titles usually indicates it is a subpage of a main article. Second, we don't need to demonstrate that one name is equal to the other in that fasion. I wouldn't object to a move to somewhere else, but there needs to be discussion first. I don't think thre has been any demonstration that "chuman" is as prolific a name as "humanzee" (or for that matter, that either is particularly well known). Perhaps a less frivolous title like Human-chimpanzee hybrid would work, but there must be discussion first. If you wish, you can put in a request at requested moves.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed a load of stuff which looked like it was a straight cut'n'paste from elsewhere. It's in the edit history if anyone wants to boil it down for parts. Totnesmartin 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The human Ape hybrid section is getting big enough that maybe we should consider breaking it out into it's own article entitled - Human-Ape Hybrids in Literature and Popular Entertainment. Anyone feel the same? We could still leave a small paragraph in this article discussing it's popularity and then the new article could maybe encompass some talking head quotes about why people find this possibility so fascinating. Comments? Lisapollison 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This is ambiguous. More precise wording is needed. -- B.d.mills 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"It has been mentioned that Maimo was most likely a retarded human child"
Is RETARDED the best word we can use? Juanita Hodges 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How about "with an intellectual disability"?-- Sonjaaa 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kww for letting everyone know this is a non-issue. I'm adding to the subject heading - "appropriate changes made - no longer in the text as of 8/26/08" so folks looking at the contents summary can see it's been taken care of. LiPollis ( talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussing application of the bestiality act of 25 Hen. 8 to women, the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke mentions a Babuman. "This is within the purvieu [sic] of this Act of 25 H.8. For the words be, if any person &c. which extend as well to a woman as to a man, and therefore if she commit Buggery with a beast, she is a person that commits Buggery with a beast, to which end this word (person) was used. And the rather, for that somewhat before the making of this Act, a great Lady had committed Buggery with a Baboon, and conceived by it, &c." -- Coke, Sir Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning High Treason, and other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal Causes (London: Printed for A. Crooke, W. Leake, et al., Booksellers in Fleetstreet and Holborn, 1669). TwoGunChuck 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article biased towards the common chimp??? why not the bonobo? We have as much dna in common with the bonobo as the chimpanzee.-- Sonjaaa 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any reports of bonobo/chimpanzee hybrids? Keith Henson ( talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer both questions: it's not biased towards the common chimp, it's just that the discussion is common. There is no known difference in the issue of bonobo/human hybridization than there is in the issue of a chimp/human hybridization. Common chimps and bonobos both possess the same chromosomal structure, so the issues relative to humans are the same. So far as I have been able to find, there are no P. troglodytus (common chimp)/P. paniscus (bonobo) hybrids, and gene flow studies show no evidence of gene flow between the two species. Hard to prove that it is impossible to have a hybrid, but they certainly don't seem to occur naturally. Kww ( talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Bonobos and common chimps have bred in captivity, but not in the wild. See the above section Can bonobos and common chimpanzees interbreed? Blaze Birch ( talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I was about to add an {{ unreferenced}} tag to this section when I noticed that there is an almost identical section in Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, which does appear to be sourced. However, this paragraph appears to be something of a fork, and as you can see in this comparison, they're starting to diverge. Shouldn't this material appear in just one of the articles, with a summary in the other one? (No opinion which should be the detailed one) However, this section in this article is unsourced, and if the fork remains, they should be reconciled. -- barneca ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be more serious!!! Your article has to be immediately removed!!! There is no evidence at all that humans and apes are related! Humans and apes were from the beginning two separate lines! The speculation that humans and apes could have had children millions of years ago is absolutlely stupid! People who mate with apes are totally sick and have to be imprisoned in lunatic asylums!!!
