This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are there sources for stating that the Hutts are both "hermaphrodites, bearing male and female reproductive organs" and they "reproduce asexually"? It sounds like someone may have misunderstood something along the way. It is difficult to comprehend an evolutionary tract where asexually-reproducing creatures would need male organs.
Also...does Star Wars simply have no sense of canon in the way that Star Trek does? This reproductive information obviously doesn't come from the movies. Is it from books, comics, what? -- 70.20.145.231 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please include specific dimensions for the species. (I have the impression that Jabba's model is not the same scale in all scenes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to The Hutt Gambit Hutts don't mate with other Hutts. They are completely self contained {for a lack of a better term) sexual creatures. Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant. This means that Hutts do mate with each other.
Read the Hutt Gambit to see for yourselves.
Another question: What is the source on Jabba the Hutt raping and torturing Leia?
Certain physical characteristics, such as the feminine felid eyes, of Gardulla the Hutt suggest that gender role assignments are on a biological basis. (See picture [1].) Compare to Jabba the Hutt. [2]
Marudubshinki, Gardulla the Hutt always has the secondary characteristics, and Hutts don't go through transformations. Hence, she was born like that and gender is based on biology.
Is there more information on a Hutt's gender? In the Hutt's Gambit are the Hutts born "male" or "female"?
According to Hutt legend, "Ardos collapsed on itself over grief for its mate". If Hutts don't have mates, why would they create a mythology in which their gods do? 65.57.245.11 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't got a clue, but there is some sloppiness going on here. There seems to be some confusion between the words gender and sex. These terms may be used interchangeably in common parlance, but biologically they have nothing to do with each other. Gender is a behavioural issue - switching from a "male" to a "female" role is a behavioural change only. To change sex however means actually changing psysiology - a pretty important distinction.
Just to confuse things a bit further, you also have to be careful with the words hermaphrodite and asexual. Asexual reproduction is reproduction by mitosis, with no meiosis involved. Hermaphrodites may be self-fertilising, but they have male and female organs, which means that they have gametes produced by meiosis. Self-fertilising is therefore a better term to use than asexual.
What is most confusing is that Hutts are described as both hermaphrodite and asexual. Clearly, this is false - they have to be one or the other. Someone familiar with the universe should clarify which one they are. GM Pink Elephant ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Ziro having a "father" and "mother" could also be more of a non-biological parenting distinction. And the two "parents" may have never coupled to produce Ziro, and just shared in his upbringing.
But if we're to assume that "Mommy the Hutt" and "Mummy the Hutt" combined DNA to produce Ziro, AND Jabbe seemingly spontaneously prodced Rotta - AND that we consider hermaphroditic biology and asexual reproduction to be mutually exclusive - then one logical conclusion can be that "asexual" was a misnomer in Star Wars literature, commonly considered a vernacular reference, and that sexual meiosis, whether by coupling or fertilizing oneself with the equipped hermaphroditic parts, is what is likely going on.
Of course, that's applying a "real world" take on a fictional, alien species. Perhaps in Star Wars "asexual reproduction" and "hermaphrotidic biology" are not mutually exclusive.
Cross-eyed yet? Medleystudios72 ( talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
"...except in two of the original films." In which case it makes more sense to name the one film they did appear in, instead of listing the two they did not appear in, for goodness' sake. Richard75 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Noticed a discrepancy which may or may not be editing related. From the books featuring Zorba The Hutt we learn that Hutts are indigestible. So how does Gardulla end up krayt dragon fodder? Is this an error on our (Wikipedia's) part, or is this just a case of two authors having two different ideas? - WarthogDemon 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine not being digestable wouldn't save you from being chewed up and sent through the digestive track of a large animal... 66.167.32.16 ( talk) 09:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Uhhhh...Jabba is resistant to Jedi Mind Tricks for the simple reason that he is not weak-minded. The "explanation" in this article is silly. 24.7.97.65 ( talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the Hutt in the Clone Wars movie that got his son stolen from him Jabba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.172.142.95 ( talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Can Pizza the Hutt be considered Star Wars canon?
its not plus there are many hutt familys (Star wars geek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 ( talk) 01:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This noncanon fluff is kind of obnoxious and could be missleading to someone less informed -- 71.131.30.178 ( talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We need tons more refs for this page. Lots42 ( talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hutt (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why Wikipedia deletes almost all articles about fantasy/sci-fiction characters or events (outside of book/film main article) while blaming it to not have any "Notability". I assume, because it's about fictional characters or events and not about real world... So why this article is not deleted than? I don't understand this hypocrisy of Wikipedia! ScienceDiscoverer ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Are there sources for stating that the Hutts are both "hermaphrodites, bearing male and female reproductive organs" and they "reproduce asexually"? It sounds like someone may have misunderstood something along the way. It is difficult to comprehend an evolutionary tract where asexually-reproducing creatures would need male organs.