I assume from the way this is typed in, you wanted to create a new section, which can be done from a button at the top (I'll fix it). Anyways, Chimpanzees and Humans are both part of the Hominidae family, and aren't really seperate lines (seperate species but not a seperate order and family), regardless of weather or not Humans can mate. 70.108.190.218 ( talk) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be removed, but for scientific reasons (and yes, I am a scientist). Simply stated, the section suggests that the fact that interbreeding may have occurred soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee-human lineage supports the idea of human-chimpanzee interbreeding. Unfortunately, at the time neither lineage was human or chimpanzee, and this has nothing to do with human-chimpanzee interbreeding at all. In fact, it was merely the interbreeding of two subspecies of apes who each founded lineages that much later on happened to evolve into humans and chimpanzees. - 129.49.7.150 ( talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What about articles like http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaaa ( talk • contribs)
It was deleted by another editor long ago by Cuchullain, who dismissed the section as "trivia" in his comments. He was right. It detracts from an otherwise good article. It took considerable effort to get the article into decent shape, and that section was a remnant of its earlier form. I applauded when I saw him remove it, and fully support its removal.— Kww( talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you're no longer Mr. Anonymous ;-). What do you think about a separate article about Humanzees in pop culture? Arislan ( talk) 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across a picture of a hairless chimpanzee on Flickr (CC licensed). I realise that of course it isn't a humanzee, but he looks strikingly like what a humanzee might look like, so I wondered if the image would be a useful visual addition to the page? http://www.flickr.com/photos/richu/3196188065/ Fences and windows ( talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There should be some material on empirical data for this judgement that a humanzee may or may not exist. Then the article would be less patchy on the detailing of this phenomenon.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 10:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think "Great Ape Project" and "Personhood (and more specifically, Great ape personhood)" should be removed, at least be moved to the bottom and parahuman should be moved to the top, as they are only remotely related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.10.49 ( talk) 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a serious question. I have read this article and several of the others which discuss the fusion of two ancestral ape chomosomes to form the human chromosone 2, and have yet to find any suggested dates. I would also be interested in the approximate date of the chomosomal translocation of material from Chromosome 1 to the Y chomosome. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)!
Humans and Chimpanzees differ in the amount of chromozomes they have making this impossible. 108.81.134.236 ( talk) 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov experiments has many notes saying dubious and citation needed, and there are comments here questioning that they ever happened. New Scientist ran a story on this a few years back, so there is at least one reliable source that I know of. However, some of the facts are different. I don't really have the time or inclination to rewrite the section with references, but here's a link to the article if anyone's interested in doing this:
I've also posted this to the talk page for the Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov article, which has more or less the same information with the same dubious/citation needed notes...
Reidlophile ( talk) 22:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
just a theory i been working on. http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a489/AaronHead88/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png [URL= http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/AaronHead88/media/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png.html][IMG] http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a489/AaronHead88/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png[/IMG][/URL] 1.123.140.172 ( talk) 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "Bassou the ape man" a real humanzee, a hoax, or an ancestor of modern humans? Might this be the missing link? 173.51.123.97 ( talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that human sperm can enter gibbon eggs, but no human/chimp hybrid have ever been confirmed born, implies that human/chimp hybridization fails due to developmental incompatibilities (early miscarriage). So if human life began at conception, apes would be human. 2.69.131.56 ( talk) 06:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Ivanov experiments were not at all the only time at which hybrids could theoretically have been conceived. In the past, there were transplantations of ape testicle tissue to humans, which successfully treated hormone deficit in many cases but produced no hybrids. Bestiality in general is not so uncommon. The objection about apes being wild and strong and refusing to mate with humans has its flaws, one is that there are some cases of apes showing sexual interest in humans (although rare), but more importantly a human wanting to mate with an ape (as mentioned, bestiality is not that uncommon) could simply drug-sedate the ape. In other words, inadequate number of experiments is not a way to explain the absence of chimp/human hybrids. While the gibbon test tube experiment shows the possibility of hybrid conception, it does not mean that it produces viable fetuses. It may simply result in early miscarriages (as in salmon/trout hybrids). After all, not many early miscarriages have been DNA sequenced. But if hybrids could be carried to term, there would have been actual examples and not just speculations. 2.69.131.56 ( talk) 09:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
researching this, I found that Wikipedia seems to be excessively fond of these "hybrid portmanteaus". It is true that "Humanzee" has seen some use since the 1980s, but mostly colloquially, while the most relevant sources tend not to use this kind of terminology. WP:UCN would suggest using "Human-chimpanzee hybrid" as the main title, and just mentioning "Humanzee" as a colloquialism in occasional use. The title could also be the more inclusive "human-ape hybrid", beucase Ivanov apparently also involved orang utans in his experiments. -- dab (𒁳) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It was a hoimanoid-pan hybrid I think. Not a modern one, but an actual hybrid. Find it and add it.
So don't fall for (let alone write) that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless - even though this hoax is #1 on that list - some possibly interesting info can be found here: http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-human-hybrids.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Also here is the original source of an edit that often gets deleted, but its source is at least in good faith: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5447151/humanzee-monkey-human-chimp-hybrid-born-florida/ - should this be in the article?
Julia muwi że pani od pszyrody muwiła źe to niemożliwy 188.33.224.179 ( talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Since pugs and huskies are both dogs, that is, exactly the same species, is the term "hybrid" used correctly in the article? Since this is a scientific article such details matter, I think. 50.230.251.244 ( talk) 21:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Humanzee article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article was nominated for deletion on 24 August 2008. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
I heard that vertical human genes acts as a barrier to the mixing of human genes with apes. I'm not very sure on this topic, but I haven't found this in the wiki article..I thought someone could take this thread of discussion up and add this info in? Mineowyn ( talk) 15:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me I don't want to interupt this discussion but OLIVER the HUMANZEE I hear has died... Could someone Update his page with the details. I have no other information. 76.115.56.12 ( talk) 08:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
What is the deal with the sci-fi novel speculation regarding hybrid labourers? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a tool to expound juvenile fantasies and wild speculation. Pure Weekly World News garbage in an otherwise decent article. It's not encyclopedic pure and simple.
"The gorilla is known to be very docile and extremely strong.[11][12] Therefore, they could be a good choice for producing "humanilla" labourers."
Comments like this are speculative and unencyclopedic. It needs to be deleted.
I fully agree with the above, unsigned, comment, but I have chosen not to fight this battle because it would provoke a reversion war with other people. Segregating it to its own section seems to be the best compromise. Kww 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
The banners weren't here except for about three days recently. I'll give them until 16/2/2007 to live unless someone can show me some sort of precedent that banners have a special status that allows them to stay despite opposition of other editors. Isn't the default to have the discussion before the change, not after? Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kww 04:25, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Here's how "Humanzees" might be paranormal. Paranormal is a term that describes "anything not explainable by science". It isn't just limited to its more popular applications of describing ghosts and UFOs. If there really have been alleged sightings of Humanzees (as in not just a theoretical concept), and the science of crossing humans with chimpanzees doesn't pan out (in other words, the scientists rule that it's not possible to do such a thing), then sightings of impossible Humanzees meet the definition of the term paranormal.
I completely get that part of the article is about the scientific feasibility of Humanzees. That's not paranormal. But other parts of the article are about alleged sightings of real Humanzees. Those parts definitely fall under the realm of cryptozoology and might fall under the realm of paranormal if the contested science of crossing humans with chimps doesn't prove to be a real possibility. If its not possible to make Humanzees, sightings of them would be impossible as well. Reports of such sightings (whether or not they are true) would be reports of paranormal phenomena. -- ~Nealparr~ ( Talk| Contribs) 08:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It has taken effort to try to keep this artice in the realm of verifiable, scientific, discussion. I finally gave up against the onslaught of people that viewed it as a reasonable place to discuss their favorite science fiction stories, and relegated that information to its own section.
There is no valid content to this article that is "anything not explainable by science." If something is "not explainable by science", it should go into the science fiction section or be deleted. I would love to be able to delete the science fiction section without getting back into a revision war with Arislan. Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Nice work Kww. Your persistance is paying off. I have this on my watch page and will make an effort to stop in whenever I am editing to lend my support to your recent edits. My contribitions to the article were mainly in the rumored humanzees section. I went to SUNY Albany myself and while I have met Gordon Gallup (a frequent Talking head on National Geographic and Discovery Channel shows), I've tried to limit my edits to verifiable statements he has made on the TV shows. When they are on, I record them and then type up the exact comments. Perhaps I should add a direct quote from him in that section or over in the article on Oliver. I'm happy to see you and I have a similar vision for keeping this article grounded in reality. Lisapollison 15:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I deleted the cryptozoology banner. Great-ape hybridization is not cryptozoology any more than mules or horse-zebra hybrids. Kww 03:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
To place human/chimp hybrids in the same class as mermaids and the Loch Ness monster is completely unreasonable. It isn't a case of searching for them and validating evidence for or against their existence, or analyzing legendary sightings, it's simply a case of experimentation. Unfortunately, the experimentation is considered unethical by essentially everyone, so it is unlikely that the experiment will ever be performed. Until then, we are left with analysing the genetics of the situation and determining the likelihood of whether the hybrid is possible. The answer to that seems to be: it's possible that a viable hybrid could be produced, but no one will know until we try. Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Slater/Ralley/Stear who? - Fredrik | talk 15:47, 17 May 2005 (UTC)
While I am adding references to this thing, I would love to have a reference for this one. Slater? Ralley Stear? If I search for any of those names with "chuman" and "etymology", the only hits I get are for different mirrors of this article.
Can anyone find a single trace of the "Slater/Ralley/Stear school of thought"? KWW 200.6.149.49 00:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Going, Going, nearly gone ... Unless someone can point me at Slater, Ralley, or Stear, and some trace of the reasoning the etymology referenced in this section, all references to Slater/Rally/Stear will be deleted on January 15 or so. Kww 23:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Gone. Please don't put it back without a reference of some kind. Kww 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I tried to add a bit more scientific meat, but have managed to screw up the reference syntax. I hope someone can fix it. KWW 200.6.149.44 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC) Found it and fixed it. KWW 200.6.149.44 20:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I reacted childishly to Arislan ... I don't think he is vandalizing, and hopefully, he realizes that I'm not either.