Also...does Star Wars simply have no sense of canon in the way that Star Trek does? This reproductive information obviously doesn't come from the movies. Is it from books, comics, what? -- 70.20.145.231 00:31, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
Please include specific dimensions for the species. (I have the impression that Jabba's model is not the same scale in all scenes...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drsruli ( talk • contribs) 03:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)
According to The Hutt Gambit Hutts don't mate with other Hutts. They are completely self contained {for a lack of a better term) sexual creatures. Jabba the Hutt basically says that Jilac (now his aunt) simply decided to become pregnant. This means that Hutts do mate with each other.
Read the Hutt Gambit to see for yourselves.
Another question: What is the source on Jabba the Hutt raping and torturing Leia?
Certain physical characteristics, such as the feminine felid eyes, of Gardulla the Hutt suggest that gender role assignments are on a biological basis. (See picture [1].) Compare to Jabba the Hutt. [2]
Marudubshinki, Gardulla the Hutt always has the secondary characteristics, and Hutts don't go through transformations. Hence, she was born like that and gender is based on biology.
Is there more information on a Hutt's gender? In the Hutt's Gambit are the Hutts born "male" or "female"?
According to Hutt legend, "Ardos collapsed on itself over grief for its mate". If Hutts don't have mates, why would they create a mythology in which their gods do? 65.57.245.11 01:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, I haven't got a clue, but there is some sloppiness going on here. There seems to be some confusion between the words gender and sex. These terms may be used interchangeably in common parlance, but biologically they have nothing to do with each other. Gender is a behavioural issue - switching from a "male" to a "female" role is a behavioural change only. To change sex however means actually changing psysiology - a pretty important distinction.
Just to confuse things a bit further, you also have to be careful with the words hermaphrodite and asexual. Asexual reproduction is reproduction by mitosis, with no meiosis involved. Hermaphrodites may be self-fertilising, but they have male and female organs, which means that they have gametes produced by meiosis. Self-fertilising is therefore a better term to use than asexual.
What is most confusing is that Hutts are described as both hermaphrodite and asexual. Clearly, this is false - they have to be one or the other. Someone familiar with the universe should clarify which one they are. GM Pink Elephant ( talk) 14:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Of course, Ziro having a "father" and "mother" could also be more of a non-biological parenting distinction. And the two "parents" may have never coupled to produce Ziro, and just shared in his upbringing.
But if we're to assume that "Mommy the Hutt" and "Mummy the Hutt" combined DNA to produce Ziro, AND Jabbe seemingly spontaneously prodced Rotta - AND that we consider hermaphroditic biology and asexual reproduction to be mutually exclusive - then one logical conclusion can be that "asexual" was a misnomer in Star Wars literature, commonly considered a vernacular reference, and that sexual meiosis, whether by coupling or fertilizing oneself with the equipped hermaphroditic parts, is what is likely going on.
Of course, that's applying a "real world" take on a fictional, alien species. Perhaps in Star Wars "asexual reproduction" and "hermaphrotidic biology" are not mutually exclusive.
Cross-eyed yet? Medleystudios72 ( talk) 01:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
"...except in two of the original films." In which case it makes more sense to name the one film they did appear in, instead of listing the two they did not appear in, for goodness' sake. Richard75 18:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Noticed a discrepancy which may or may not be editing related. From the books featuring Zorba The Hutt we learn that Hutts are indigestible. So how does Gardulla end up krayt dragon fodder? Is this an error on our (Wikipedia's) part, or is this just a case of two authors having two different ideas? - WarthogDemon 02:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would imagine not being digestable wouldn't save you from being chewed up and sent through the digestive track of a large animal... 66.167.32.16 ( talk) 09:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Uhhhh...Jabba is resistant to Jedi Mind Tricks for the simple reason that he is not weak-minded. The "explanation" in this article is silly. 24.7.97.65 ( talk) 07:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Wasn't the Hutt in the Clone Wars movie that got his son stolen from him Jabba? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.172.142.95 ( talk) 15:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Can Pizza the Hutt be considered Star Wars canon?
its not plus there are many hutt familys (Star wars geek) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.168.201 ( talk) 01:08, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
This noncanon fluff is kind of obnoxious and could be missleading to someone less informed -- 71.131.30.178 ( talk) 02:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
We need tons more refs for this page. Lots42 ( talk) 11:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hutt (Star Wars). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:10, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand why Wikipedia deletes almost all articles about fantasy/sci-fiction characters or events (outside of book/film main article) while blaming it to not have any "Notability". I assume, because it's about fictional characters or events and not about real world... So why this article is not deleted than? I don't understand this hypocrisy of Wikipedia! ScienceDiscoverer ( talk) 14:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)