This article is quickly descending from factual contents into science-fiction and fantasy. I would like to propose that we actually divide it that way. "Etymology", most of "feasibility", most of "possible means of creation", "Ivanov experiments", "Oliver", and "Genetic Evidence" should go under "factual." Discussions of Gor novels, novels about bonobos, warrior-slave races, and lawn-mowing slaves go under "Science fiction/Fantasy"
Since Arislan simply keeps reverting his changes in, I restructured it along these lines. All of his references to lawn-mowing, warrior-slaves, sympathetic science fiction writers, and the Gor series have all been grouped and placed into their own, nice, neat little section.
Please stop referring to me as "anonymous", Arislan ... you know my name, but I don't have a clue what yours might be. Kevin Wayne Williams 200.6.149.27 04:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC) 200.6.149.27 21:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Article should be at Humanzee. This is the only place I have ever heard the word "Chuman". -- April Arcus 08:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Could we get some cites for for those "rumor" paragraphs? If they're from the Weekly World News or equivalent they should be removed, since sources like that aren't worth bothering with even as a source of unsubstantiated rumor. Bryan 17:35, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
"This is based on a misconception of what constitutes a species, however; for example, a female liger — the hybrid offspring of a lion and a tiger — is fertile, but lions and tigers are considered separate species" But in the Liger entry, "In addition, female ligers also attain great size, weighing approximately 700 lb (320 kg) and reaching 10 feet (3.05 m) tall on average, but are not fertile."
67.80.98.16 23:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The following looks to be a possibly good link for the first uncited reference needed (basically about whether differing chromosome numbers present a barrier to interspecies crossbreeding): http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/may2001/989331026.Ev.r.html anyone else want to suggest a better one before I edit? - I'll give it a week or so.
maimón in Spanish, maymun in Arabic is an old word for "monkey". Apparently it originally meant "happy" and comes from Arabia Felix ("Happy Arabia", Yemen), where Arabs got their monkeys from.
"In 2006 research showed that after humans and chimpanzees diverged into two separate species, interspecies sex was still sufficiently common that it produced human-chimpanzee hybrids and affected the human genome for around 1.2 million years afterwards."
This paragraph is irrelevant and should be removed. The main wiki entry is about a hybrid between modern humans (Homo sapiens) and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes ssp.) wheraes what the 2006 science article deals with, would be a hybrid between the ancestor of humans (some early Australopithecine) and the ancestor of chimpanzee.
Also the Genetics evidence section, althought more articulate, is somehwat incorrect.
Firstly, it sufferes from the same point mentioned above (it also suffer from style flaws. e.g. reporting that it "may have been a key part of human evolution" is useless as it's a surely unproven fact).
However the main problem lies with the cited article itself: their whole argumant is built around a single specimen (Toumai), which has been dated indirectly and is in relatively poor conditions. Further, the authors present large variations of divergence values across the genome, however they fail to provide a framework to interpret the results. It would be interesting to know which parameters would be required to obtain similar results with a model of long speciation time instead of hybridization. Lastly, a valid alternative explanation for the observed low divergence on the X chromosome would be selective pressure on the X chromosome during the (chimpanzee-human) - gorilla divergence.
In conclusion, altough the article is stimulating, it doesn't provide compelling or conclusive evidence of hibridization between chimpanzee ancestors and human ancestors (and is still irrelevant to the question of hybridisation between moder humans and chimanzees).
Another point of concer is the entry name: "Chuman" is unacceptable, especially in the light of the etymology section. ""Chuman" alludes to the more sinister hybrid, fusing the intelligence of a human with the relative upper-body strength of a chimpanzee, bred for megalomanic and military ends. "Humanzee", however, evokes a more placid and militarily impotent animal; combining the weakness of a human with the relative stupidity of a chimpanzee."" makes it really sound like cheap comic book stuff. I'd rather stick to the proper name used in science: human-chimpanzee hybrid (or chimpanzee-human hybrid). A scientific literature search for either "Chuman" or "Humanzee" (both of which I never heard before) fails to yeild any result.
There is already some discussion on wheter to use chuman or humanzee but all this is irrelevant and fundamentally incorrect. This page is about human-chimpanzee hybrids in general, and not about hybrid of a male human and a female chimpanzee (Chuman) or vice versa (Humanzee). So neither should be used.
Who added the {{ unreferenced}} tag and when? There's a couple references in this article (and external links). I'm taking the tag off, use {{ fact}} for specific sentences (my suggested policy, not Wikipedia's). Xaxafrad 01:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to delete the "citation needed" on the statement that differing chromosome counts aren't necessarily a barrier to fertility. The referenced article on chromosomal polymorphism links to numerous articles discussing single species with varying chromosome counts. 200.6.149.18 00:08, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I assume from this that he first worked on human sperm and chimpanzee females and then moved on to orangutan sperm and human volunteers? Or did he also try other (non-human) ape sperm? If he did, then I assume the other male apes had also died. In this case, it might be better to say "by the death of his last male ape (an orangutan)" or something of that sort. Nil Einne 13:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Seems someone has been deleting areas of the article for no particular reason and without explaining themselves in the talk page. Someone just deleted the paragraph in "Rumored Humanzees" about the WW2 pseudo-experiments. Arislan 21:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I just went a deleted a set of passages you put back in. No one knows what the temperament of any ape hybrid would be, including human-chimpanzee. If one managed to exist, it would be interesting to find out how well its higher brain functions worked at all. Any exploration of its mood would have to wait until after discovering whether it could reason even at chimp level.
Chimpanzees are *not* gorillas, and are *not* orangutans. If you want to speculate on human-gorilla crosses and human-orangutan crosses, don't try to misdefine this article to match your mood. 200.6.149.27 16:13, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
If the phrase "human-ape hybrid" directs you here, then that redirect is broken.
The discussion of temperament is just plain silly. It cannot be predicted, and this whole garbage about docile this and agressive this is premature. It's more likely that the resulting hybrid would be a barely functional idiot.
I am not an anonymous vandal: My real name is Kevin Wayne Williams. You can find me on any number of places. One of my e-mail providers is gte.net, and my e-mail id with them is kww. I take care of a few articles on wikipedia, this being one of them. My goal is to keep it an article that actually discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids. If you want to produce an article that discusses other things, feel free. But this article is one that discusses chimpanzee-human hybrids, and tries to stay reasonably rooted in reality, not science fiction. 200.6.149.27 20:35, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Bonobos are not more closely related genetically to humans than other chimps. This is a common misconception, often held even by anthropologists and primatologists.
The misconception is easily clarified by simple phylogenetics. Bonobos and Chimp share a common ancestor long before they share a common ancestor with humans. Thus, neither could be "more closely related" to humans than the other.
The section on the possible labour or military applications should be removed; it seems to have been lifted verbatim from some horrific 1930s eugenics novel set in the not-too-distant future. It is disgusting – the idea of creating a sub-human underclass to do manual labour would be laughable if it hadn’t been presented here in what seems to be a serious manner. Remove it, lest the credibility that wikipedia has fought so hard for is completely lost. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barryjwhyte ( talk • contribs)
Anonymous sock-puppetting is not viable evidence for deletion. The article does not endorse the creation of a sub-human underclass of any kind, it simply analyses ramifications of the creation of humanzees. -- Arislan 17:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I had not noticed it was THAT section he wanted to remove. Strike out my above comment (the one that says "I agree/You should remove it"), for now that I know I do not agree. - 20:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I do not know about this section, but apparently Stalin had oredered to the soviet scientist Ilya_Ivanov (see article for more details) to breed human-chimp hybrids in order to make perfect workers or soldiers, which didn't succeeded.-- Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
The section on laborers is absolutely ridiculous. -BZ
—The preceding
unsigned comment was added by
user name or IP (
talk •
contribs) date.
I've removed the passage of Washington post suggesting that if the human-chimp hybridization had taken place in human evolution "will mean modern people are descended from something akin to chimp-human hybrids." I think that is not correct and is more likely just a confusion of scientific journalism; what would have happened would not be something like a "clade amalgam", as the passage seems to suggest, but just that eventual crossbreeding between lineages of ancestors of both, humans and chimps, which were both probably more similar to the common ancestor of both and to each other than humans and chimps, properly. But I'll try to find more about that, maybe I'm wrong. I deleted by precaution, since scientific journalism not rarely makes such mistakes. -- Extremophile 18:34, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Not only is this section unreferenced, but I keep wanting to change the opening paragraph to:
Among the great apes, the bonobo (Pan paniscus) has the closest DNA to that of a chimpanzee. Plus, it is characteristically more docile than the human (Homo sapiens). This would make it a more natural choice. The human is known for its vicious territoriality, hunting of other animals (such as the baboon) and even murdering groups that among their own kind eliminate the weak and the foreign. Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control.
In any event, it seems like original research. Ben Standeven 03:44, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
This is not a pure fantasy article, it's an article on the possibilites of human/chimpanzee hybrids (so technically there should be nothing mentioned of Gorilla or Orangutan/human hybrids in the article...). I know the attributes that the apes have been labelled ARE correct, but how the hell is speculating about what a humanzee would be usefull for proper? "Should this temperament be passed on to the humanzee, military uses could be accomplished, but the results would be hard to control." The whole section seems based around how ape/human hybrids would do in the army. What does that have to do with anything? It sounds as If its been lifted straight from a fantasy novel. "A humanzee bred from orangutans who retained these characteristics might not be cooperative for labour purposes, and a problem around human females." Thats a stretch. I'm going to finish my comment with something which is actually in the section we're debating about... "Of course the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." There are no sources for what an ape/human hybrid would be like, therefore it's orginal research. Kokiri kid 07:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Hah, you missed my point, I was using that statement to back up my argument, "the effect of the human side cannot be properly guaged until and actual humanzee is produced", meaning anything we come up with now is ORIGINAL RESEARCH. But since I'm not bold, I'm only one person, and I know next to nothing about editing on Wikipedia I guess it's not up to me is it? Kokiri kid 06:27, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
One more thing: "The entire purpose of a humanzee is to combine human and ape characteristics." That may be the case for one individual... But certainly not the only purpose. Kokiri kid 06:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
While I've decided there is no point in me editing the article, I'd still like to hear what you have to say about that. Kokiri kid 01:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
And now the only logical piece of information in the section, oh, co-incidently one of the bits that backs me up has disappeared. "the effect of the human side cannot be properly gauged until an actual humanzee is produced." If the section stays, then so should that quote. It's the only worthy bit. Kokiri kid 04:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Some anonymous person had deleted the etymology section. I reverted and placed it up top for clearer reading of the article. Although it should be pointed out that the word Humanzee in pop culture is usued for any human-ape hybrid. If someone knows how to phrase that, or can add sources, please do.-- Arislan 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This article addresses the possibility of a H. sapiens - P. troglodytes or H. sapiens - P. paniscus hybrid, but has it been established whether P. troglodytes and P. paniscus can interbreed?
If these very closely related species cannot produce offspring, it would seem highly unlikely that either could do so with humans, a much more distant relation. 217.155.20.163 19:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
There is no evidence of gene flow between P. Paniscus and P. Troglodytes, but that doesn't mean that forced mating wouldn't produce a hybrid. I can't find a record of anyone trying.
These things do have to be analyzed on a case by case basis, though. If the P. Paniscus/P. Troglodytes split was caused by a lethal combination of an allele which has become fixed in P. Paniscus and another that has become fixed in P. Troglodytes, that would prevent hybridization, even though both could (possibly) successfully hybridize with humans. Kww 23:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Bonobos and Common Chimpanzees can indeed be bred in captivity, as occurred in a French circus: in 1979 the circus director bought what he thought was a male chimpanzee, but was in fact a bonobo. The bonobo bread with two female chimpanzees, producing seven offspring, most of which survived. The article I found didn't say whether the hybrids were fertile (I could believe either outcome). However, bonobos and chimpanzees have never been found to breed in the wild, and they are strongly believed not to do so. They are geographically separated by the Congo and Lualaba rivers. Both apes are afraid of water, and the best fording point (near Stanley Falls) is infested with crocodiles. Here's the website: http://www.macroevolution.net/bonobo-chimpanzee-hybrids.html. The article sites the following scientific papers: Vervaecke and van Elsacker 1992, Vervaecke 2002; Vervaecke et al. 2004. Blaze Birch ( talk) 21:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I've put an Original Research tag at the top of the article, as it is obvious that the article is laden with inferences and suppositions by editors, rather than sourced statements from outside Wikipedia. The tag should stay up until the original research is altered or removed. See WP:OR. Totnesmartin 17:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Kww 23:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay in answering - must have missed the update (I have 200 pages on my watchlist). Some obvious OR:
Those are the obvious offenders; there might be some I've missed. Happy removing! Totnesmartin 22:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Jimtheralley, I reverted your move, for several reasons. First, the slash in article titles usually indicates it is a subpage of a main article. Second, we don't need to demonstrate that one name is equal to the other in that fasion. I wouldn't object to a move to somewhere else, but there needs to be discussion first. I don't think thre has been any demonstration that "chuman" is as prolific a name as "humanzee" (or for that matter, that either is particularly well known). Perhaps a less frivolous title like Human-chimpanzee hybrid would work, but there must be discussion first. If you wish, you can put in a request at requested moves.-- Cúchullain t/ c 19:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've just removed a load of stuff which looked like it was a straight cut'n'paste from elsewhere. It's in the edit history if anyone wants to boil it down for parts. Totnesmartin 11:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
The human Ape hybrid section is getting big enough that maybe we should consider breaking it out into it's own article entitled - Human-Ape Hybrids in Literature and Popular Entertainment. Anyone feel the same? We could still leave a small paragraph in this article discussing it's popularity and then the new article could maybe encompass some talking head quotes about why people find this possibility so fascinating. Comments? Lisapollison 03:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
This is ambiguous. More precise wording is needed. -- B.d.mills 03:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
"It has been mentioned that Maimo was most likely a retarded human child"
Is RETARDED the best word we can use? Juanita Hodges 09:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
How about "with an intellectual disability"?-- Sonjaaa 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Kww for letting everyone know this is a non-issue. I'm adding to the subject heading - "appropriate changes made - no longer in the text as of 8/26/08" so folks looking at the contents summary can see it's been taken care of. LiPollis ( talk) 04:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Discussing application of the bestiality act of 25 Hen. 8 to women, the 17th century jurist Sir Edward Coke mentions a Babuman. "This is within the purvieu [sic] of this Act of 25 H.8. For the words be, if any person &c. which extend as well to a woman as to a man, and therefore if she commit Buggery with a beast, she is a person that commits Buggery with a beast, to which end this word (person) was used. And the rather, for that somewhat before the making of this Act, a great Lady had committed Buggery with a Baboon, and conceived by it, &c." -- Coke, Sir Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England: Concerning High Treason, and other Pleas of the Crown, and Criminal Causes (London: Printed for A. Crooke, W. Leake, et al., Booksellers in Fleetstreet and Holborn, 1669). TwoGunChuck 02:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Why is this article biased towards the common chimp??? why not the bonobo? We have as much dna in common with the bonobo as the chimpanzee.-- Sonjaaa 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder if there are any reports of bonobo/chimpanzee hybrids? Keith Henson ( talk) 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
To answer both questions: it's not biased towards the common chimp, it's just that the discussion is common. There is no known difference in the issue of bonobo/human hybridization than there is in the issue of a chimp/human hybridization. Common chimps and bonobos both possess the same chromosomal structure, so the issues relative to humans are the same. So far as I have been able to find, there are no P. troglodytus (common chimp)/P. paniscus (bonobo) hybrids, and gene flow studies show no evidence of gene flow between the two species. Hard to prove that it is impossible to have a hybrid, but they certainly don't seem to occur naturally. Kww ( talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Bonobos and common chimps have bred in captivity, but not in the wild. See the above section Can bonobos and common chimpanzees interbreed? Blaze Birch ( talk) 21:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
I was about to add an {{ unreferenced}} tag to this section when I noticed that there is an almost identical section in Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov, which does appear to be sourced. However, this paragraph appears to be something of a fork, and as you can see in this comparison, they're starting to diverge. Shouldn't this material appear in just one of the articles, with a summary in the other one? (No opinion which should be the detailed one) However, this section in this article is unsourced, and if the fork remains, they should be reconciled. -- barneca ( talk) 15:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia should be more serious!!! Your article has to be immediately removed!!! There is no evidence at all that humans and apes are related! Humans and apes were from the beginning two separate lines! The speculation that humans and apes could have had children millions of years ago is absolutlely stupid! People who mate with apes are totally sick and have to be imprisoned in lunatic asylums!!!
I assume from the way this is typed in, you wanted to create a new section, which can be done from a button at the top (I'll fix it). Anyways, Chimpanzees and Humans are both part of the Hominidae family, and aren't really seperate lines (seperate species but not a seperate order and family), regardless of weather or not Humans can mate. 70.108.190.218 ( talk) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the section should be removed, but for scientific reasons (and yes, I am a scientist). Simply stated, the section suggests that the fact that interbreeding may have occurred soon after the divergence of the chimpanzee-human lineage supports the idea of human-chimpanzee interbreeding. Unfortunately, at the time neither lineage was human or chimpanzee, and this has nothing to do with human-chimpanzee interbreeding at all. In fact, it was merely the interbreeding of two subspecies of apes who each founded lineages that much later on happened to evolve into humans and chimpanzees. - 129.49.7.150 ( talk) 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
What about articles like http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/science/18evolve.html?pagewanted=2&_r=2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonjaaa ( talk • contribs)
It was deleted by another editor long ago by Cuchullain, who dismissed the section as "trivia" in his comments. He was right. It detracts from an otherwise good article. It took considerable effort to get the article into decent shape, and that section was a remnant of its earlier form. I applauded when I saw him remove it, and fully support its removal.— Kww( talk) 04:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I see you're no longer Mr. Anonymous ;-). What do you think about a separate article about Humanzees in pop culture? Arislan ( talk) 04:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I came across a picture of a hairless chimpanzee on Flickr (CC licensed). I realise that of course it isn't a humanzee, but he looks strikingly like what a humanzee might look like, so I wondered if the image would be a useful visual addition to the page? http://www.flickr.com/photos/richu/3196188065/ Fences and windows ( talk) 19:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
There should be some material on empirical data for this judgement that a humanzee may or may not exist. Then the article would be less patchy on the detailing of this phenomenon.-- Cymbelmineer ( talk) 10:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
I think "Great Ape Project" and "Personhood (and more specifically, Great ape personhood)" should be removed, at least be moved to the bottom and parahuman should be moved to the top, as they are only remotely related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.186.10.49 ( talk) 15:24, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
This is a serious question. I have read this article and several of the others which discuss the fusion of two ancestral ape chomosomes to form the human chromosone 2, and have yet to find any suggested dates. I would also be interested in the approximate date of the chomosomal translocation of material from Chromosome 1 to the Y chomosome. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 04:02, 20 November 2011 (UTC)!
Humans and Chimpanzees differ in the amount of chromozomes they have making this impossible. 108.81.134.236 ( talk) 05:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
The section on the Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov experiments has many notes saying dubious and citation needed, and there are comments here questioning that they ever happened. New Scientist ran a story on this a few years back, so there is at least one reliable source that I know of. However, some of the facts are different. I don't really have the time or inclination to rewrite the section with references, but here's a link to the article if anyone's interested in doing this:
I've also posted this to the talk page for the Ilya Ivanovich Ivanov article, which has more or less the same information with the same dubious/citation needed notes...
Reidlophile ( talk) 22:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
just a theory i been working on. http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a489/AaronHead88/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png [URL= http://s1280.photobucket.com/user/AaronHead88/media/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png.html][IMG] http://i1280.photobucket.com/albums/a489/AaronHead88/oliverthehumanzee_zps16638741.png[/IMG][/URL] 1.123.140.172 ( talk) 03:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Is "Bassou the ape man" a real humanzee, a hoax, or an ancestor of modern humans? Might this be the missing link? 173.51.123.97 ( talk) 07:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
The fact that human sperm can enter gibbon eggs, but no human/chimp hybrid have ever been confirmed born, implies that human/chimp hybridization fails due to developmental incompatibilities (early miscarriage). So if human life began at conception, apes would be human. 2.69.131.56 ( talk) 06:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
The Ivanov experiments were not at all the only time at which hybrids could theoretically have been conceived. In the past, there were transplantations of ape testicle tissue to humans, which successfully treated hormone deficit in many cases but produced no hybrids. Bestiality in general is not so uncommon. The objection about apes being wild and strong and refusing to mate with humans has its flaws, one is that there are some cases of apes showing sexual interest in humans (although rare), but more importantly a human wanting to mate with an ape (as mentioned, bestiality is not that uncommon) could simply drug-sedate the ape. In other words, inadequate number of experiments is not a way to explain the absence of chimp/human hybrids. While the gibbon test tube experiment shows the possibility of hybrid conception, it does not mean that it produces viable fetuses. It may simply result in early miscarriages (as in salmon/trout hybrids). After all, not many early miscarriages have been DNA sequenced. But if hybrids could be carried to term, there would have been actual examples and not just speculations. 2.69.131.56 ( talk) 09:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
researching this, I found that Wikipedia seems to be excessively fond of these "hybrid portmanteaus". It is true that "Humanzee" has seen some use since the 1980s, but mostly colloquially, while the most relevant sources tend not to use this kind of terminology. WP:UCN would suggest using "Human-chimpanzee hybrid" as the main title, and just mentioning "Humanzee" as a colloquialism in occasional use. The title could also be the more inclusive "human-ape hybrid", beucase Ivanov apparently also involved orang utans in his experiments. -- dab (𒁳) 16:02, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
It was a hoimanoid-pan hybrid I think. Not a modern one, but an actual hybrid. Find it and add it.
So don't fall for (let alone write) that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus ( talk • contribs) 19:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Nevertheless - even though this hoax is #1 on that list - some possibly interesting info can be found here: http://www.macroevolution.net/ape-human-hybrids.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Strecosaurus ( talk • contribs) 23:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Also here is the original source of an edit that often gets deleted, but its source is at least in good faith: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5447151/humanzee-monkey-human-chimp-hybrid-born-florida/ - should this be in the article?
Julia muwi że pani od pszyrody muwiła źe to niemożliwy 188.33.224.179 ( talk) 23:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Since pugs and huskies are both dogs, that is, exactly the same species, is the term "hybrid" used correctly in the article? Since this is a scientific article such details matter, I think. 50.230.251.244 ( talk) 21:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)